|
Post by franko on May 23, 2006 21:40:12 GMT -5
Is it a sin to doubt? To ask questions? We are obligated to ask questions and to seek for answers. Ultimateluy, doubt brings us to find tehm
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 23, 2006 21:46:45 GMT -5
Is religion the cause of problems or is it because some people use it as a tool to achieve their lust for power and control? Is Islam a problem or the Mullahs and their mullocracy? Did Christ or any of the Apostles even imagine the Inquisistion or the Crusades? I think that it's man's lust for power that corrupts even the most passive religions. Religion is an extremely powerful control tool, HA. Convince the "little man" that what he is doing is morally right and he'll do "it" with a smile on his face. As far as the Crusades were concerned, what was to be a liberation of the holiest city on the earth, turned out to be merely a search for power and land. But, that's another thread. Cheers. Well said. And the attacks on the WTC was descrived by one well known Christian idiot leader as a retaliation by God for the sins that country has committed.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 24, 2006 0:45:28 GMT -5
Hi Guys Lots of interesting and controversial stuff. A couple of things. I am full of piss and vinegar on this stuff for a couple of prinmary reasons. And I honest ot God, cannot understand why this doesn't piss anybody of European descent off as well. Brown on US TV told millions his book was based upon historical fact. The whole damned thing. I don't mind painting Pope Alexander the Sixth as a corrupt and liscencious individual, as there is ample evidence that seems to bear this out. The fashionable-made for TV version of the Crusades is also just plain dumb. Did some bad things happen? Yes. Was it Christians gone wild on spring break. No. It was a matter of saving Europe from being overrun after the Muslim nations had already taken half by agressive wars of territorial conquest. As to the movie porn bloodbaths, a little accurate, and actual history...that can be verified..will go a long way.The crusades were undertaken at immense -and very well documented- sacrifice and expense, completely bankrupting a great many nobles, but more on this later. I think that individuals who choose to view only the flaws and errors of many of your ancestors and Catholicism will miss the rise of Western civilization, everything they did right, and that is absolutely staggering. Brown has asserted on television to millions and in print that the Da Vinci code was the way it really was. (He was found to be a liar, fraud and bigot of staggering proportions on all of his moronic claims and forced to recant) He has argued that all of western history, and especially of course the Catholic church are built upon a massive lie and coverup. Apparently Jesus's mother and followers for 3 years had trouble distinguishing between death by crucifixion and a honeymoon in France with Magdalen. He declared as true the complete falsification of western history and presenting our heritage as a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. That is whay I am pissed at Dan Brown, and somewhat aghast that so few others have the insight to decry the travesty. That he chooses the church Christ founded and the person of Christ for his greed, adds an element of putrefaction to the slop. AS for what I take to be gratuitous insult to Catholicism, or as I said earlier, the unrelenting focussing on things, like for example the Galileo incident , and offering this as the basis for that the Catholic church opposed science, (Science ONLY emerged in Catholic Europe and from universities founded by the church..e.g. Paris, Sallamanca, Oxford ) In short, I have a moderte degree of personal integrity which I don't like to see impugned gratuitously directly or indirectly through my religion. Argue your points, but don't cast aspersions on me or my church. Did Pius XII not do virtually everything he could and save 800,000 Jewish lives, as many Jewish leaders have claimed, or was he "Hitler"s Pope". Should the church, can the church ever accept divorce or is she not at all authorized to do so? Whatsoever persons may choose to divide, let not man try to knit back together? Henry VIII thought so. How about this one? Is there a GOD? Can you prove it? Is it disproven? Is it an antiquated superstition that's long since has its day and a reactionary threat to human progress? Or is that just a popular stupidity since Descartes mistaken idea that the human senses are unreliable and made everybody stupid? What is a soul? Is there a soul? How would we know if we had one? Is it (if it is at all) eternal Are homosexually really just born that way, like a third sex, or is there not evidence at all to support this, and is it the truth, that males are not at all designed to have pseudo intercourse with men. It's one or the other, Let's see the evidence. Facile condemnations on specious and simplistic grounds though I must admit are the fare of A&E, right before DAWG really bug me, and they don't say much that is good about those who deliver them. This board has the balls to step into the kitchen and stir things up and that is a very, very good thing. So I'll try to keep in mind that you may not at all be run of the mill daily paper opinion spewing bigots with little or no apprehesion of reality and third rate intellects of dubious integrity, and why don't you try to keep in mind that I may not at all be a misogynistic, homophobic, ant-scientific, blindly approving sycophant cowed into unbecoming submission by a wicked and superstitious cabal of evil and power-craving monsters wreaking their crimson bloody path through the portals of time and eternity. Sounds reasonable to me. And it really could be fun.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 24, 2006 1:07:23 GMT -5
Religion is an extremely powerful control tool, HA. Convince the "little man" that what he is doing is morally right and he'll do "it" with a smile on his face. As far as the Crusades were concerned, what was to be a liberation of the holiest city on the earth, turned out to be merely a search for power and land. But, that's another thread. Cheers. Well said. And the attacks on the WTC was descrived by one well known Christian idiot leader as a retaliation by God for the sins that country has committed. A quick glance at human history demonstrates conclusively that vastly more people are killed by secular ideologies than religion. That "truism" is a canard that long since had its wings clipped. Total war is a recent invention, as is nuclear annihilation, which is incidentally condemned by most religions, but not by secular governments. Religion is not a control tool. Irreligion is. Just as abuses of democracies do not disprove the value of democracy neither does the abuse of religion. It is a very popular scapegoat however, but usually for other unstated reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 24, 2006 1:51:07 GMT -5
A couple of things. You are dogmatic. All human beings are dogmatic. Dogma is simply teaching. The most dogmatic person in human hitory was Jesus Christ. You find Jesus offensive to your dogma. Too bad. THe issue is whether Jesus' dogma or yours is worthwhile, where they differ. It is normal to experience doubt. Faith is a gift and a virtue. I sometimes dump my faith. Usually I get over it I think. God knows. Dan Brown is a liar and a fraud, who claimed on ABC television and in interviews that he was delivering the truth. You are perhaps ignorant of this fact. He has slandered and maligned 2000 years of history (and alll of your ancestors) in the process. Only modern man stupid enough to think he's so damned smart. The Catholic church is not "conservative", Historically most Canadians including my family going back to the 17th century in Canada has always advanced an ethic of compassion that has usually found political expression on the liberal side of the political spectrum. The church asks you to have compassion for the child in the womb. It begs you not to dump a wife or husband because things got flat for a while and break up a family. She asks us to be responsible with our sexuality. aANd she reminds us that this life is a very quick and passing thing in an otherwise eternal life. It asks us to consider the poor in all things and Jesus said we will be judged by our response to this. It's frankly bizarre to me that in the face of Brown's very successful attempt to dupe his would be readership by lying about its historicity and filling a book with slander and really brutal lies and deceptions concerning not just the church, but the very meaning of life, that you can say something about fearing the reaction of the church. If it is fair game to speak of the church and criticize and misrepresent and deride her....I am reminded of Jesus saying to his church that "he who hears you, hears me". While you accept slander and lies as good things, I am curious as to what on earth you would fear in response from the church. Are you thinking that at mass today, the priest is going to suggest that instead of going golfing or playing tennis later, that we drop by a theatre and pound out a moviegoer or two? People say the oddest damned things. I truly respect your faith and beg your pardon if I offended you. A few things I wanted to add: First here what I meant by Dogma: dogma 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church. 2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine. 3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln). [Latin, from Greek, opinion, belief, from dokein, to seem, think. See dek- in Indo-European Roots.] Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. dogman 1: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof [syn: tenet] 2: a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma" Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University Quite the opposite of my personal state of comfortable uncertainty. Uncertainty, that I don't force on other as I respect faith of all kind. As for Dan Brown, I personally believe he is just your average opportunist. He or his editor felt the trend. People have deserted the church (at least here in Quebec), yet everyone is looking for answers. People are craving for a bit of meaning, of spirituality. Our occidental world is often superficial and hyper materialistic. Brown ain't different and I guess ( I just read the book, I haven't followed the circus around) he figured a little lie, deformation of truth, reinterpretation and omission could help him get a few more millions in the bank. It's his conscience. He's used conspiracy. He used believable fiction. He's not alone. It's all over your TV. Heck, the Whitehouse is mass producing that kind of fiction. I work 6 years in marketing and advertising. It's all believable fiction. I know it's sad. But it's hard for me to single Dan Brown out for this. You and your family may be on the liberal side of the political spectrum since the 17th, but the official positions of your Church are as I said 'relatively' conservative. Relatively to your average Canadian views. I've studied sociology and my job as a marketeer was to know and explain the evolution of Canadian values (by age, by sex, by province, by what you want). I spent hours every month reading reports of every kind. I work with the 3SCs (by Environics), surely the most respected and comprehensive research in term of Canadian personality and values. I know Canadian views of abortion, homosexuality, relation between men and women, place of women in society, war, drugs, sex, etc... and from what I've heard (I'm not a theologian or else) it ain't exactly reflecting the popes' positions. There is a slight gap. Lastly, I don't think slander and lies are good things (and it's not very nice of you to say so). I'm not fearing the Church reaction. I said I was worried. Worried stuff like that would happen : www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060522/CPARTS/605220579/5855/CPARTS01I don't see the danger here, the need for censorship. Why, It's always believe and don't ask question. I wonder what Galileo would think about that... I did in fact, and perhaps through too many conversations that start with prejudged ill treatment of homosexually oriented people, the belief that it must be a morally outrageous miogony and undervaluing of women that underlies the church's positon on ordination. In short, it's ordinary, and completely unremarkable to run into these dare I say generic judgements. If homosexual orientation and acts are inherently natural and good for the individual and the human family, and we are family, then the church would indeed be wrong and you would be right to criticize the church for not embracing the good as she always should. On dogma, a comon usage of the term is first principles of reasoning. e.g. Only the material exists and only scientific empirical methodologies can arrive at truth. That is a very common dogma accepted on authoritarian grounds which mimic authoritive grounds. We all have core beliefs, though seldomly with the philosophically compelling arguments to defend them. Thanks for the conversational return. I apologize for offending with the lies and slander comment, the reference was to the lies and slander of Brown presented as less bothersome than a putative reaction to it. I would write Brown off as a fiction writing bigot of very dubious taste but for his lying claims to historicity, in which he slanders and impugns me as a member (not her shiniest star by the way as you can readily observe) of the church, and western civilization. Thanks for the post. There is much that is discussable. I'll give you a funny (ok, funny to me) one on sociology next time. Ciao
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 24, 2006 2:26:54 GMT -5
Are you suggesting that the apostles were not to celebrate the eucharist at the last supper, and that Saint Paul and all of the people who were with him ...just got it wrong? I suggest that the apostles celebrated Passover with Jesus and He said "As often as you do this remember Me". We now celebrate the Lord's Supper -- some churches weekly; others less so, as a memorial Paul wasn't there -- Just Jesus and the 12 (or the 11 plus one, according to Brown ;D ) The authority to forgive is given to His followers -- not just Peter. Jesus gave no new commandments except to love one another. Again, Jesus worked within the confines of Judaism. Read the book of Acts and you will discover that the believers in Jesus went to synagogue as long as they were allowed to, and only after they were spitefully treated for believing in "The Way" did they become known as "Christian". The apostle Paul himself first persecuted the believers for their teachings about Jesus as the Christ in Judaism, and previous to that the disciples were arrested for teaching in the temple. Never said that -- far from it. His resurrection -- key to the work of God (and I believe that this is a main difference between Protestants and Catholics: we hold the resurrection as most important, you hold the crucifrixion so) was final proof that He was ineed Messiah. He predicted His crucifixion; He was indeed crucified. Teh church did indeed get started, but speculate: what if the Jews had believed Him?. OK, they didn't. Speculate this way, then: what if the Jews had accepted the disciples teaching that He was resurrected? No Christian church -- we'd all be Jews (without the need for circumcision at adult conversion -- whew!). Not sure which statement you are referring to. Ok. You said Jesus didn't mean to start a new religion. Jesus started a new religion. He meant to. I know Saint Paul was not at the lat supper. He did say that the bread and wine when consecrated becomes the body and blood of Christ and is not to be taken unworthily. The history of the apostolic church differs with your satements concerning the words Christ spoke to Peter giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. The church ios after all lthe body of Christ. I do not accept that you or I have the authority to forgive the sins of others and bind or loose in heaven and earth. Jesus gave new commandments. "I tell you no divorce!." Protestantism generally ignores these words. Of course Jesus was jewish Catholics holds easter, not Good Friday as being the most significant Christian Holiday. Everybody dies.... Jesus was the messiah of the Jews (no offence intended to Jewish members) THe fact of the new religion, quite distinguishable from Judaism, with seven sacraments as practiced from earliest time by authorized bishops and the priesthood, is the point of departure from Judaism . Jews don't pray in the name of Christ, and don't usually show up at mass, baptisms or ordinations. It;'s a new religion, which is why I suggested you were mincing words with an incontrovertible and unambiguous obvious fact.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 24, 2006 6:16:31 GMT -5
Ok. You said Jesus didn't mean to start a new religion. Jesus started a new religion. He meant to. I guess here we'll disagree. Actually, I think the Bible says differently. Yes, "communion" is not to be taken in an unworthy manner (yet are any of us worthy outside the grace of God?); he said nothing about consecration of the host (and we'll avoid discussion of transubstantiation in this thread, shall we?) 1 Corinthians 11 is Paul's discussion of the Lord's Supper, where he talks of a communal meal ("Agape feast") celebration. He also talks of women having their heads covered, but again, another subject for another day. Indeed we are. Point of disagreement; so be it. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 He said that divorce was not in God's plan. Neither is adultery. Niether is . . . But God is a God of grace. Protestentism does not ignore the words of Jesus. We just interpret things a little differently at times. My tradition is one that holds marriage high and does all it can to counsel those going through marriage troubles, but sometimes hard hearts cause marriage breakup. [ Then I am mistaken. Another difference, though , between Protestant and Catholic is the cross as seen in churches: Jesus on the cross in Catholic churches; an empty cross in Protestant. It is -- I just said that this was not the intent Back to Mr. Brown . . .
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 24, 2006 6:54:00 GMT -5
And the attacks on the WTC was descrived by one well known Christian idiot leader as a retaliation by God for the sins that country has committed. Never knew that, Franko. If nothing else it proves that Christianity has its extremists fundamentalists as well. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 24, 2006 7:23:03 GMT -5
And the attacks on the WTC was descrived by one well known Christian idiot leader as a retaliation by God for the sins that country has committed. Never knew that, Franko. If nothing else it proves that Christianity has its extremists fundamentalists as well. Cheers. To be more precise, Jerry Falwell (of Moral Majority fame, and an embarrassment to many Christians), said "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"
Falwell, pastor of the 22,000-member Thomas Road Baptist Church, viewed the attacks as God's judgment on America for "throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked." He did retract, of course, but he continues to damage the credibility of [moderate] Christians (we don't need his help, of course -- we do enough damage on our own!).
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 24, 2006 8:09:28 GMT -5
Christian leaders agree the Da Vinci Code phenomenon isn't all bad. The story can spark fruitful discussions on faith. But they also say meaningful interactions don't usually happen by accident. Christians who successfully engage others are intentional about their approach, sensitive with their words and knowledgeable about the topic.
In other words, they love people and they are willing to do some homework.
Loving people means appreciating their interest in spiritual things even when they're unorthodox, and encouraging the aspects of it that can lead back to orthodox Christian faith. Spiritual seeking is, after all, one of the core reasons for the wild popularity of The Da Vinci Code, according to Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, a theology instructor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
"Criticizing Christian beliefs has become quite popular [in our culture], and some are attracted to the novel simply for that reason. But many people are truly seeking," she says.
. . .
The Da Vinci Code takes aim at some of the core Christian beliefs: namely, the divinity of Jesus and the authority of the Bible. And it does so with half-truths, exaggerations and blatant inaccuracies.
Some have defended the book on the grounds that it is a work of fiction and, therefore, harmless. However, judging from author Dan Brown's comments, he views his novel as more than a fictional story. In an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's Today Show, Brown was asked, "How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?" Brown's reply was unequivocal: "Absolutely all of it."
Unfortunately for Brown, there is scarcely a historian alive who shares his confidence. When it comes to the facts presented in the novel, the jury is not out — the case never even made it to court, at least not in the world of scholarship. The book's subversive theories about Jesus are not even original — they come from sources that even secular scholars have dismissed, such as the 1989 non-fiction book Holy Blood, Holy Grail (the authors are now suing Brown for allegedly taking their ideas).
Holy Blood, Holy Grail built its case around the story of one man who claimed to trace his ancestry back to Jesus and Mary Magdalene's royal bloodline. The fantastical account was soon exposed as a hoax and roundly denounced.
Yet that didn't stop Brown from relying almost completely on the work as a resource for his novel. Brown, however, couched the tale in suspenseful, engaging prose and successfully targeted a wider and less discerning audience.
John Thompson, an authority on historical theology at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California, says looking for errors in The Da Vinci Code "is like shooting fish in a barrel." He finds the liberties Brown has taken with history astonishing. "Some pages have so many errors you don't know where to start. You get compounded errors. It is wrong in so many layers it leaves one speechless."
Of course the problem isn't that academics are being fooled by the novel; it's that less informed readers are. According to Brown's website, the novel has now sold more than 40 million copies, making it one of the most widely read books of all time. The vast majority of these readers lack the tools or the desire to separate fact from fiction. They simply accept the novel's storyline as the new gospel truth. This is why Evangelicals must be prepared to respond with solid refutations.
New Testament scholar Paul Spilsbury fears that readers are taking the novel at face value. "The book makes certain statements about history. They might make sense within the fictional plot of the story; yet, it's so easy for people to think the reality described in the novel carries over into the real world."
. . .
Tackling the long list of errors can be daunting. So a successful critique seeks to counter the book's larger assertions. One of those issues is Dan Brown's handling of the so-called Gnostic gospels (later writings about Jesus). Spilsbury notes that when Brown refers to the Gnostic texts, he gets it exactly backwards. "The novel claims the Gnostic gospels reveal the humanity of Christ, while the biblical accounts show Jesus only as divine." Spilsbury points out that the Gnostic gospels actually paint a lofty picture of Jesus. The Gnostic heresy was that Jesus was not human, that he was God merely appearing to be human.
On the other hand, the canonical Gospels (the four in the Bible) give a full account of both the divinity and humanity of Christ. Spilsbury points out that Mark, widely considered to be the oldest Gospel, gives a rich account of Jesus' humanity. "We see Jesus getting tired, showing emotion, even becoming angry." Clearly, Brown either misunderstands the source materials on which he builds his story or is feigning his declared fidelity to historical records.
A second major muddle to be cleared up, according to Calvert-Koyzis, is the confusion surrounding Mary Magdalene. In the Middle Ages, church leaders mistakenly assumed Mary Magdalene was the same woman (an adulteress) who anointed Jesus' feet in Luke 7. The Da Vinci Code claims to rescue Mary Magdalene from this misidentification by making her the carrier of Jesus' royal bloodline. The novel spins this as Mary's triumph, a role that liberates her from the patriarchal character assassination that focused on her sexuality.
Besides the fact that there's not a shred of evidence for Brown's bizarre theory, Calvert-Koyzis points out that the manoeuvre ironically gives Mary a demotion. Instead of describing Mary Magdalene as the Bible does — the first witness and preacher of Christ's resurrection — "Brown resurrects her sexuality," making her reproductive abilities her primary means of worth. No longer the "apostle to the apostles," she's useful only for bearing a secret lineage.
The Gnostic gospels and Mary Magdalene are only the beginning. The list goes on. And, clearly, the experts are not calling Christians to memorize all the details about the Council of Nicea and Opus Dei and the rest. But taking the time to read The Da Vinci Code and at least one book critiquing the novel does seem worth the time. (Or visit jesusdecoded.com, by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)Christianity Today
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 24, 2006 8:42:23 GMT -5
I would write Brown off as a fiction writing bigot of very dubious taste but for his lying claims to historicity, in which he slanders and impugns me as a member (not her shiniest star by the way as you can readily observe) of the church, and western civilization. I doubt seriously that Brown set out on some evil crusade to slander the church. Nor is he possessed by the devil (he never called me!). Brown is just another opportunist who wrote a second rate book and raked in hundreds of millions. Unfortunately, you might as well brace yourself for a pile of books of this kind to flood the market for the next ten years. As for Western Civilization, the church does not define it. Democracy, free speech and many other ideas were brought forth by Greeks, three to five hundred hundred years before Christ. Christianity neither founded nor define Western Civilization. Just for the record..... Eastern and Western civilizations was first used in reference to the Greek-Persian wars and their "clash of civilizations". Western Civilization of the Greeks defeated the Eastern Civilization of the Persians. Greeks civilization is several hundred years older then the founder of Christianity. The Romans perpetuated and added (or abused) the Greek civilizations foundations throughout the Mediterranean and they themselves redivided themselves in Western and Eastern Empires. Nevertheless, even when the Romans divided themselves up, they still considered themselves as "civilized" in comparison the the EASTERN civilizations of the Arabs and beyond. Again and reference to Western civilizations versus Eastern Civilizations and AGAIN, the deviding line is Hellenized world versus the "barbarians". Christianity was born INTO Western Civilization founded by Greeks SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS earlier. In fact, by the time Chiristianity established itself as the dominant religion, Western Civilization was passing it first millennium. History does NOT start with the Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire. Nor are the founders of Western Civilization "barbarians" before Christianity "civilized" them.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 24, 2006 8:46:12 GMT -5
Christian leaders agree the Da Vinci Code phenomenon isn't all bad. The story can spark fruitful discussions on faith. But they also say meaningful interactions don't usually happen by accident. Christians who successfully engage others are intentional about their approach, sensitive with their words and knowledgeable about the topic.
In other words, they love people and they are willing to do some homework.
Loving people means appreciating their interest in spiritual things even when they're unorthodox, and encouraging the aspects of it that can lead back to orthodox Christian faith. Spiritual seeking is, after all, one of the core reasons for the wild popularity of The Da Vinci Code, according to Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, a theology instructor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.
"Criticizing Christian beliefs has become quite popular [in our culture], and some are attracted to the novel simply for that reason. But many people are truly seeking," she says.
Is she reading HabsRus too? Sheesh.......
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 24, 2006 8:53:51 GMT -5
Hey Dis, how is it going? I am with you with the politically correct thing. I think it’s a power game, played by people who wish they had more of it. Passive aggressiveness at its finest. Having said that, and with regards to Dan Brown, at what point are you merely telling a story, and at what point are you slandering somebody and/or something? The Vatican exists, Catholic priest exist, the Opus Dei exists – these are real entities, made of real people, who are being called murderers, liars and power-hungry psychopaths. Here is the opening to my new book, entitled “Lies, Deceit, Abuse and Glory, the Untold Story of the Montreal Canadiens and its Biggest Star.” Page 1:
Fact: The Montreal Canadiens have been in existence for close to 100 years.
Fact: Numerous sports teams, including long-time Canadiens rivals the Toronto Maple Leafs, have been involved in child sexual abuse scandals.
Fact: The Montreal Canadiens interviewed convicted pedophile Grahame James for a head coaching position (see Brown’s Prior de Sion for more “facts”).
Page 2:
As they always do, the faithful rose to their feet, chanting his name in adulation (Guy! Guy! Guy!), their love for him filling the rafters of the hallowed building they called the shrine. For the fans of the Montreal Canadiens, legions of them worldwide, there was no finer human being. From the grace and skill he exhibited on the ice, to the style and class he exhibited off of it, he had it all. For millions of people he was their star, their hero, their ideal.
For seven little boys though, perhaps for more, he was their monster… I respect what you're saying, BC. It's a good point that bekons the following question. Whay hasn't the Vatican launched any civil or criminal suits if this is so damaging? They've challenged the validity of the book publicly. But, there's been no other action initiated from the Vatican thus far. As far as your book is concerned, your writing reads like the back of a book jacket and has potential for sales, conspiracy theories, riots ... you know, hockey-the-religion-we-all-practice. Knew you had it in you. Oh, and it would still be a factious novel (he says quickly exiting the room). Sigh! Must go back to work now. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 24, 2006 9:01:18 GMT -5
Ok. You said Jesus didn't mean to start a new religion. Jesus started a new religion. He meant to. I guess here we'll disagree. Actually, I think the Bible says differently. Yes, "communion" is not to be taken in an unworthy manner (yet are any of us worthy outside the grace of God?); he said nothing about consecration of the host (and we'll avoid discussion of transubstantiation in this thread, shall we?) 1 Corinthians 11 is Paul's discussion of the Lord's Supper, where he talks of a communal meal ("Agape feast") celebration. He also talks of women having their heads covered, but again, another subject for another day. Indeed we are. Point of disagreement; so be it. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 He said that divorce was not in God's plan. Neither is adultery. Niether is . . . But God is a God of grace. Protestentism does not ignore the words of Jesus. We just interpret things a little differently at times. My tradition is one that holds marriage high and does all it can to counsel those going through marriage troubles, but sometimes hard hearts cause marriage breakup. [ Then I am mistaken. Another difference, though , between Protestant and Catholic is the cross as seen in churches: Jesus on the cross in Catholic churches; an empty cross in Protestant. It is -- I just said that this was not the intent Back to Mr. Brown . . . I see. So Jesus did not mean to start a new religion, which he most certainly did after the resurrection? While even a slight familiarity with scripture of course acknowledges that Jesus was a Jew whose mission, if you like was to the Jeish people, things changed. The idea that Jesus did not mean to start a new religion with the new covenant, leaves it as an unintended acciddent. So, the greatest force for good in world history (A&E devotees will cringe) was an accidental byproduct? I'm spending no more time on this one. He specifically warns against failing to see the presence of Christ. It has never been celebrated as a simple and sentimental memorial from the earliest times. The apostles and their hand picked successors, the bishops would not permit that. The Church never did and still does not accept divorce. Annulment, where upon examination, it is deterinned that the pschological or free will, requirements necessary for a complete and full acceptance of the responsibility of a lifetime vow ---which cannot be broken---as the sacramnet involves God as well, annulment is a different thing. In a tribunal with a defender of the bond a determination is made as to the validity of the sacrament, which had been thought to meet all reasonable conditions for adult marriage. I am sure that many "divorced" protestants might well in fact satisfy conditions for annulment, but most of protestanitism, Henry VIII comes to mind, overwhelmingly also believe in and accept divorce, a very different thing, as ok. And there we do indeed differ. Actually, when I began to look into western civilizatiion, and to behold the fact that Christianity effectively IS western history, in looking for the actual church of Christ, I realized within minutes that it had to be either the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, or some obscure group nobody had ever heard of. It actually took me thousands of hours of self-chosen reading and study before I was able to give full intellectual assent to Roman Catholicism. It was and is the only organization that holds and teaches infallibility and is sacramentally directly to the actual apostles or chosen authoritive leadership of Christ's commissioned and new religion. They are the only ones who teach that when Jesus said that "Your are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church...and I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven..etc..that he meant "You are Peter and upon this...etc. That "This is My Body means this is my body That no divorce, means no divorce. That the autority Christ gave to Peter and the apostles is the authority Christ gave to Peter and the slightly different authority he gave to the apostles, and that when an aposoliic succession is bound on heaven and earth, then a newly authorized bishop is bound on heaven and earth. My problem with all Bible-based religions (not the Orthodox rites) is that they are not bible -based. That a nun. like any other free-willed crature, might sin, or a bishop, monk/priest (Luther) might also sin, does not in any way render the sacrament of Holy Orders invalid any more than a democtatic right to vote is invlalid if you vote for a creep for creepy reasons. The church will always fall short, although, throughout history it has overwhelmingly been the most stunningly enlightening and powerful force for good in all of world history and continues to be so. Nothing comes even remotely close, even in simple human terms and values, despite the feverish condemnations of a hedonistic culture that is busily collapsing, like Marxism, on its won principles of abuse and self destruction. Gotta go be a business star...
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on May 24, 2006 9:13:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 24, 2006 10:11:16 GMT -5
Hmm...... I see relegion from a completely different perspetive to you. While I may not believe in any religion, I do see the need for it. From an outsiders point of view, I see religion giving stability, comfort, moral direction for those who chose to believe in it. How can that be bad? To me, the message of Christ was to live with and love you fellow man. Maybe that is a childish view but it certainly beats the hell out of the image of the Crusades and the Inquisitions. Very well said, HA. There are now two faces of organized religion that have surfaced in this thread. First, is the extremist side of religion and now the more human side. From what I understand back in the 50's/60's, upwards of 70% of Canadian families relied on the teachings of the church to reinforce morals and values in their children. In recent years that number has dwindled considerably. I remember the press suggesting that one of the missions Benedict XVI is to take on, is to bring European Catholics back to the church. However, while church-goer numbers are down, there is a rise in the practice of fundamental Christianity internationally. I don't have the links but when I have more time, I'll track them down. Well, like I was saying in the thread already, people aren't just asking more questions these days ... they are. But, they're also asking the right questions as well. Access to information, whether they be theories, facts, what have you, is instantaneous thanks to the Internet. The problem is that anyone can contribute, so it behooves us to verifty sources. WRT leaders and their flocks, I honestly believe it's the leaders who often cause a lot of the issues their flocks ultimately have to deal with. George W. Bush will have his populous believe that he talks to God directly and receives answers. Wait a minute ... so does Bin Laden ... sorry ... Bin Muhammad Bin Laden. However, the point is leaders will sometimes use their rapport with God in order to substantiate their decisions, good or bad. That might be a tad harsh, granted, but go back to the Crusades when Godfrey ordered the slaughter of all Jews and Muslims when he took Jerusalem in 1099 (1098 perhaps?). All done in the name of Him. Again ... work calls. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 24, 2006 11:06:58 GMT -5
Yes. Read Misquoting Jesus : the story behind who changed the Bible and why by Bart D. Ehrman for one person's reasonings behind the choice of the four gospels and discounting of much of the gospels. Can't tell people to read a book you haven't read yourself, now, can you? ;D How was it? Hmmm . . . readable and honest. He tells his perspective/what he believes and why, then gives his evidence for believing. Mostly convincing if you follow his logic, though most people are (as in The Da Vinci Code!) otoh, if his premise is wrong (I believe it is) then he has built a house of cards (also as in The Da Vinci Code!) Brown says More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them …Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned…some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950's hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. In addition to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms. Of course, the Vatican, in keeping with their tradition of misinformation, tried very hard to suppress the release of these scrolls. And why wouldn't they? The scrolls highlighted glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda - to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base .To refute, when Brown refers to the earlier gospels; logically there can be no gospels written earlier than the ones that were written by the disciples of Jesus. Every serious scholar, sacred or secular, dates Matthew no later than 85. The Gospel of Luke is clearly written before the death of Paul and therefore, before 64 AD. Since all scholars understand that Matthew and Luke were both familiar with the Gospel of Mark, Mark had to be written closer to 60. Both Matthew and John were both members of the group of 12 apostles. Mark was Peter's interpreter. Luke was Paul's physician and companion. One must ask the reasonable question as to when would these earlier gospels have been written and who would have been more qualified to write them then this inner circle of witnesses? And although he lumps "The Dead Sea Scrolls" - which were actually discovered in 1947 by a Bedouin shepherd-boy, not in the 1950's as he indicates - in with "The Nag Hammadi Library", these were completely different in date, content, and place of origin. There are no gospels of any kind included in "The Dead Sea Scrolls", and they have nothing to do with Christianity - they were written100 years before Jesus' ministry began! I should add that although the Nag Hammadi Library does contain 5 gospels - a few short of Brown's eighty - they were certainly not earlier than the four gospels of Scripture. In fact the earliest - "The Gospel of Thomas" - was written c150; "The Gospel of Philip" no earlier than 250; "The Gospel of Mary" on which Brown relies so heavily, the 300's. They were written from 120 to 300 years after the facts, under fake names. Good journalism. Which again points to a fictional book that is raking in the dough because of controvery - unnecessary controversy at that. If the Christina church had ignored the book it would not have near the impact that it does.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 24, 2006 11:34:00 GMT -5
Good journalism. Which again points to a fictional book that is raking in the dough because of controvery - unnecessary controversy at that. If the Christina church had ignored the book it would not have near the impact that it does. Similar to the controversy caused by " A Million Little Pieces". James Frey was lionized by the media ( read Oprah) and his story hailed as a tale of redemption. Well, it turns out it isn't true, he made most of it up. He goes back on Oprah for a scolding and sheds a few tears. Has he suffered anything other than some momentary embarassment? When I looked at the paperback best seller list last week, his book was at or near the top of the list I work in a library and am astounded by the number of people that wait for this book to become available. Why would anyone want to read something by an admitted liar?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 24, 2006 11:55:40 GMT -5
You got to admit Franko , you knew this thread was going to sway to religion. But that is ok, talking about religion is healthy and it gives me a chance to know people and thereby allows me to respect them in a different light. Oh where to start. Since this thread has now taken on the air of "biblical quotes" and a debate with regard to if Jesus is the true path to God, I feel that I should give a little background about myself. (Don't worry I will give the Reader's Digest version) Newfoundland was one of the most religious provinces in Canada. I know that is a bold statement, but when Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 it was written into the Articles of confederation that the Church would control run the schools. After the Mount Cashel scandal there was a push to limit the powers of the church and finally in the early 90's the church run school system was abolished. Newfoundland schools were basically all private school up to that point. To go to a Catholic school you had to be Catholic, to go to a Pentacostal school you had to be pentacostal, to go to a Protestant school you had to be United, Anglican, Methodist, any other religion. You had to have a religion. And I am not far off the mark when I say the segregation breeded hatred. Catholics hated Protestants, and Protestants hated Catholics. We had our own little Ireland/England right here and sports often got real ugly. Myself, I am Anglican. Now it was an absolute must in our school system to study religion (I am not sure if the same holds true for all provinces), and I even went so far as to go to Bible school. Correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought one of the fundamental differences between Catholism and Protestanism is that Protestants go to the word of God (ie - the Bible) for instruction, and Catholics gain instruction from the teachings of their Church, the decrees of the pope, and through the Virgin Mary. (Isnt Catholism one of the few, if not the only religion where a prayer to the Virgin Mary is used as penence?). In other words, I thought that paramount in Catholism is that the pope (maybe cardinals and his council as well) is the only infallible interpreter of the Bible. I went to church on a regular basis until I got confirmed, and then it got less and less frequent. The more I thought about it the more ambiguous the Bible was to me. You can use a passage in the Bible to reason almost anything. But the one passage that I feel is the basis for my train of thought is John 14:6: No one comes to the Father except through me. I am not a believer the it is not my place to interpret the Bible. This passage may very well mean to someone else that you have to believe in Jesus to discover God. But not to me. To me it is more of a rethorical thought. Look inside yourself and you will discover God. In other words, change your life where it needs changing, examining yourself before lecturing other .... He who throws stones, should not live in glass houses.. How can one know truly what Jesus meant.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 24, 2006 12:17:19 GMT -5
This entire thread is an education, guys. Thanks.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 24, 2006 18:00:07 GMT -5
You got to admit Franko , you knew this thread was going to sway to religion. Actually, Skilly, I didn't! I figured we'd talk about the book and perhaps the themes behind it. I definitely didn't think it would morph back into the religion thread. OK, so shall I. Raised as a nominal Anglican, sent to a United Sunday School when I was in primary school until we moved, attended a United Church on Boy Scout Sundays until I was 12 when my dad died, attended the chapel at the base for a couple of months while the chaplain gave my mother spiritual comfort (enough to get her through, when she quit attending again), sent to a Catholic boarding school for high school after my mother remarried and the guy and I . . . well, let's say we didn't get along . . . and actually thought about the priesthood (didn't like the idea of celibacy so there went that!), became friends with some Protestants who invited me to a youth activity with them, and here I am, a participating member of my local church (you gave the RD version; I didn't). I am a Protestant (actually that isn't quite true -- I am a member of a church which came out of the Anglican movement, which makes me not a Protestant -- technically, Anglicans are not Protestants -- Lutherans and Calvinists are -- but let's not get bogged down). I am a conservative Protestant (not a fundi [fundamentalist], though). An evangelical (one of those born-againers). A holiness man at that (Catholic morals hold nothing to us. We are with them in the pro-life [inconsistent imo: some in our camp are against abortion but are pro-death penalty. Doesn't work for me] and pro-marriage.We don't drink, smoke, dance, or chew, or go with girls that do). A Bible-thumper/Jesus freak, if you will, but not a Charismatic/Pentecostal tongues speaker/snake handler. And open to discussion with others -- ready to be challenged for my beliefs and even to change my mind if need be. Right. Sola Scriptura, says Luther; not Catholics. For Catholics, the Virgin Mary is almost equal to Jesus. Not so Protestants, who see her as a nice woman, the handmaiden of God, but certainly not someone to be prayed to (that didn't become an official doctrine of the Catholic Church until the 1800s). Listen to me -- I'll steer you right! ;D I'll pass on the sermonette. The Bible can and has been used to justify much good and much evil. It is, in our church's tradition, filled with all you need to know to find God. And I'll leave it at that for now.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 24, 2006 19:47:58 GMT -5
You guys...(in the tone of De Niro in "analyze this". You guys.
The plain and simple truth is that there is ablsolutely nothing more interesting than the question, why are we here. Dogmatic materialists of scientism (I say this because there is no ground for this view, and it is therefore just an arbitrary dogma.) Anyhoo. They say that we are here, because our molecules insist that we be here...for no reason, in an unintelligible accident in time/space.
Other people, well almost everyone on the planet. think or believe that there is, must be an intelligent organizing being, or God of some description. Most, (who have never studied philosophy) believe it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.
I believe that the existence of God can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. (The cosmological arguments of Saint Thomas Aquinas based upon the schema of reality of Aritotle, form which we get words like "information", end or final cause,, matter, potential. act, substance, and most of our ideas about reasoning.
The idea of the immortality of the human soul, a bedrock argument of western civilization, is based upon the nature of the spiritual attributes of God, those gifts by which we are said to be made in the image and likeness of God. These spiritual faculties, or faculties whose action cannot be reduced to mere physical or biological activity are acts of the free will, and acts of the intellect. The phrase abstract reasoning is based upon this idea that the intlellect abstracts, or takes from the content of the imagination, or imaging power.
The human will, if free, cannot therefore be physical,or it would not be free, but determined by bio-physial laws that own us. The idea of a "person" is based upon these fundamental Christian philosophical concepts. Can spiritual gifts, the will, and intellect decay, or die if not physical? Are they then eternal? Can this mean that normal human longings not to lose loved ones to death are natural and indicative of the true nature of existence. Is that why moral choices are said to have eternal consequences? Is that why it is held that sex acts have an eternal dimension?
Dogmatic materialists in neuropsychology have never even come close to explaining the human consciousness and the "self" in reductionist terms.
These are the fun things. Most everything else is diversion.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 24, 2006 19:50:10 GMT -5
A Bible-thumper/Jesus freak, if you will, but not a Charismatic/Pentecostal tongues speaker/snake handler. I have a few Pentacostal friends. I attended one of their services and I got to see testamonials and "people moved by the hand of God". I have always been of the opinion that you can not comment on religion without experiencing it, all of it. That is why I will not force my views upon my children. I want them to go to church and form their own opinions about it, and hopefully they are not as cynical as me. I try to particpate in the church when asked and 2 years ago I was Joseph, my wife was Mary, and my daughter was the first live Baby Jesus used in the Christmas sermon on Christmas eve at my church. So I am not completely hedon. I'll try to stick to topic now .....
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 24, 2006 19:57:28 GMT -5
Good journalism. Which again points to a fictional book that is raking in the dough because of controvery - unnecessary controversy at that. If the Christina church had ignored the book it would not have near the impact that it does. Similar to the controversy caused by " A Million Little Pieces". James Frey was lionized by the media ( read Oprah) and his story hailed as a tale of redemption. Well, it turns out it isn't true, he made most of it up. He goes back on Oprah for a scolding and sheds a few tears. Has he suffered anything other than some momentary embarassment? When I looked at the paperback best seller list last week, his book was at or near the top of the list I work in a library and am astounded by the number of people that wait for this book to become available. Why would anyone want to read something by an admitted liar? I really think a lot of people didn't know of his duplicity and dishonesty. He's just a greedy ignorant (and he is really not at all well informed on anything he writes about - but alas, his audience knows even less) lying, slandering defrauder who duped a nation. he's the literary double of Bush and his war. I really am stunned that even after the publishing of the "Da Vinci Hoax" an endless catalogue of his garbage and deceptions, that so many people really don't get it at all. Beats the ship out of me.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 24, 2006 21:05:09 GMT -5
You got to admit Franko , you knew this thread was going to sway to religion. Actually, Skilly, I didn't! I figured we'd talk about the book and perhaps the themes behind it. I definitely didn't think it would morph back into the religion thread. OK, so shall I. Raised as a nominal Anglican, sent to a United Sunday School when I was in primary school until we moved, attended a United Church on Boy Scout Sundays until I was 12 when my dad died, attended the chapel at the base for a couple of months while the chaplain gave my mother spiritual comfort (enough to get her through, when she quit attending again), sent to a Catholic boarding school for high school after my mother remarried and the guy and I . . . well, let's say we didn't get along . . . and actually thought about the priesthood (didn't like the idea of celibacy so there went that!), became friends with some Protestants who invited me to a youth activity with them, and here I am, a participating member of my local church (you gave the RD version; I didn't). I am a Protestant (actually that isn't quite true -- I am a member of a church which came out of the Anglican movement, which makes me not a Protestant -- technically, Anglicans are not Protestants -- Lutherans and Calvinists are -- but let's not get bogged down). I am a conservative Protestant (not a fundi [fundamentalist], though). An evangelical (one of those born-againers). A holiness man at that (Catholic morals hold nothing to us. We are with them in the pro-life [inconsistent imo: some in our camp are against abortion but are pro-death penalty. Doesn't work for me] and pro-marriage.We don't drink, smoke, dance, or chew, or go with girls that do). A Bible-thumper/Jesus freak, if you will, but not a Charismatic/Pentecostal tongues speaker/snake handler. And open to discussion with others -- ready to be challenged for my beliefs and even to change my mind if need be. Right. Sola Scriptura, says Luther; not Catholics. For Catholics, the Virgin Mary is almost equal to Jesus. Not so Protestants, who see her as a nice woman, the handmaiden of God, but certainly not someone to be prayed to (that didn't become an official doctrine of the Catholic Church until the 1800s). Listen to me -- I'll steer you right! ;D I'll pass on the sermonette. The Bible can and has been used to justify much good and much evil. It is, in our church's tradition, filled with all you need to know to find God. And I'll leave it at that for now. We are talking about religion because the book claims that Christ was a fraud, and the people he lived with and taught before and after the resurrection were couldn't tell a crucifixion from a wedding, assuming the little Jeeslings in France weren't bastards. He has defamed real people, and a real church, mine and said the predominant religion and organizing principle that made western civilization and is responsible for its ascendancy. As to the Catholic Church, Saint Peter was given the command and the authority teach and bind on earth and in heaven (That's why marriage is indisolvable if properly entered into, and why CHrist is actually present at the Eucharst, and why if a Catholic priest forgives you by the power given to the church through the bishops who are in direct descent form Saint Peter and Saint Paul , and all of the apostles (That's why the Catholic church is Apostolic), then your sins are forgiven, presuming a proper dispositon on your part. I can tell you that at one time just after confession, I had the most amazing experience, completely out of the blue..but mostly I just hate to go, hate to do it, and always feel a lot better when I manage to ovecome my stupid reluctance and bullship ego. The authority of the church is the authority of God, in the flesh and bones of men and women. Christ promised infallible guidance to the church which is another reason I did not consider Protestant churches much. If as they claim, the church was led into serious error in her teachings and sacrarments, (I am not taliking about sinful behavioiur which all men do Christian, pope, or Hab, even serious sin --that does not nullify the authority God gives which is His and eternal) ...so as I was saying, if Henry VIII and Luther, who was no saint, and as far as I am concerned had some very significant psychological problems....if they were right and the church had been led into fundamental error, then Christ DID NOT safeguard His church and the gates of hell DID PREVAIL against her. That would mean if true that Jesus was not faithful to his promises to his people and therfore was not divine; not God. However, the church was not led onto fundamental error in matters of faith and morals and sacraments, and Christ is Divine. The first pope, Peter, as is attested by the surviving writings of the early days of the churc...the gospels...and I mean the REAL gospels or good news as it means, are about the most histoically sound documents in all of antiquity, and they are very, very consistent; he the pope was the acknwledged as having specific authority over the whole church Saint Peter went to Rome and is in fact very likely buried in a vault directly under the main altar of the Cathedral. The word cathedral, incidentally means the seat of authority, vested in the Bishops. They have the God given authority directly from Christ to tell us the truth backed by the promises of Christ. A priest only ecercises the authority of his bishop and has no independent authority. Catholic bishops, because they were,and are, the exact, full and particuar body of Christ with him at the head, have the sole authority to teach and instruct For instance, on divorce, marriage, and many other things that are part of the ordinary magisterium of the church, if I have adequately expressed the true sense and meaning of a defined doctrine or authoritive dogma (on the authority of Christ), then you have just heard the infallible word of God, in accord with the command, authority and promise of Chirst to be with her into eternity. Catholic practice with Mary, who is the Mother of God (self-evidently if Christ was divine) is not simplistic.Many protestants errantly believe Catholic teachng considers Mary to be on a more or less equal footing with Christ. That is not so and never was, though as in all things, excess can occur. I am happy to have the Queen of the Apostles and Star of the Sea in my corner. On the cross, as I recall, Jesus told the disciple John to behold his mother. The church is the body of Christ, so naturally she is our mother. The conversion of South America occurred due to the image of a young Mary (Our Lady of Guadeloupe) that is said to have miraculously appeared on the apron of a poor peasant and which is still on display in Guadalupe Mexico. And too, Lourdes and Our Lady of Lourdes is a world famous shrine and place of healing, most just get strength to bear their infimities and some arrive on crutches and leave on their feet. About a hundred miracles have been medically studied in detail, and last I heard have no natural explanation. Fatima is another famous place in Portugal, with its famous secrets messages from Mary. Jesus honored his father and his mother he was true God and true man. His church, if it is indeed his body, will of course honour his mother. It's a commandment Christ told us to pray for one another. Mary is one of the one another. She is part of the communion of saints, and Catholic prayer to her is for her to interceed with her son in exactly the same way that Christ encouraged us to pray for one another. Mary was created, like us. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception incidentally refers to the conception of Mary, not Jesus. In short, and to put it very baldly, if you want to know about God on the authority of Christ you will discover all you can discover in the doctrines of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 24, 2006 21:08:10 GMT -5
A Bible-thumper/Jesus freak, if you will, but not a Charismatic/Pentecostal tongues speaker/snake handler. I have a few Pentacostal friends. I attended one of their services and I got to see testamonials and "people moved by the hand of God". I have always been of the opinion that you can not comment on religion without experiencing it, all of it. That is why I will not force my views upon my children. I want them to go to church and form their own opinions about it, and hopefully they are not as cynical as me. I try to particpate in the church when asked and 2 years ago I was Joseph, my wife was Mary, and my daughter was the first live Baby Jesus used in the Christmas sermon on Christmas eve at my church. So I am not completely hedon. I'll try to stick to topic now ..... The SECOND COMING WAS S-K-I-L-L-Y111!!!?? Hell no I won't go! Jesus did say to suffer the little children to come to him. I don't think he'll hurt'em. People who are raised without religion are taught to live without religion and raise their kids without spiritual resources too. Our society is no accident.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 24, 2006 21:30:46 GMT -5
although tangental..we have discussed or referenced Marriage directly and indirectly
While looking up some other stuff on a Catholic site, I found this segment on heterosexual marriage, and how surprisingly good it is in its effects on men and other claims notwithstanding, much better for women too.
HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE
What kind of impact does heterosexual marriage have on society?
Recently, Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher reviewed the published literature on marriage and presented their findings in a book entitled The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.5 The evidence is clear. Married people are better off than single or divorced people. The better the marriage, the stronger the "marriage effect" on physical and mental health, longevity, and prosperity. Let's look at this in detail.
Thirty years ago, Harold Morowitz of Yale observed that divorce is as hazardous to a man's health as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.6 The same is true for women. Unmarried women are 50 percent more likely to die in any given year than are married women; unmarried men are five times more likely to die in any given year than married men at any age.7 Being unmarried shortens a man's life by ten full years.8 Marriage is a major public health issue, because its absence shortens people's lives.
Unmarried people are sick more often, stay longer in the hospital than married people with similar problems, and are two and a half times more likely to end up in a nursing home.9 Unmarried people are even several times more likely to get the common cold than are married people.10 That probably happens because unhappiness weakens the immune system.11
Scientists have shown that these health advantages are not merely accidental. Studies consistently show that marriage itself improves people's health.12 Sick people who married got healthier. Healthy people who married got healthier still. Marriage itself made the difference, and the happier the marriage, the greater the health advantage. The health benefits of marriage have been observed around the world.13
If marriage has such benefits, why not let same-sex couples share them?
Heterosexual marriage has these benefits, and it is what the scientific studies have looked at. There is no data showing similar benefits for same-sex couples. We don't know whether same-sex couples would enjoy any of these benefits, and there are reasons to think they would not. This is a subject we will deal with more in Part IV of this special report. For now we are looking at the benefits and public impact of heterosexual marriage.
What is it about marriage that makes people healthier?
Psychologists have discovered several factors: On the trivial end, single men do stupid things. They drink too much, take drugs, get into fights, drive when drunk, and take unnecessary risks. And when they marry, they do fewer stupid things. Women benefit less from this effect of marriage, because single women do fewer stupid things than single men do.14
Another minor factor improving the health of married people is having a spouse who monitors their health. This benefits men more than women,15 since men tend to be more careless of their health than women are, but the biggest reason for the health advantage of marriage-a reason that benefits both men and women-is the emotional satisfaction of a happy and fulfilling marriage. Studies consistently show that as marital happiness increases, so do objective measurements of health and longevity for both husbands and wives. Stress levels, blood pressure, cholesterol, immune function-many objective measures of physical health improve as marriage improves.16
These advantages work to the benefit of both men and women. There were studies in the 1970s that suggested that marriage benefits men but hurts women, but those studies have long since been repudiated, even though some marriage and family textbooks still quote them. Badly executed studies die hard, it would seem, when they serve an anti-family agenda. But all the modern evidence shows that marriage greatly benefits the health and longevity of both men and women.17
Are these the only factors by which marriage produces greater health?
No. Psychologists tell us that much of the health and longevity benefit of marriage comes because married people have a greater sense of life purpose. Married people are happier, more optimistic, and more energetic than singles, and they are less likely to become depressed.18 Proponents of same-sex marriage have sought to debunk these statistics as self-fulfilling prophecies, reflecting that happy people are more likely to get married than unhappy people. But careful studies have found that marriage, in itself, improves mental health just as it improves physical health.19 It isn't just avoiding "stupid bachelor behavior" or making more trips to the doctor that is at work here. Marriage itself makes people healthier and happier and therefore allows them to live longer.
Married people have sex considerably more often than single people do, and they enjoy it more. Studies consistently show that both married men and married women enjoy sex much more than single people do-especially single women, who, in most studies, don't seem to be having much fun.20 But it isn't just women having better sex: Studies show that men find sex in a committed relationship far more satisfying than casual sex. Despite all the myths and television shows, men value commitment nearly as much as women do. Researchers also have observed that sexual infidelity hampers sexual satisfaction and general happiness in both sexes.21 Fidelity makes you happier and improves your marriage, and, as we have seen, people in happier marriages live longer.
Heterosexual couples who cohabitate-who live together without marriage-do not enjoy most of these benefits of marriage.22 Their lack of commitment to one another and their preference for autonomy and separateness deprives them of most of the emotional and sexual benefits of marriage and most of its health and longevity advantages. Marriage matters.
What other benefits does marriage have?
Marriage, unlike cohabitation, also makes people richer.23 After men marry, they work more productively and make more money than they did when they were single.24 Women also become more productive workers when they marry and earn more money than they did when they were single,25 although they do leave the workforce from time to time to bear and raise children. Marriage overall has a positive financial impact on both sexes.26
Married couples tend to specialize, dividing household tasks according to the talents and interests of each spouse. Specialization makes them more efficient, so they have more time for each other, for parenting, or for other activities.27 Further, since two can live almost as cheaply as one, household overhead decreases with marriage, and savings increase.28
Many people fail at marriage. What does it take to be successful?
Social science, philosophy, and common sense have discerned a number of requirements for successful marriage. People have needs that must be satisfied if they are to be happy. These needs are not just a matter of taste; they are built into our nature. They are universal and change little from one person or culture to the next.
One universal feature of human existence is the need for relationship. The expression of this need may vary from culture to culture and between men and women, but the need seems universal. Man is a social creature. We were created to be in deep and loving unity with other persons. Our need for unity is intense, and it is not easily satisfied. It insists on a profound relationship and will not settle for less. But relationships come in different intensities, different degrees of significance, and different depths of satisfaction. Belonging to a club is nice, but it's not deeply satisfying. Having friends is important, and being part of a community helps our sense of well-being, but none of these types of relationships are intense enough to satisfy the deepest needs of our souls.
We can get there only through profound loving union with one other person-and only one other person. The deepest relationship can involve only two people. It cannot be the work of a committee. Not everyone is called to marriage, but everyone has the desire for deep relationship. And the deepest relationship can be between only two persons. If two persons wish to merge their individual "I's" into a shared "we," they must exclude all others. Introduce a third person into their union and you sow competition and jealousy, and you reap disunity. You destroy the union. Only two can tango. Three step on each others' toes.
To obtain maximum satisfaction, one must build an exclusive relationship with one other person that excludes all others. There is no other way to do it. Affection spread among many people may give short-term pleasure, but such relationships necessarily will be superficial and not satisfying in the long run. And as we have seen, superficial relationships are less fulfilling than committed ones. This is why marriage must be exclusive, that is, with just one other person. There is nothing arbitrary about this need for exclusivity: Our nature as human persons requires it.
After couples are married, they continue to deepen their union. That takes a while. The mature union achieved by people who have been married for years does not happen overnight. It develops between them as each is free to reveal his or her true self and to find that true self accepted and loved. It requires a lot of confidence to risk self-revelation. There's always the fear that your loved one may stop loving you. That's why so many people put up "a good front" to impress a person of the opposite sex.
One of the first shocks in marriage is to discover that your spouse is not quite the person you had imagined. A wife finds that Prince Charming doesn't really wear shining armor around the house nor ride a white charger; worse yet, he's got some amazing and disgusting habits. A husband finds that Cinderella's foot doesn't quite fit the glass slipper, and, worse yet, she's got a terrible temper. So there are reasons people hide behind a mask. But to grow closer as a couple they have to be willing to risk self-revelation. That takes a lot of confidence in the relationship.
There is a price to that level of confidence: Each partner has to be sure that the other is totally committed. Commitment has two features: intensity and permanence. A halfhearted commitment will not do. Neither will a temporary one. Unless each spouse is confident that the other is committed unconditionally and for life, neither will trust enough to risk self-revelation. But without that, a couple will never achieve mature marital unity.
To be successful, marriage needs to be exclusive, unconditional, and permanent. Without these qualities, it will not thrive. We have not chosen those three features arbitrarily. People know that love must be exclusive, unconditional, and permanent in order to trust enough. Psychologists never tire of telling us that marriages die for lack of exclusiveness, unconditional mutual acceptance, or commitment to permanence. Couples who fail to develop these features often fail at marriage.
There is also a fourth quality needed for long-term success. It also is dictated by the nature of the human person. That feature is sexual complementarity. For the deepest unity, you need one man and one woman.
What is the evidence that sexual complementarity is necessary?
There is both positive and negative evidence. We will consider the positive evidence here and discuss the negative evidence in Part IV. On the positive front, explanations for the need for sexual complementarity vary, but experience from every world culture shows it to be true. The Russian existentialist philosopher Nicholas Berdyaev tried to explain the need for sexual complementarity by saying that loneliness is part of the human condition and that loneliness occurs because, deep down, we all realize that neither a man by himself nor a woman by herself is biologically completely human. Each lacks the perfections and capabilities of the opposite sex, and in that sense each is incomplete-and lonely-without the other.29
Men and women are different and in many ways complementary. The differences between man and woman are obvious to all but the most ideologically blinded deconstructionists. Men and women have been found by psychologists in every culture to differ in aggression and general activity level, types of cognitive strength, sensory sensitivity, and sexual behavior.
These differences matter both spiritually and physically, for without the complementarity between a man and a woman on all these levels, the deepest forms of union are not possible. The unity possible to two men or two women will be necessarily lopsided, both spiritually and anatomically, and therefore ultimately unsatisfying. Two men together cannot capture the fullness of human personhood, and neither can two women; for that, you need one man and one woman. However exclusive, unconditional and permanent same-sex relationships may aspire to be, they lack the complementarity that the deepest fulfillment requires. This fact may explain some of the amazing sexual behavior in the homosexual subculture.
Sexual complementarity between man and woman makes possible another feature of marriage: the giving of life. The love between man and woman is designed to call new human life into existence and in so doing make the shared life of the couple more abundantly fulfilling. It does not always produce new life, but that is what it is designed to do. So marriage, to succeed, must be exclusive, permanent, unconditional, and open to new life.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 25, 2006 0:07:24 GMT -5
..... to know people and thereby allows me to respect them in a different light. Ligth? Does your monitor turn redish when you read my posts? Perhaps dim and flicker? If not then I need to re-tune my horns...... Oh where to start. Since this thread has now taken on the air of "biblical quotes" and a debate with regard to if Jesus is the true path to God, I feel that I should give a little background about myself. (Don't worry I will give the Reader's Digest version) Newfoundland was one of the most religious provinces in Canada. I know that is a bold statement, but when Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 it was written into the Articles of confederation that the Church would control run the schools. After the Mount Cashel scandal there was a push to limit the powers of the church and finally in the early 90's the church run school system was abolished. Newfoundland schools were basically all private school up to that point. To go to a Catholic school you had to be Catholic, to go to a Pentacostal school you had to be pentacostal, to go to a Protestant school you had to be United, Anglican, Methodist, any other religion. You had to have a religion. And I am not far off the mark when I say the segregation breeded hatred. Catholics hated Protestants, and Protestants hated Catholics. We had our own little Ireland/England right here and sports often got real ugly. Myself, I am Anglican. Now it was an absolute must in our school system to study religion (I am not sure if the same holds true for all provinces), and I even went so far as to go to Bible school. Correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought one of the fundamental differences between Catholism and Protestanism is that Protestants go to the word of God (ie - the Bible) for instruction, and Catholics gain instruction from the teachings of their Church, the decrees of the pope, and through the Virgin Mary. (Isnt Catholism one of the few, if not the only religion where a prayer to the Virgin Mary is used as penence?). In other words, I thought that paramount in Catholism is that the pope (maybe cardinals and his council as well) is the only infallible interpreter of the Bible. I went to church on a regular basis until I got confirmed, and then it got less and less frequent. The more I thought about it the more ambiguous the Bible was to me. You can use a passage in the Bible to reason almost anything. But the one passage that I feel is the basis for my train of thought is John 14:6: No one comes to the Father except through me. I am not a believer the it is not my place to interpret the Bible. This passage may very well mean to someone else that you have to believe in Jesus to discover God. But not to me. To me it is more of a rethorical thought. Look inside yourself and you will discover God. In other words, change your life where it needs changing, examining yourself before lecturing other .... He who throws stones, should not live in glass houses.. How can one know truly what Jesus meant. I had a different experience with religion. When I approached an age where I started to question everything, religion looked nothing more then dogmatic institution whose soul, err sole intent was to perpetuate itself. For me, walking into a church became a study of behavioral manipulation. The incense, lighting, design of the robes, ceilings, regimented sitting and standing, rituals, icons, etc, EVERYTHING was designed by man to control man. of course it didn't help when my local priest had nothing but textbook answers for every question. Worse still, I was scorned and ridiculed that I had so little faith that I DARED question "my religion". That's when they lost me terminally. What a Godless thirteen year old thug I must have been. From then on it became a war of wills and to be honest, I took pleasure in turning the priests faith on him. You are preaching that God made man in the image of himself? Then is God a criminal and murderer because man is that. When he walked behind me, I swear that he was looking for the 666........ That is why I don't believe that Christians should be complaining to loudly about the tempest this book/movie has caused. It promotes discussion and interest. All those older people I saw in the theater where not going in there just to see a movie, some of them where going there looking for answers. If you shut people off from discussion and only feed them dogma, eventually, they will let their religion wilt away. After all, if they WANT to discuss it then they are trying to understand their faith and come to terms with their morals and mortality.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on May 25, 2006 0:32:53 GMT -5
..... to know people and thereby allows me to respect them in a different light. Ligth? Does your monitor turn redish when you read my posts? Perhaps dim and flicker? If not then I need to re-tune my horns...... Oh where to start. Since this thread has now taken on the air of "biblical quotes" and a debate with regard to if Jesus is the true path to God, I feel that I should give a little background about myself. (Don't worry I will give the Reader's Digest version) Newfoundland was one of the most religious provinces in Canada. I know that is a bold statement, but when Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 it was written into the Articles of confederation that the Church would control run the schools. After the Mount Cashel scandal there was a push to limit the powers of the church and finally in the early 90's the church run school system was abolished. Newfoundland schools were basically all private school up to that point. To go to a Catholic school you had to be Catholic, to go to a Pentacostal school you had to be pentacostal, to go to a Protestant school you had to be United, Anglican, Methodist, any other religion. You had to have a religion. And I am not far off the mark when I say the segregation breeded hatred. Catholics hated Protestants, and Protestants hated Catholics. We had our own little Ireland/England right here and sports often got real ugly. Myself, I am Anglican. Now it was an absolute must in our school system to study religion (I am not sure if the same holds true for all provinces), and I even went so far as to go to Bible school. Correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought one of the fundamental differences between Catholism and Protestanism is that Protestants go to the word of God (ie - the Bible) for instruction, and Catholics gain instruction from the teachings of their Church, the decrees of the pope, and through the Virgin Mary. (Isnt Catholism one of the few, if not the only religion where a prayer to the Virgin Mary is used as penence?). In other words, I thought that paramount in Catholism is that the pope (maybe cardinals and his council as well) is the only infallible interpreter of the Bible. I went to church on a regular basis until I got confirmed, and then it got less and less frequent. The more I thought about it the more ambiguous the Bible was to me. You can use a passage in the Bible to reason almost anything. But the one passage that I feel is the basis for my train of thought is John 14:6: No one comes to the Father except through me. I am not a believer the it is not my place to interpret the Bible. This passage may very well mean to someone else that you have to believe in Jesus to discover God. But not to me. To me it is more of a rethorical thought. Look inside yourself and you will discover God. In other words, change your life where it needs changing, examining yourself before lecturing other .... He who throws stones, should not live in glass houses.. How can one know truly what Jesus meant. I had a different experience with religion. When I approached an age where I started to question everything, religion looked nothing more then dogmatic institution whose soul, err sole intent was to perpetuate itself. For me, walking into a church became a study of behavioral manipulation. The incense, lighting, design of the robes, ceilings, regimented sitting and standing, rituals, icons, etc, EVERYTHING was designed by man to control man. of course it didn't help when my local priest had nothing but textbook answers for every question. Worse still, I was scorned and ridiculed that I had so little faith that I DARED question "my religion". That's when they lost me terminally. What a Godless thirteen year old thug I must have been. From then on it became a war of wills and to be honest, I took pleasure in turning the priests faith on him. You are preaching that God made man in the image of himself? Then is God a criminal and murderer because man is that. When he walked behind me, I swear that he was looking for the 666........ That is why I don't believe that Christians should be complaining to loudly about the tempest this book/movie has caused. It promotes discussion and interest. All those older people I saw in the theater where not going in there just to see a movie, some of them where going there looking for answers. If you shut people off from discussion and only feed them dogma, eventually, they will let their religion wilt away. After all, if they WANT to discuss it then they are trying to understand their faith and come to terms with their morals and mortality. I think the stats are that almost everybody, most guys I know for sure find the chrch thing stultifying and arbitrary. I sure did. In my later teens, the church never entered my thoughts. It was quiite a few years later and as part of general research, that I kinda stumbled onto a big fat white bible, Catholic Edition no less, and began to read it simply as a study of civilization. As I'm sure Franko would attest, ....there's something there. I can remember wolking into confession for the first time in about ten years, and I could quickly state that I had committed every sin on record, and many, often. I said at one time, as this was very early in what was in fact a sort of conversion (I used to be even more of an a$$hole!) I said to this poor old gentle priest, "Before I hand my soul over to the Catholic church, I want to make damned sure we're talking about the same GOD." He gave me absolution and said in a most disarming humility. "Pray fo me my son." The effect of that sacramament was staggering, and completely surprised me. I believe I felt a little of the love of God and it was warm. On your point about being concerned, the Vinki Wonk is no challenge to the church...it's a cultural illness, but it will hurt quite a few people who don't have much in the way of defense from this false assault on their inner lives. It will be an unseen suffering. The church is just fine, and always will be, but I want the fraud revealed as he is and history what it is, warts and the rise of western civilisaton and all.
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on May 25, 2006 5:55:30 GMT -5
Well since people are giving a religious background of themselves, I might as well give my 2 cents:
I was raised Presbyterian, went to church every Sunday, Sunday School, Explorers, Bible Camp and even read Scripture on Sundays at the request of our Minister as a Teenager. So to say I was brought up religiously is a bit of an understatement.
However, as I got older and more educated in school learning about how the Earth was created and mans evolution etc, etc. I started to lean towards the fact the my religion was more and more a Fairy tale than Fact.
Then once Sunday I was sitting in Church looking around at the signs and pictures with sayings such as "Follow me", "Pray to me", "Learn from me" etc... that I realized that religion kind of resemble a form of a Cult. People blindly following a leader, in my case God, following his orders (10 commandants), paying him with the Church collection etc...
Anyway you get my point, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it wasn't for me. I felt that I was living in a dream world pretending that there was something out there that really wasn't.
Now don't get me wrong, I still go to the odd Church service (my better half is Catholic) but I go for a different reason, more for the good it preaches, Love mankind and what not.
If I had children I would most definitely send them to Church, not really to learn about God, but to learn Morals and how to treat your fellow man.
To me the Bible is a wonderful story that should be shared as a piece of Fiction and not fact.
|
|