okinrus: She seems to be a literal person to me. The very old saints like her weren't declared saints by any official body.
She's not literal, and she wasn't declared by an official body because she was a pagan goddess (Brigid) who was absorbed into Catholicism by Pope Leo under pressure from Emporer Charlamagne. Catholicism struck up a deal with European emporers so that they could better assimilate the people into the church. It was a common place tactic, well documented.
Atheism, used by the Greeks, is the belief there is no God, I think. You can't really lack belief.
No, A means away from or anti. Theism is belief in theos. Hence, atheism is not a belief it is away from or anti belief. The state of being without belief. For the life of me I can not stand how religionists try to turn my theological view into a faith, simply because they are so indoctrinated that they can not imagine a being void of belief. And that's it's precisely what you are doing. Because you just said I can't really lack a belief. Well, I assure you I can. Millions of people do everyday, and their existence proves the assumption that people need faith, is wrong.
Well, when your arguing what hypocrisy means(here at least) your arguing it in a theological sense. More importantly, when interpreting what Jesus said, you have to go back to what the word meant in Greek or Aramaic, not in English. What I'm telling you is that when Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, he didn't mean a liar--these people had not spoken--but a someone who did good as for show.
First, hypocrisy is not a theological term. It is a secular one that I am applying to theology. We do not use specific terminology from a singular faith unless we are making an exegesis of a particular faith. Nirvana is a theological term, should we use it in exegesis of Christianity? No, because it's not applicable. This is the same, you are using one denominations lexical definition in application to a diversified faith. It's bad theology and I won't par take in it.
How many times do I have to go over this? Hypocrisy is not equivalent to lying, but both include an act of deciet. Hypocrisy is to proclaim one thing and do another. Christians proclaim to follow Christ, to ascribe to biblical teachings, yet don't, hence they are hypocritical. You are NOT going to change my view on this. So why even keep trying?
The Pope recorded the day St. Francis was given permision to have his order. We also have some of St. Francis' own writings.
Yep, and popes also claim to be from the apostolic tradition when we can't even prove the apostles existed. We have writings of biblical authors but can't prove they exisited either. Theology is NOT like other fields in that documentation is merited proof. Theology evolved under faliciousness, political agendas, and persecution. Cryptology is heavily used, as well as dedication writing, hence authorship claims are never used as proof in theology. We must go to outside historical sources to say anything is a fact in my field. This is the first thing you learn when entering a theology course.
You mean Mary Magdalene? She's never given the title apostles of apostles, nor even apostle in the canonical Bible.
Actually she was. In other Christian works such as the Nag Hamadi Mary is refered to as the Apostle of Apostles, in addition to numerous other traditions. A great deal of scholars acknowledge her as such because she perfectly fulfills what the concept of what apostle meant. The argument goes as follows:
-Apostle means, to be sent with message, or messenger.
-Jesus said the whole truth of his message hangs on his ressurection.
-Mary was the first of the apostles to be given the message, and sent it to the other apostles.
=hence Mary is the apostle of apostles.
You can of choose not to give her this title, but the scripture remains clear that the first to be sent the message was Mary, and she was also the annointer of Jesus, hence her role in Christianity is great.
Many accounts of the Inquisition relied on second-hand accounts. Modern research done by historians say it may not have been as bloody as was thought.
And many modern historians say it may be bloodier than most think. The truth is: the Catholic church destroyed the majority of the evidence against their immoral crusade, and we will never have empirical numbers as a result. But from what we do have, it is the worst violation of human rights the world has ever seen.
Cannot find an online source that can support these claims.
I'm happy you looked! I can go find some for ya if you want.
St. Francis lived from 1182 to 1226, so you must be talking of the Albigensian Inquisition. But to determine an Albigensian heretic, the Inquisitor would likely ask questions theological in nature. Because the Malleus Maleficarum was completed in 1486, it couldn't have been used by the Franciscans, who are more of a charity, preaching, order than a inquisitor order.
The Spanish inquisition began in the early 1100's. And though the Malleus Maleficarum was officially completed in 1486, it's earlier forms were circulated. I never rely on when Catholics claim to have officially completed something, after all we are talking about the denomination that is perpetually reinterpreting scripture and interpolating. Why they didn't even make an official cannonized of the entire Bible until almost 1870 when the Vatican Council was called. (Obviously, early versions of the Bible were circulated prior to that time.) And even still, they argue over the meaning of the apocryphal works. And their canonization was such a shoddy job that they left out books which the canonized books claim are scripture, Enoch & Jasher for instance.
You mean El not Yahweh. Yahweh is the name of God given to Moses.
No I meant Yhwh, because that is specifically the name for the Jewish national God. He is called Yhwh coupled with the title Elohim because El, Elohim, and its forms are all titles denoting divinity. Naturally, since they are related to Bel, Bal, or Baal, the far more ancient Babylonian words for divinity. The Baals were a pantheon of deities. Yhwh was a part of that pantheon, and was knows as Yhwh Elohim. The word El alone refers to the pantheon, that is why it is plural and does not accompany a personal name, where Elohim does. You shall see this repeated in Judaic scripture and Christian tradition, for example: Baal Zebub, the devil. The evil of the pantheon.
There's little proof of this theory, because all the evidence is taken from the Bible.
Actually what we find in the Bible concerning a pantheon of Judaic deities coincides with other Jewish writings and the writings of cultures in close proximity. It fits perfectly with languistics and perfectly with the evolution of monotheism, this is why it is considered true by theologians and historians alike.
Abraham, while not worshiping other gods, may have believed they existed.
You got that right. Abraham did accept the existence of other Gods, but felt Yhwh was his personal God due to nationalism.
Around this period of Egypt, the Exodus occurred. Scholars aren't certain whether there's enough historical evidence to say the Exodus occurred, much less to say whether it occurred before or after Atkenaton.
Right again! Scholars can not say that the exodus occured, or even that Jews were held en masse slavery. Linguistics and lack of documentation on egypt's behalf is the problem. We can not locate any documents of mass Jewish slavery in Egypt. And after four years of being held captive, it is only likely the Jews would have absorbed Egyptian words or vice versa, into their native language. This did not happen, hence, it is deemed currently by scholars an unlikely event. Theologically however, it makes sense that Jews were held captive because it would answer for monotheism, and testify to the Bible. Welcome to the hardship of theology! Where age old questions remain stagnant due to lack of outside sources. For admitting this, what scholars say, I commend you!
Since one of the OT psalms bears a striking resemblance to one of Atkenaton's praise songs of Aten, the Exodus, to me, seems to have occurred before Atkenaton.
Again, this is what some theologians point to, but there is also a raising theory that answers a great deal of commonality in faiths, and its the one I find the most promising. The one with the most ammount of evidence, would fit well with historical and scientific fact and brings up the least amount of difficulties. It's a rather long theory, detailing almost 25,000 years of human history so I won't go into it. We all know I talk enough LMAO
I'm cutting you off right there just to intercede that Augustine wrote, and it was absorbed into Catholic doctrine, that it was fine to abort a male fetus until 40 days gestation, and a female fetus 80 days.
Abortion was never allowed.
Again, I disagree, abortion had no condemnation with exception to christian heretics who we now consider the first theologians (Tertullian, Origen, etc. They were condemned by their peers when they were alive, just so you know.) And the Theologians who were accepted by the early church wrote of ways in which one may attain an abortion. Subsequently the church actually supplied this knowledge to its parishoners. Hence, how it was not allowed by the church, except for it's current manifestation and the three year edict in the 1500's, eludes me.
The knowledge of precisely whether the soul was planted into the fetus--debated as it was--is different from allowing abortion.
I understand this. And I am telling you that the church's official stance through the majority of it's existence is that the soul was implanted at the time of quickening, hence abortion up untill that time was allowed.
No, abortion has consistently been wrong, even the English common law forbid abortion.
I am talking about the Catholic church's official stance as released by it's written works, papal authority and councils. None of which (except for modern times and the three year edict) EVER said abortion was wrong (except for after the time of quickening). Local papal states did attempt to legislate abortion because of decreasing membership, but that does NOT attest to the official church stance.
If murder was so-defined then abortion would be murder before Roe-versus-Wade and not murder after.
Again, murder requires malice. So how abortion could be murder prior to Roe versus wade does not make sense to me. The fetus did not magically lose personhood due to roe versus wade.
Rather than a legal definition, I'm suggesting an universal one.
We are talking about what people consider life. We live in a world of such diversity that we have some cultures which say a child is not a person until it actually survives on its own! We have some cultures which practice an utter disregard for life, sacrificing it's offspring. We have some cultures that revere life to the point where spilling semen is a crime fit for capital punishment. We have other cultures which say a child is not a person until it can utter it's first word. There are so many milestones to chose from, none with scientific evidence to support it is a momentous occasion, the interpretation is based on nothing but personal bias. Knowing this, we came to a definition of law in which we recognize birth as the time of personhood. I think it's a perfectly fine compromise and I don't believe (nor do the majority of people believe) that we should change it to suit the religious or cultural agenda of another.
Not much is required of red-tape.
Oh sure there is. If conception has personhood we have a nightmare on our hands! The point of restriction has not occured yet, so just how much personhood is the pregnant woman carrying in her womb? Do we court marshal women who miscarry, just like Christian Hitler did for his anti abortion stance? Do we hand out social security numbers with the positive test results? Do I get a tax break for my fetus? Women pass conceived zygotes all the time, vigorious activity can cause it, sex, etc. Should we jail them? When you expound upon the implications of conception being personhood it becomes a nightmare of ludicrousy.
To fully call abortion legal murder only requires giving the fetus the legal status of a baby.
Don't forget you'd have to prove malice!
Personhood is not well-defined. Are babies persons? Do they really have personality to the outside observer?
Personhood is nothing but the recognition of government that the being is entitled to the protection of the government. That's all it is. The problem here is when is the most sensical time to bestow personhood. Birth was elected as the time because anything after is regarded as cruel, and anything before is regarded as ludicrous.
Again, that's a legal definition, but there's some type of malice in most of the cases.
You must not be a woman. To think a mother has malice towards her fetus is so far beyond logic. I had an abortion years ago. And it certainly wasn't because I had malice towards the fetus. I loved that fetus, I wanted to bring it forth into the world. I however elected for abortion because I did not have the finances, the physical health, mental strength, or fortitude to raise another child. I was in an abusive relationship, had no health care that was worth a damn, and could find no way in which to manifest the being that I desired. I acted on abortion because I LOVED that fetus, not because I had malice for it. I felt it was better to end it's potential life in love then to birth it in to a world of misery.
And my story is no different than the stories of every woman I have talked to which elected abortion. Every woman I have ever spoken to have confided they wanted that child, but couldn't have it because of some circumstance beyond their control. Every woman I have spoken to in regards to this situation has told me of their pain and their sorrow and of their love. I do not believe that "most" women have abortions out of malice. We are life givers and nurturers, creatures of survival and reproduction. It violates our very nature to end the potential life of our offspring or to feel malice towards them. No, I will never believe most women who abort are careless, irresponsible, evil, immoral or any of the host of things right to lifers often say about about my brethren.
These women want the fetus not to exis when the fetus has the right to exist.
Who said the fetus has the right to exist? We have a clause called "Mother's promise". That is where a fetus can have honory personhood bestowed upon them if the mother consented to give them life. This is how the law is able to persecute people who kill a pregnant woman on behalf of the fetus. (IE: Scott Peterson.) This clause essentially states that the right to exist is based on consent of the expectant mother.
It be like me killing Joe simply because I don't want Joe to exist.
But you aren't gestating Joe, that is the difference. Joe is not dependant on you biologically or anatomically for him to exist. Joe is an independant, viable, self sufiecient being in the biolgical and anatomical sense. Hence, you have no right to attack Joe. If Joe was your fetus however, it would be a different matter.
That said, there a lot of mitigating circumstances. The women, in her mind, believes the fetus does not have the right to exist, because the fetus is not up to her par of citizenship.
No, I don't think that is what the woman believes. I wanted my fetus to exist, nature bestowed on it a right to exist, but nature was also dependant upon me to give consent. I however could not give my consent based on circumstances outside of my control. So I had elected abortion as a more compassionate death than starvation. Abortion is not about ending life my friend. It's about maintaining quality of life. This is where the difference of philosophy lies between the lifer and choicer. The lifer says quantity is the moral choice. And the choicer says quality is the moral choice. It's a shame that we don't have a common ground, because we could pool our resources to eliminate why abortion even happens, instead of fighting over the legality of it.
But we have to draw the line somewhere.
And we do: Birth.
Hitler believed the Jews not up to his definition of human.
And Hitler was also anti abortion, so what's your point? I think I know what it is: you are saying that the law shouldn't define personhood because it has a history of being precarious with it. Fine, but what makes your definition better than my own? We live in a society my dear, where we must have consensus and go with it, we must equally protect minority rights in the process. Which is why we elected the definition that we did.
This is cultural not religious.
The practicing of wearing white for purity stemmed from religiousity.
Well, if you believe the tale, that they were given to St. Dominicus by the Virgin Mary...
I'm more apt to look at the existence of prayer beads in religions that existed far before the advent of Christianity.
Well, with wiccans, their seeking something not given to them by God but by something it else, be it their ritual, their gods, or their spirits, all of which suggest some degree of sorcery.
So their religion is sorcery because they aren't appealing to Jesus? That's pretty discriminatory, you do realize that, right? What about the fact that their deities existed for thousands of years before yours? What about the fact that their religion influenced yours? If Witches practice sorcery, and their religion affected yours, are you guilty of sourcery too?
While not convincing proof of the supernatural, their rituals to increase their energy, when they'd naturally decrease energy, are attempting to influence the supernatural without God, and, moreover, attempting to attribute supernatural powers to otherwse physical things, the sequence of a ritual may be abstracted as something physical.
A few things you should know about pagans:
-They are animistic, and montheistic: meaning they believe in a singular deity, and all personal deities are nothing but avatars for human understanding. They don't literally believe in Thor, Odin, Brigid, etc. These are representations of the one true deity, something we use to better relate to deity. And this deity prevades all of existence with it's nature and spirit. Hence, when they use elements of nature they are actually drawing in the energy of deity, because it prevades all things.
-Their belief in deity is so overwhelming they do not believe they are attributing "supernatural powers to physical things". They instead see deity as a part of all things, including the physical, and hence to use them is to harnass the energy of deity.
I believe wiccans would be very offended when you say they are appealing to physical objects, because this is far off the mark regarding their belief system.
This problem is avoided in Judaism and other religions because the physical activity or ritual, whether prayer or sacrifice, is always secondary to God.
I disagree. It's all in the way you perceive it. You look at the pagan and think they are committing idolatry by giving praise to a tree. In the mean while you sit in your church and pray before a wooden statue of Jesus. It's no different! You are using earthly elements as representation for your deity. religion isn't in the wood, it's your thoughts, your prayers, your communion with god, that is the relgion. You can judge the exterior pomp of ritual all you want, but understand that Christianity contains just as much as paganism, and understand they are nothing but tools to aid the religiousity which is purely mental.
