Not sure about advanced vs. primitive, and while it’s probably quite hard to separate out the religion from the rest of the cultural package of colonizers, it does seem that polytheism is more vulnerable to displacement by monotheism than vice versa.
Presumably because a new foreign god is easily added when there is already a polytheistic pantheon, and then the various local gods are explained as facets or aspects of the one god.
I expect it has more to do with the fact that monotheisms are more inclined to try to displace other religions. The two most prominent officially monotheist religions, Christianity and Islam became as numerous as they are using a large amount of bloodshed and destruction. Religions that call themselves monotheisms are prone to the massacre of unbelievers, conversion by the sword and the deliberate destruction of other cultures.
I’ve really enjoyed this thread. I’ve always considered the three Gods as separate but equal, but never put the “polytheistic” label on it. I was raised Catholic and when my mom tried to explain the trinity concept (the priests and nuns couldn’t/wouldn’t) using Saint Patrick’s shamrock, my young mind says, “there are four leaf clovers, too. Is there someone you’re not telling me about?” But she seemed very earnest, so I let it go. She is no longer Catholic either.
I was under the impression that religion exists to explain the unexplained. We used to believe evil spirits made us sick because we did not know about viruses and bacteria. People used to believe the sun revolved around the earth which sat on the back of a turtle, and that it is perfectly acceptable to own another human being. Things change and religion changes with it.
But when the religion itself causes the unexplained or is unexplainable within itself and the PTB don’t know/cannot dredge up answers and must resort to the based-on-faith “it just is,” I cannot give it credence. I just wait and see what else is discovered. I understand someone recently discovered pieces of a burial shroud from Jesus’s time that may well prove the legitimacy or fraud of the Shroud of Turin. Should prove interesting at the very least.
Also, I’ve had a problem with the “It’s God’s will” and “God’s will be done” thing. As stated before, I have always thought that Jesus prayed to his Father God who was and is a wholly separate person. If people really think Jesus is the Holy Ghost is God (all one and the same) and he was praying to himself, “not my will but yours,” whose will is to be done when humans say “your will be done”? Apparently Jesus had a different will from God. Why doesn’t anyone ever say “it’s Jesus’s will” or “In the name of the Holy Ghost we pray”? And when someone says “In Jesus’s name we pray” isn’t Jesus then “interceding” with God as Mary and the other saints do? Doesn’t that make him less than God? If Jesus is God, why can’t they just pray directly to him?
Maybe I should have put all this in the other thread, but I’m here now and it’s all just my opinion and not debate. So back to the OP who has apparently disappeared (did the Rapture occur and I missed it?): I am not an atheist and resent anyone assuming that only an atheist would dare question Christian doctrine.
On re-read, I have to edit myself. The Bible and by extension Christians who believe the Bible is the Holy Word of God still think it’s okay to own slaves because apparently the Bible isn’t allowed to evolve.
Carry on.
Recently, as in 9 years ago. And the analysis done of it did disprove the authenticity of the Shroud. Again.
See : DNA of Jesus-era shrouded man in Jerusalem reveals earliest case of leprosy
Drat, misread 2009 for 2000. All right, so recently as in recently :).
LOL! You are forgiven, my son.
My understanding is that the ritual is pretty rare in the catholic church. I thought that Cecil wrote a column on this, but I can’t seem to find it. So we’ll have to make do with the thin gruel of wikipedia: Exorcism - Wikipedia
“Solemn exorcisms, according to the Canon law of the church, can be exercised only by an ordained priest (or higher prelate), with the express permission of the local bishop, and only after a careful medical examination to exclude the possibility of mental illness.”
Perhaps. But I wasn’t talking about policy making per se. I was talking about legal opinion which is interpreting the law.
Again, this is no different in principle to those interpreting the Constitution. For example, judges have to decide the point at which libel or defamation law ends and the First Amendment begins. There will be plenty of debate on that.
Not sure. AFAIK though, studies of the truth-value of religion are done in the philosophy department. I understand though that religious studies has a much broader scope than you imply: DtC is one of the board’s go-to guys on this subject.
I was just asking, actually. (And h/t: Superfluous Parentheses). But let’s face it: religion has always been subject to scrutiny on this board. I’m just saying that (for better or worse) it’s become a lot less polite over the past few years.
I’ll cheerfully face it and be unfazed by it. Rudeness to religion isn’t something I’m likely to get worked up about. Frankly, it’s long overdue.
The Christians I know do not worship Mary, they honor her as the Mother of Jesus and ask for her prayers, just as some people ask others to pray for them. It is a much misunderstood part of the RCC. They consider that God is the only one worthy of worship.
I of course do not think an All knowing, powerful being, would need or want worship, being complete in it’s self! Nor would He need prayers as He would already know their needs.
For a being not worthy of worship, they certainly love putting her picture everywhere. You can see how that might look…funny to some of us.
And it’s a little naive to say that Catholics only view her as some sort of heavenly Postmistress passing on prayers. There’s all that “Queen of Heaven” and “Co-Redemtrix” and “Mediatrix” jabber, all taken quite seriously. And in the case of Mary, it’s the popular conception that drives the official dogma. Immaculate Conception and Assumption, for instance, have no scriptural basis but are now infallible dogma.
So it depends what you mean by “they” when you say the RCC considers only God worthy of worship. The Pope and Cardinals might, but Lupe Martinez in her village in the Andes might have an entirely different view. And hey, give it 100 years, and her view might be doctrine.
I’ll say this as someone who grew up in one of the most Catholic regions in the US: some Catholics do worship Mary; not just venerate her. Sure, it’s not church doctrine, but they consider her to be akin to the fourth and most powerful entity in a godhead; a “Quadrinity” of sorts. They didn’t get or pay attention to the message that veneration was the limit of adoration; that she’s not a deity.
To someone who is not Catholic growing up in an overwhelming Catholic environment, even if worshiping Mary isn’t church doctrine, it appears that way; it seems like the liturgy and practice of Catholicism place far more importance on Mary than God or Jesus. To me, an equivalent would be the placement of Mary Bell’s image on the quarter and dollar bill, a Mary Bell monument in Bell, DC, a state in the Pacific Northwest named Bell, and so on, with far less prevalence placed on her son, George Washington.
Doesn’t Mary have a state on the East Coast named for her?
Well, technically it’s named after someone who was named after Mary, but still…
I think the term is “Tetralogy”. Or maybe “Tetranity”.
Or maybe not.
carry on…
Right on!
:o
If the little fudgers can’t take the heat, they can get the fudge off the web! 
Disclaimer: This does not apply to anyone who simply want to overcome misconceptions about a belief system, in a way that is neither pushy nor rails against people drawing their own conclusions. And it’s always possible that someone will only wish to clarify about doctrinal statements about a belief system and be mistaken for someone acting like the OP.
Well, more specifically, it’s worth pointing out that “He was rude to me!” is not equivalent to “I was right!”, though I understand appeals to martyrdom is pretty much all religion has, in lieu of appeals to reason.
All I ask of the rude people is that they try to be amusing and clever in their rudeness.
I have pictures of my family all over my house and one can see pictures of our presidents all over the country, that doesn’t mean worship of them.
If some peasant worships her it is against the RCC teachings. I am not a Christian and I can understand their point. They think of Mary as Co-Redemtrix because she gave birth to Jesus, as they see as their savior. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption were through acts of God (in their beliefs) not acts of Mary herself.
Are these pictures displayed in a place where people go to, you know, worship things?
What about my post makes you think I needed to be told this?My point was that these people don’t cease to be Catholics just because they don’t get the finer points of doctrine. Who was the last Catholic excommunicated or even censured for treating MAry with more deference than her due, for example?
It’s a little bit more than that, though, isn’t it, to your average uneducated Catholic.
Again, telling me things I know. Read my post again - I wasn’t saying those two particular things made her divine. I was saying they are examples of folk belief about Mary transmuted into infallible doctrine.
Pretty much, yes. And as I understand it, praying to Mary and the saints to put in a good word for you isn’t worship of them, either. You’re still expecting the Big Man to do the miracle, not the one you’re adressing your prayers to. It’s just a case of knowing nepotism is rampant in the Silver City. With the demand they face, it’s impossible to get anything done unless you know a guy who knows this chick who’s got the hookup