Printable View
Yeah.... I doubt very many would have any issue with them if they were all living low. I mean, haters gonna hate, right. But the animosity towards the church is well earned. You can't just say "well we have changed" and expect everyone to be ok with it.
Liquidate, donate and start keeping it real. If they actually did that, I wouldn't mind them at all.
I'm talking about Catholicism, BTW. Don't get me started on some of the others.
The old Roman religion was very political. Pontifex Maximus was a very influential position. Augers made tons of cash. Rituals were perverted for gain on the regular. It shouldn't be any surprise that they went from one corrupt state religion to another. Witness the product of corruption. Oh look at that, more corruption. What do you know. Fancy that!Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin
I hear people say things like "well they don't have the power they once had" as if they just gave that up and deserve to be treated as such. To me that's like saying you should forgive a fallen dictator simply because he has been removed. I'm sure even the worst dictators have done some good things for some people.
The NT was written by these people. So why is it righteous when it's authors are not?
The RCC ( not all Catholic's are under the Vatican by the way) has tried to change over the years and, as with all things, had a varying degree of success and the funny thing is that when it goes more "moderate" is when it gets criticized the most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn7
That said, the RCC is in serious need of a Vatican 3 council.
The RCC is base don the hierarchy it "inherited" from Judaism- a council with a head priest ( The Sanhedrin), including the ceremonial garbs and what not ( the RCC version of them of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn7
It is important to understand that, before the 5th century, the church had no power and even in the late 4th it was still not as influential as some would like to claim it was.
The first 3 centuries the church was a combination of congregations with very little central anything other than the inter-correspondence between the churches.
There was no central power to enforce anything, they were to busy trying to survive.
When it became the official religion of an Empire ( THE Empire) it was forced ( though I don't' think it was that reluctant) to became an organization.
The leaders screwed up and forgot that they were NOT of this world, of course I don't think Constantine gave them much of a choice and after the issues that happened under his son, lets just say they were well motivated to NOT lose influence again.
You are right. Many find it insulting that they feel they can change and just move on. They are definitely under attack. An ironic state for them, I'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin
It mos def is a hot topic for many. I find it all interesting on an social level. For me, I don't think about it much anymore. If I had to choose a label, I am a theological noncognitivist. I don't like atheism. It seems kind of dumb to label yourself as something you are not. I mean, who walks around and says I'm an amoron or apedophile.
I am a Catholic in the truest since of the word (Universalist) but there are many things in the RCC Catechism that I agree and I tend to "relate" better with RC and Anglicans than I do with Lutherans and most definitely Calvinists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn7
All christian owe the RCC and Orthodox churches a great debt for preserving the faith against all the adversity BUT that doesn't excuse the RCC for what it did, is doing, right now that needs to be reformed.
You'd like to think so, but you'd be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin
There are entire cults of Christians dedicated to worshiping idols of Mary for instance. They physically and actually pray to these statues, especially in the Spanish versions of Roman Catholicism where you see the paganism stirred in heavily particularly in central and south America where they are liberal with the mix of animism with Christianity.
Christians regularly worship various humans who have been turned into holy beings by calling them saints and what not. Open a paper and you can read prayers to some woman or man who has been dead cor centuries. This is idol worship as there is no one who gets prayers but you know who.
So, I have to disagree with that statement that "no christian worships idols" because the fact of the matter is that plenty of people who self identify and are externally identified in their community as Christian Do this and do it with vigour.
In your outline, the clergy has proven to be naught but failure in the big scheme of things.
trouble is, I know for a fact that some really good people with terrific hearts and minds get attached to Christianity through one of it's inlets.
I personally appreciate the message of the new testament but I will have absolutely no part of any church, religion or calling myself a part of that.
I don't want to associate with the failings of others on the level of the unknown spiritual. I have enough of my own. :)
You are correct, I should have said "No Christian SHOULD worship an idol".Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jamieson
Praying to a saint for some sort of "mediation" is also very incorrect IMO .
Mary, in theory how she is suppose to be venerated:
971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517
Holy Images:
* Holy images
1159 The sacred image, the liturgical icon, principally represents Christ. It cannot represent the invisible and incomprehensible God, but the incarnation of the Son of God has ushered in a new "economy" of images:
Previously God, who has neither a body nor a face, absolutely could not be represented by an image. But now that he has made himself visible in the flesh and has lived with men, I can make an image of what I have seen of God . . . and contemplate the glory of the Lord, his face unveiled.27
1160 Christian iconography expresses in images the same Gospel message that Scripture communicates by words. Image and word illuminate each other:
We declare that we preserve intact all the written and unwritten traditions of the Church which have been entrusted to us. One of these traditions consists in the production of representational artwork, which accords with the history of the preaching of the Gospel. For it confirms that the incarnation of the Word of God was real and not imaginary, and to our benefit as well, for realities that illustrate each other undoubtedly reflect each other's meaning.28
1161 All the signs in the liturgical celebrations are related to Christ: as are sacred images of the holy Mother of God and of the saints as well. They truly signify Christ, who is glorified in them. They make manifest the "cloud of witnesses"29 who continue to participate in the salvation of the world and to whom we are united, above all in sacramental celebrations. Through their icons, it is man "in the image of God," finally transfigured "into his likeness,"30 who is revealed to our faith. So too are the angels, who also are recapitulated in Christ:
Following the divinely inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her) we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, venerable and holy images of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on streets.31
1162 "The beauty of the images moves me to contemplation, as a meadow delights the eyes and subtly infuses the soul with the glory of God."32 Similarly, the contemplation of sacred icons, united with meditation on the Word of God and the singing of liturgical hymns, enters into the harmony of the signs of celebration so that the mystery celebrated is imprinted in the heart's memory and is then expressed in the new life of the faithful.
And not a word of that uttered as Instruction by Jesus. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin
I never did understand why some Catholics referencd ther. Catechism instead of reading straight from the bible. Catholicism is and always will be about control. If you don't follow their doctrines to the letter you had better repent. And even repenting is forced through a mediator(confession). I don't need to admit my sins to anyone other than Jesus himself.
One of the biggest things Jesus did was free believers from the old roles master and servant. At least IMO.
i am already best friend with jesus. i nominate mighty david rossQuote:
Originally Posted by Lucas
or leung ting. he also the very strong base of the pillar
Roman Catholicism is based not only on the teachings of the bible but also the apostolic traditions handed down through the ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesC
Roman Catholicism is actually Pauline Doctrine and Dogma.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin
I don't really see it as a good fit with Christianity in intent or on message with Christianity.
I don't believe Jesus ever said spend your time worshiping me and Dad. he said go out and do good to each other and that the least of us could do what he did.
Somehow that got twisted into bow down before the one your serve, you're gonna get what you deserve and all the various other corruptions of the message into a power construct as stated.
While some have debated that Paul's view is the core of Christianity, there is nothing in Paul's writings that goes against what Christ taught.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Jamieson
Paul proclaimed the risen Christ and the Gospel of the Kingdom Of God, as Christ commanded him to do, Of course since he was proclaiming it to the gentiles and pagans, he had to tailor it a bit, but the fact that his gospel ( and Barnabas') was accepted by the other Apostles shows that the WHAT was being proclaimed was correct even IF they didn't always agree with HOW it was.
That Paul's writings were twisted and re-interpreted by some is clear as they continue to be done so even now.
Paul was at times a bit legalistic but that is to be expected from a zealous preacher.
Many times people forget that Paul taught what Christ taught BUT he also posted his opinions on matters as well, though he at times made the distinction clear ( Not I but the Lord, Not the Lord but I...), that wasn't always the case.
Because he was a prolific writer we have more from him than any other and, as such, it is easy to think that Christianity is more "Paul than Jesus" but, IMO, that is simply not the case.
i think there is fundamental irreconcilable difference between catholicism and early christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin
the dogma of the nazarene sect is jesus is the appointed one who will be king and deliver the jews from the romans.
the dogma of paul as preached to the romans is belief in divinity of jesus to receive immortality, a bargain for personal gain.