'Bad Religion'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

I do indeed remember the prophets’ sharp denunciations of all idolatry. I am not questioning that at all.

However, to be fair to my Catholic brethren, they have NEVER claimed to “worship” saints or objects, nor do they “place faith in” these objects. The saints are considered further mediators between God and humanity, and the ritual objects, in their view, serve as contemplative tools to draw the mind deeper into focused worship of God. Though I do not agree with such practices, I don’t think YOU or I have the right to say, “I don’t care what YOU think you are doing; I say you are worshipping those things.”

More importantly, I can explain the rise of these practices as a natural development of the interaction between Christianity and it’s Greco-Roman milieu. We do NOT have to posit some sort of conspiracy or takeover by a figure like Simon Magus (a takeover for which, as I have pointed out, we have NO evidence) to understand how such practices could become a part of Christian worship within the first few centuries. There are much more reasonable and simple explanations.

As for the particulars, NO one knows Christ’s actual birthday. Furthermore, long before Yule (which I believe was a Norse or Germanic holiday) became subsumed under the Christmas holiday, the Roman celebration of Saturnalia was already in existence, and Christians in the early centuries of church history replaced this Greco-Roman holiday of Saturnalia with Christmas. The last and central day of Saturnalia was December 25; the church, hoping to bring in more pagans, offered Christmas on December 25 as a replacement of Saturnalia. The subsumption of Yule into Christmas came long after Saturnalia, the Greco-Roman holiday, was replaced by Christmas. The same thing happened to Yule that happened to Saturnalia.

As for the use of different objects of veneration, that was also an existing Greco-Roman practice, and the veneration of saints (my Catholic friends will of course disagree), in my opinion, can be explained as a carryover to Christianity by Gentiles of the view that the divine was so far removed from humanity that only dead ancestors could reach it. The Greco-Roman practice of ancestor petitioning became the catholic practice of the veneration of saints - just as Greeks and Romans used to ask their ancestors to talk to the gods for them, so when they individuals became Christians did they ask saints to talk to God for them.

No conspiracy theory needed.

In any case, all these things can be
[/quote]
You don’t see how this can relate to Revelation 17:4? Daniel 7:25? At the very least, it is condemned as blasphemy and fornication throughout the Scripture to adopt the customs and beliefs of other peoples.

Christ himself spoke of the traditions of men perverting the Commandment of God in Matthew 15.

342

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< That is the biggest bunch of tripe ever.

let me paraphrase for those who want to skip the drivel

  1. You believe exactly as we tell you to believe because we are infallible. If you don’t believe any detail of what we say, then you reject everything we say.
  2. If you mention something we didn’t tell you to believe, we will correct you.
  3. If you still don’t adhere to rule #1, we’ll call you bad names.[/quote]LOL!! I am not siding with this guy against you Chris, but that, while not all of it, is pretty much what Tommy gun said in that quote. I told you JP was not a moron.
    [/quote]You really need to read up on your internet troll website. You’re not even picking up on common fallacies. [/quote]That is not nice Chris. How is what JP said NOT the substance of the point of the quote? It is. BTW, whatsa “internet troll website”? I honestly don’t know what you’re referring to.
    [/quote]

You’re telling me you don’t know what reductionism is?

343

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Then explain to me why Christmas is celebrated coincidental to Yule, a pagan holiday, rather than on Christ’s actual birthday.

Explain to me why the Catholic church espouses idol worship and saint worship.

Why do they espouse worship of the instrument of Christ’s execution?

And before you go into the particulars of worship; If you place faith in any object (St. Christopher medal, crucifix, Mary candles, etc…), then you are worshiping that item. You are placing your faith in that item rather than in the Father.

Do you remember what the prophets told us about these very things?[/quote]

Documentation please that any of this is true.

344

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
As for the particulars, NO one knows Christ’s actual birthday. Furthermore, long before Yule (which I believe was a Norse or Germanic holiday) became subsumed under the Christmas holiday, the Roman celebration of Saturnalia was already in existence, and Christians in the early centuries of church history replaced this Greco-Roman holiday of Saturnalia with Christmas.
[/quote]

I’d like to point out that Saturnalia became popular only after the start of Christendom (not saying it was established after) for various reasons, one I assume is to compete with Christmas.

345

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< You’re telling me you don’t know what reductionism is? [/quote]I’m tellin you that what he said Aquinas said IS what Aquinas said. I went round and round for days with Sloth about the veneration of icons and relics a couple years ago. Yes, KK’s definition is accurate, but that still doesn’t provide any meaningful escape for the charge of foolish pagan superstition. It’s one thing to simply honor someone by honoring their remains or objects they allegedly owned in life. It’s quite another to suppose that many benefits are bestowed by God upon men on and because of the occasion of their veneration. That is, depending on the individual practitioner and regardless of official dogma, either plain rank idolatry or a horrific flirtation and self temptation thereunto. How otherwise solid non Catholics (big C) do not get this will baffle me to my grave.

346

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

No, it’s not that’s why it’s called reductionism. I know you just can’t help when that trip switch is hit and you get to go into your heretical anti-Catholic mode, but you’re both wrong.

Yes, I remember…the only thing going round and round was your argument in it being circular and Sloth running circles around you while destroying your argument.

What’s your definition of superstition? Because when using proper definition (which is a heresy according to the authority of Jesus’ Church, the only one, the Catholic Church) of having the belief that supernatural effect follows a non-supernatural action then there are quite a few beliefs that you profess that are the par excellence example of superstition.

However veneration of icons and relics is not superstition unless you have some fabulous made up definition of the word. Or, again you don’t have half a wit or understanding of what veneration of icons and relics (probably both) means.

Again, please provide documentation that the practice established by the Body of Christ itself is idolatry. You’re mere stating that it is, does not prove anything besides that you have a mouth to speak. I’d love to see you prove that Jesus’s body is guilty of idolatry. :slight_smile:

[quote]How otherwise solid non Catholics (big C) do not get this will baffle me to my grave.
[/quote]

Because they are not as bigoted towards Catholics and listen to them when they show them definitions, distinctions, and documentations. And, you know actually listen to Catholics when they say that they have never worshiped an icon or relic.

347

As a non catholic, i don’t think catholics worship the bones of their saints any more (or any less) than sola scriptura protestants worship the paper their bible is written on.

but then again, worship is not exactly my forte so…

348

Prayers to St. Christopher:

[quote]Grant me O Lord a steady hand and a watchful eye, that no one shall be hurt as I pass by. Thou gavest life, I pray no act of mine may take away or mar that gift of Thine. Shelter those, dear Lord, who bear me company, from the evils of fire and all calamity. Teach me to use my car for others? need; nor miss through love of undue speed the beauty of the world; that thus I may with joy and courtesy go on my way. St. Christopher, holy patron of travelers, protect me and lead me safely to my destiny.


Dear St. Christopher, you have inherited a beautiful name ? Christ-bearer ? as a result of a wonderful legend that while carrying people across a raging stream you also carried the Child Jesus. Teach us to be true Christbearers to those who do not know him. Protect all drivers who often transport those who bear Christ within them. Amen. [/quote]


This prayer asks St Christopher for protection, not to say a prayer to God for you.  That is direct worship of St. Christopher, not indirect worship of God.  Just so you know I'm not only reading source material biased against Catholics:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm
349

[quote]kamui wrote:
As a non catholic, i don’t think catholics worship the bones of their saints any more (or any less) than sola scriptura protestants worship the paper their bible is written on.

but then again, worship is not exactly my forte so…[/quote]They are not even remotely similar, but that’s ok. Christopher, I’m not gonna go into all this that you have in the post above now. It will serve no purpose at this time.

350

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You don’t see how this can relate to Revelation 17:4? Daniel 7:25?
[/quote]

Do you mean, "could the words of Revelation 17:4 and Daniel 7:25 be taken out of their context and used as a description of the Roman Catholic church?" Absolutely. But there is a BIG difference between saying that the same words can be used two describe two different individuals or institutions, and saying that those words as written by the original authors actually REFERRED to those individuals and institutions. And the authority of those statements lies in their meaning in context , not in isolation from their context. When read in their original contexts, Revelation 17:4 and Daniel 7:25 simply do not refer to the Catholic church, despite the fact that, at least in some individuals’ minds, those statements may accurately describe the Roman Catholic church.

Think of the way people use the last lines of Robert Frost’s poem, “The Road Not Taken.” We’re all familiar with that one, I think - “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -/ I took the one less travelled by/ and that has made all the difference.” Now people use those last lines at high school and college graduations to encourage the graduates to “be unique,” to boldly go where few others have gone. Now, those lines, when removed from their context in the poem, could certainly be interpreted that way. But if you read the lines in context, you get a different picture -earlier in the poem, the poet has already described the two roads as identical . There is no apparent difference between the roads, not even in which has been travelled more. In this context, the final three lines take on a completely different meaning - in the final stanza, the poet predicts that, in the future when he is telling his story, he will say he “took the road less travelled by,” knowing full well that this statement is false. In short, those final three lines of the poem CAN be taken, when ripped out of their context , as a statement of encouragement to “take the road less travelled.” In the context of the poem, however, the lines add an ironic flair to the poem’s rather pessimistic message - despite the fact that the repercussions of one’s choices (i.e., the final destinations of the roads one takes) cannot always be predicted ahead of time, the poet still knows that, in his old age, he will put a positive (but ultimately inaccurate) spin on his choices.

The point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with taking those words out of context to DESCRIBE a particular figure or institution, but it does an absolute disservice to the authoritative text to confuse your non-contextual use of the words of the text with the contextual message of the text.

That’s largely true, though it is debatable whether Yahweh intended to ban all practices or beliefs not explicitly supported in the Torah , or merely all practices and beliefs that are clearly inconsistent with Torah (child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, etc.). There is a big difference between those two. Acceptance of the former automatically raises questions about the legitimacy of ALL doctrinal developments, including the Trinity.

And for the record, you’re preaching to the choir. I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not believe that their distinctive practices and doctrines are necessary or even legitimate developments from the practices and doctrines of the apostles in the first century. I can make an excellent case for the fundamentally syncretistic nature of Roman Catholicism. That being said, I do NOT think that we can use the tactic of most Protestants and assume that we possess the obvious, self-validating standard of truth against which we can compare Catholicism. Questioning the validity of Catholicism’s claims about its own origins and legitimacy does NOT guarantee that Protestant readings are necessarily correct. And I also think that there is sufficient nuance in Roman Catholic thought to render many accusations of the church’s “idolatry” unfair.

351

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You don’t see how this can relate to Revelation 17:4? Daniel 7:25?
[/quote]

Do you mean, "could the words of Revelation 17:4 and Daniel 7:25 be taken out of their context and used as a description of the Roman Catholic church?" Absolutely. But there is a BIG difference between saying that the same words can be used two describe two different individuals or institutions, and saying that those words as written by the original authors actually REFERRED to those individuals and institutions. And the authority of those statements lies in their meaning in context , not in isolation from their context. When read in their original contexts, Revelation 17:4 and Daniel 7:25 simply do not refer to the Catholic church, despite the fact that, at least in some individuals’ minds, those statements may accurately describe the Roman Catholic church.

Think of the way people use the last lines of Robert Frost’s poem, “The Road Not Taken.” We’re all familiar with that one, I think - “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -/ I took the one less travelled by/ and that has made all the difference.” Now people use those last lines at high school and college graduations to encourage the graduates to “be unique,” to boldly go where few others have gone. Now, those lines, when removed from their context in the poem, could certainly be interpreted that way. But if you read the lines in context, you get a different picture -earlier in the poem, the poet has already described the two roads as identical . There is no apparent difference between the roads, not even in which has been travelled more. In this context, the final three lines take on a completely different meaning - in the final stanza, the poet predicts that, in the future when he is telling his story, he will say he “took the road less travelled by,” knowing full well that this statement is false. In short, those final three lines of the poem CAN be taken, when ripped out of their context , as a statement of encouragement to “take the road less travelled.” In the context of the poem, however, the lines add an ironic flair to the poem’s rather pessimistic message - despite the fact that the repercussions of one’s choices (i.e., the final destinations of the roads one takes) cannot always be predicted ahead of time, the poet still knows that, in his old age, he will put a positive (but ultimately inaccurate) spin on his choices.

The point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with taking those words out of context to DESCRIBE a particular figure or institution, but it does an absolute disservice to the authoritative text to confuse your non-contextual use of the words of the text with the contextual message of the text.[/quote]

I agree and disagree. I think the context of the prophesies fit as well. Of course, I can’t say that it was their original intention, but it does fit.

That’s largely true, though it is debatable whether Yahweh intended to ban all practices or beliefs not explicitly supported in the Torah , or merely all practices and beliefs that are clearly inconsistent with Torah (child sacrifice, ritual prostitution, etc.). There is a big difference between those two. Acceptance of the former automatically raises questions about the legitimacy of ALL doctrinal developments, including the Trinity.

And for the record, you’re preaching to the choir. I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not believe that their distinctive practices and doctrines are necessary or even legitimate developments from the practices and doctrines of the apostles in the first century. I can make an excellent case for the fundamentally syncretistic nature of Roman Catholicism. That being said, I do NOT think that we can use the tactic of most Protestants and assume that we possess the obvious, self-validating standard of truth against which we can compare Catholicism. Questioning the validity of Catholicism’s claims about its own origins and legitimacy does NOT guarantee that Protestant readings are necessarily correct. And I also think that there is sufficient nuance in Roman Catholic thought to render many accusations of the church’s “idolatry” unfair. [/quote]
No, no. The Protestant church has its fair share of problems as well. Just walk into a normal church and ask how many people worship the cross.

Isn’t that the nature of deception, though? A lie is a lie, but deception is much more subtle. Deception is the truth mixed with one tiny step away from the path, rationalized and given enough time to become ‘normal’. Repeat that process for a couple thousand years, and you end up in a very different place than you intended to go.

352

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yes, KK’s definition is accurate, but that still doesn’t provide any meaningful escape for the charge of foolish pagan superstition.[/quote]

What’s your definition of superstition? Because when using proper definition (which is a heresy according to the authority of Jesus’ Church, the only one, the Catholic Church) of having the belief that supernatural effect follows a non-supernatural action then there are quite a few beliefs that you profess that are the par excellence example of superstition.

However veneration of icons and relics is not superstition unless you have some fabulous made up definition of the word. Or, again you don’t have half a wit or understanding of what veneration of icons and relics (probably both) means. [/quote]

Lol this is quite the debate. First of all, JayPierce said this was the meaning of the passage - “1. You believe exactly as we tell you to believe because we are infallible. If you don’t any detail of what we say, then you reject everything we say.” That IS reductionistic, but it was also an accurate assessment of PART of the Aquinas passage. The passage said more than that, Chris, but it DID say that.

Secondly, I think this is THE central point of the debate - superstition. I would argue that much of what Catholicism espouses, both in belief and in practice, amounts to superstition. Take the belief in transubstantiation - the priest’s blessing results in the transformation of the “substance” of the bread and wine while leaving the “appearance” unchanged. This transubstantiated food transfers grace to the recipient. I will say this as nicely as I can - I don’t know of too many miracles in the bible where the miracle was incapable of being detected. If it looks, smells, tastes, and feels like bread, I’m not inclined to assume it is something else. That’s a VERY strange sort of miracle, biblically speaking.

But even if such beliefs and practices are merely superstitions, that doesn’t make them soul-endangering. It can merely make them enslaving.

353

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This prayer asks St Christopher for protection, not to say a prayer to God for you. That is direct worship of St. Christopher, not indirect worship of God. Just so you know I’m not only reading source material biased against Catholics:

[/quote]

And, what are the Saints doing in Heaven?

You do realize that the first half of that quote is directed to Jesus, right? And, pray is worship?

354

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
As a non catholic, i don’t think catholics worship the bones of their saints any more (or any less) than sola scriptura protestants worship the paper their bible is written on.

but then again, worship is not exactly my forte so…[/quote]They are not even remotely similar, but that’s ok. Christopher, I’m not gonna go into all this that you have in the post above now. It will serve no purpose at this time.
[/quote]

Of course, like you won’t go into authority, and a dozen other subjects. And, you’re right it’s not the same thing, I have known Protestants to commit idolatry when it came to the King James. Catholics only in going against the doctrines and practices of the Church would they commit idolatry.

355

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yes, KK’s definition is accurate, but that still doesn’t provide any meaningful escape for the charge of foolish pagan superstition.[/quote]

What’s your definition of superstition? Because when using proper definition (which is a heresy according to the authority of Jesus’ Church, the only one, the Catholic Church) of having the belief that supernatural effect follows a non-supernatural action then there are quite a few beliefs that you profess that are the par excellence example of superstition.

However veneration of icons and relics is not superstition unless you have some fabulous made up definition of the word. Or, again you don’t have half a wit or understanding of what veneration of icons and relics (probably both) means. [/quote]

Lol this is quite the debate. First of all, JayPierce said this was the meaning of the passage - “1. You believe exactly as we tell you to believe because we are infallible. If you don’t any detail of what we say, then you reject everything we say.” That IS reductionistic, but it was also an accurate assessment of PART of the Aquinas passage. The passage said more than that, Chris, but it DID say that.

Secondly, I think this is THE central point of the debate - superstition. I would argue that much of what Catholicism espouses, both in belief and in practice, amounts to superstition. Take the belief in transubstantiation - the priest’s blessing results in the transformation of the “substance” of the bread and wine while leaving the “appearance” unchanged. This transubstantiated food transfers grace to the recipient. I will say this as nicely as I can - I don’t know of too many miracles in the bible where the miracle was incapable of being detected. If it looks, smells, tastes, and feels like bread, I’m not inclined to assume it is something else. That’s a VERY strange sort of miracle, biblically speaking.

But even if such beliefs and practices are merely superstitions, that doesn’t make them soul-endangering. It can merely make them enslaving. [/quote]

Believing in superstition is heresy…heresy can be endangering to one’s soul.

So, you’re saying that John 6 is superstitious?

356

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

I agree and disagree. I think the context of the prophesies fit as well. Of course, I can’t say that it was their original intention, but it does fit.
[/quote]

It does NOT fit the context of the prophecies. We’ve been over this - the woman sits atop the seven headed beast, just as THE CITY OF ROME (and the woman is SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS A CITY in Rev. 17:18) sat upon seven hills. Look at Revelation 17:9 - "the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits." The text makes this point - “the woman” sits on seven hills. The Vatican City, on the other hand, DOES NOT SIT ON EVEN ONE OF THE SEVEN HILLS. It rests, rather, on a hill OUTSIDE of the seven upon which Rome was built. The Vatican hill was NOT one of the seven hills of Rome. The only city built on the seven hills was THE CITY OF ROME. Therefore, based on the text itself, the Vatican CANNOT be the Whore of Revelation 17. In other words, your interpretation does NOT fit the context. Geography AND history preclude your interpretation’s validity.

The same is true of Daniel 7. There are four beasts mentioned in Daniel 7, and all of them are specifically identified as “kingdoms” (Dan. 7:17). These kingdoms represent the kingdoms of the Babylonians, the Medes, the Persians, and finally the Greeks. The ten horns are the ten kings that preceded Antiochus Epiphanes, “the little horn” who spoke “words against the Most High” and “thought of changing times and laws.” Based on the chronology of Daniel 7, ONLY ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES fits Daniel 7:25.

I don’t know of a single Protestant church in which the cross is worshipped, and if there are such churches, they are anomalous. The vast majority of Protestants would condemn such a practice.

357

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yes, KK’s definition is accurate, but that still doesn’t provide any meaningful escape for the charge of foolish pagan superstition.[/quote]

What’s your definition of superstition? Because when using proper definition (which is a heresy according to the authority of Jesus’ Church, the only one, the Catholic Church) of having the belief that supernatural effect follows a non-supernatural action then there are quite a few beliefs that you profess that are the par excellence example of superstition.

However veneration of icons and relics is not superstition unless you have some fabulous made up definition of the word. Or, again you don’t have half a wit or understanding of what veneration of icons and relics (probably both) means. [/quote]

Lol this is quite the debate. First of all, JayPierce said this was the meaning of the passage - “1. You believe exactly as we tell you to believe because we are infallible. If you don’t any detail of what we say, then you reject everything we say.” That IS reductionistic, but it was also an accurate assessment of PART of the Aquinas passage. The passage said more than that, Chris, but it DID say that.

Secondly, I think this is THE central point of the debate - superstition. I would argue that much of what Catholicism espouses, both in belief and in practice, amounts to superstition. Take the belief in transubstantiation - the priest’s blessing results in the transformation of the “substance” of the bread and wine while leaving the “appearance” unchanged. This transubstantiated food transfers grace to the recipient. I will say this as nicely as I can - I don’t know of too many miracles in the bible where the miracle was incapable of being detected. If it looks, smells, tastes, and feels like bread, I’m not inclined to assume it is something else. That’s a VERY strange sort of miracle, biblically speaking.

But even if such beliefs and practices are merely superstitions, that doesn’t make them soul-endangering. It can merely make them enslaving. [/quote]

Believing in superstition is heresy…heresy can be endangering to one’s soul.

So, you’re saying that John 6 is superstitious? [/quote]

I’m saying that, as I’ve shown twice, your interpretation of John 6 is historically and contextually insensitive. It takes ZERO account of John’s clear and larger emphases in his work, or the way John shapes his narrative to highlight his concerns. Despite your claims that Protestants arbitrarily take certain passages literally and certain passages figuratively, I provided a reading that recognized that almost every major section of John’s narrative contains just such figurative and purposely bothersome statements as are found in John 6 . You were unable to demonstrate why I should take Jesus’ statements in John 6 literally (despite John’s clear LACK OF INTEREST in the Eucharist, as attested by the fact that he doesn’t even include it’s institution in his narrative!) and other statements of Jesus’ in John’s gospel figuratively.

If you cannot defend your interpretation of John 6 on a work-spanning, contextually sensitive level, then your arguments are no more legitimate than the same arguments of JayPierce that you criticize.

358

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This prayer asks St Christopher for protection, not to say a prayer to God for you. That is direct worship of St. Christopher, not indirect worship of God. Just so you know I’m not only reading source material biased against Catholics:

[/quote]

And, what are the Saints doing in Heaven?

You do realize that the first half of that quote is directed to Jesus, right? And, pray is worship?[/quote]

There is indeed a difference between prayer and worship, at least in the Roman Catholic system.

And the real question is, are the saints even conscious? Many Second Temple Jews (and all the Israelites of the Hebrew Scriptures) had no problem with the absence of consciousness after death.

359

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< John 6 >>>[/quote]This came up numerous times before you got here and every time I didn’t feel that the tangent it would have taken us on then would have been productive. You did a far better job of presenting that case than I could have anyway.

360

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Of course, like you won’t go into authority, and a dozen other subjects. >>>[/quote]You are not going to be blessed by what’s on the horizon here my young impatient and delightfully impetuous friend. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I have known Protestants to commit idolatry when it came to the King James. >>>[/quote]I don’t know if idolatry exactly fits, but with all due respect to my brethren so persuaded the KJV only position is entirely indefensible. I have known alleged protestants who commit ALL manner of idolatry and all manner of other damnable sins as well. [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Catholics only in going against the doctrines and practices of the Church would they commit idolatry.[/quote] One day I’m gonna help you break into the Vatican and get your brain back outta that vault Chris.