I believe you need three documented miracles to qualify for sainthood, one of which can be the non-decaying of the body. I’ve seen lots of claims that saint’s bodies did not decay and smelled like flowers long after death, but I think it’s just considered to be a miracle, not an absolute requirement for sainthood. Maybe they have two documented miracles and need a third, or maybe they just figure they’ll dig him up to see if they can put “incorrupable corpse” in his blurb in Who’s Who in Catholic Sainthood.
CKDextHavn:
Nothing to add to your post, except that I’m shocked at your terrible vB Coding…didn’t you use the “Preview” function to make sure your tags matched properly?
Yep, and Mormons say their church is the ONLY one approved completely by God. ALL others have some error. Right…
freyr wrote
The conclusion does follow from the premise. The premise is not that Jesus claimed to be divine and offered salvation.The premise is that Jesus was ,in fact, divine. You may not agree with the premise, but that’s what the conclusion is based on
**astorian wrote:
If Jesus WAS divine and offered salvation to those who followed him, then Christianity IS better than Judaism, Islam or Hinduism. That doesn’t mean I’m inherently better or more virtuous than any Jew, Moslem or Hindu. Nor it doesn’t give me the right to oppress (or even pester) Jews, Moslems and Hindus. But it DOES mean I must reject the notion that “my religion may be right for me, but not right for you.”
Freyr replied:
Your conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. How is Xianity better than any other religion simply because your god’s messiah claimed divine status and offers salvation?
Doreen then said:
The conclusion does follow from the premise. The premise is not that Jesus claimed to be divine and offered salvation. The premise is that Jesus was ,in fact, divine. You may not agree with the premise, but that’s what the conclusion is based on.**
Hrm… are we on the same page? I disagree with the conclusion that Astorian is drawing: IFJesus is divine, THEN Xianity is better than Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, et al.
I don’t question the divinity of Jesus, I DO question the conclusion that if he is, Xianity is the better religion. That only works in a monotheistic system. The OT makes it clear that the Universe is polytheistic, therefore, even if Jesus is divine, other gods/goddesses do exist and have their own sets of followers. Each religion works for the culture it evolved in. No religion is better than any other.
Now I disagree with that premise. I’m sure that there are some of the Jewish faith that do as well.
**Navigator wrote:
Now I disagree with that premise. I’m sure that there are some of the Jewish faith that do as well.**
The 1st Commandment makes it pretty clear to me. Also, the way instructions/commandments are given to the Isrealites in Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. indicate that YHWH is their god, entered into covenant at Mt. Sinai. The whole feel of those texts are one where the Isrealites are given specific instructions for their worship of YHWH, to create a distinct identity from the surrounding peoples.
Also check out Stanley Tambiah’s Magic, Science, Religion and the Scope of Rationality. He goes into specific reasoning about the existence the gods of other OT peoples.
Freyr, I’m sure you know the difference between “existence” and “worship”. “Worship” may denote desire for existence, but it certainly doesn’t create existence.
Gator, you’re not going to be thrilled about this, but…
Many cultures seem to go through a series of phases as regards their religion, moving from animism to polytheism … to monotheism. The dots are in there for a reason. Because there is an intermediate stage called henotheism in which the culture gives its allegiance to one god, as in monotheism, but accepts that there may be other gods, as in polytheism. And usually gets very nationalistic and defensive about the idea: “My god’s bigger than your god, nyah, nyah.”
If one assumes that the Bible records an evolving understanding of God by the Hebrew/Jewish people, rather than a verbatim-inspiration view, there are several passages that strongly imply a henotheistic outlook, of the sort “Chemosh of Moab, he is but dust. But it is Yahweh our God who is King over all.” The tone of many of these does not suggest the superstitious worship of unreal, imagined gods, but the erroneous worship of the wrong gods, instead of the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. YMMV, of course, but given A, B does indeed follow.
Comment, Freyr? Gator?
**connor wrote:
Freyr, I’m sure you know the difference between “existence” and “worship”. “Worship” may denote desire for existence, but it certainly doesn’t create existence.**
Point taken, Connor. But you could turn the argument around and say that the J/C/I god doesn’t exist, but is only worshipped.
I may be wrong on this, but no one REALLY knows who wrote the various books of the OT, no one signed their name to it. Tradition assigns the 5 books of the Pentateuch to Moses, but outside of the OT, there’s little historical evidence for him.
One could just as easily say it was some nameless person or persons who created these sets of rules/commandments to unify the disorganized tribes of Isreal.
The point of this is the religions that stem from the worship of the god of Abraham are no better or no worse than any other religion on the planet.
The Hebrew Bible (focused on Pentateuch here) as a text is in the language and consistent with the understanding of the people at the time it was written. If the text had told the Israelites that the earth moved around the sun, that the stars were bigger than the sun, etc, they wouldn’t have believed it. They knew what they knew.
There are several examples of this: the text clearly would prefer that people be vegetarian, but the author(s) know that the people at that time won’t accept such a statement; so meat-eating is permitted (after Noah’s Flood) with certain restrictions.
Similarly, the text could have said, “the things that the Egyptians worship as gods, with their crocodile heads and human bodies, simply don’t exist.” Again, such a text would not have gained acceptance. The text can’t overturn everything, so it is content with asserting that the One God of the Israelites is more powerful than the other gods. You, today, may read that as an acknowledgment that other gods exist; I read it is a clever avoidance of confronting the issue.
There are any number of Biblical verses that state concretely that there is no divine being other than the one who spoke to the Israelites at Sinai. Not merely that he is the most powerful of several, but that no others exist. Here’s just one:
Deuteronomy 4:35 - “You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other.”
Chaim Mattis Keller
[test]
No, that’s not what He’s doing, Gaudere!! We’ve been over that on other threads. 
I agree with what chaim said.
I also like what Elijah said to the prophets of Baal.
Hey guys, where is the mighty Baal, maybe he is sleeping…
::Douses his alter with a couple five gallon buckets of water::
::prays for YHWH to accept the sacrifice::
::fooom::
Well YHWH wasn’t now was he…
That cultures move from a pantheistic to polytheistic to monotheistic… doesn’t mean there are many gods, it means that they think there are many gods.
What people think and what is true are two different things.
oh yeah… I do acknowledge that even what I think could be untrue as well.
Peace.
Hmm. The topic list showed a post by Kimstu before mine, yet it does not appear. Apparently Her Pinkness (may Her hooves never be shod!) has taken it to be with her in the Pastures of High Grass and Low Manure, for Her own Holy and Contradictory purposes.
Dare ya to try that with a waterlogged altar nowadays, Nav, in front of David and I and qualified experts (who will check for hidden fire-starter). I wouldn’t try to use “reluctance to produce miracles on demand” as disproof of a God’s existence if I were you…
The following is a reply I received to a question directed to a Catholic apologist site, affiliated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Thought you might find it interesting. Hopefully, at the very least, it helps to demonstrate that the Church does not promote the belief that salvation is not possible for non-Catholics.
BTW, tomndebb, thanks for the thoughtful responses in the thread. As usual, well-written and on point. I continue to learn from your comments (in this and other threads).
**
I backed out of a discussion on one board concerning the “ye are gods” phrase in Psalm 82 (and quoted by Jesus in John 10) – and received an immediate ballisticness for even suggesting that elohim there could mean any thing other than “human judges” (which it might, then again it might not).
But in the “courts of Yahweh” imagery in the opening of Job – I think to push elohim as “human judges” is ‘begging the issue’
Point is – other ‘divine beings’ – albeit those clearly subject/subordinate to Yahweh, lesser to him, whether good or evil, cannot be dismissed.
We do have angels and demons.
And only later in New Testament is the revelation “the things that the gentiles sacrifice to – they sacrifice to devils and not to gods” – admits there “are that which are called gods”.
Worship of Yahweh (or at at least “the Most High”) insome sense predates Abraham (Melchisedec) and Moses (his father-in-law Jethro seems to have been a priest of a similar faith).
Monotheism with a conception that the other “gods” are really “nothing and less than nothing” seems as plausible as “monotheism developing gradually out of polytheism-with-Yahweh-supreme-above-lesser-gods”.
(Nav – kerosene gives off far less vapors than gas – keep those “qualified experts” downwind from the wood & ya might pull it off yet.)
**CKDextHavn wrote:
You, today, may read that as an acknowledgment that other gods exist; I read it is a clever avoidance of confronting the issue.**
Point taken. I would be interested in hearing your opinion of Stanley Tambiah’s book. See posting on page 1 of this thread. Thanks!
**cmkeller wrote:
There are any number of Biblical verses that state concretely that there is no divine being other than the one who spoke to the Israelites at Sinai. Not merely that he is the most powerful of several, but that no others exist.**
And there are verses that seem to acknowledge OTHER gods, such as the 1st Commandment. Which verse is correct? Which is incorrect? Why is one to be prefered over the other. My personal experience tells me that other gods do exist. I hope you don’t take offense at this, but my own experience takes precedence of any number of scholars wrangling over ancient texts.
**Navigator wrote:
That cultures move from a pantheistic to polytheistic to monotheistic… doesn’t mean there are many gods, it means that they think there are many gods.**
Nav, I hate to break the news to you, but what you’re quoting an anthropological theory went out of style around the middle of this century. You need to read up on your theory, man. Try any modern anthro theory text book.
As for your bet between YHWH and Baal; it’s a sucker bet. Sure YHWH can do the ole fire trick, he’s good at fire and brimstone sorta stuff. Baal is a fertility god of the Caananites.
Let’s level out the playing field, shall we? How many women can YHWH satisfy in an evening? Last I heard, he picked a woman who was already bethroed to someone else and didn’t even de-flower her tho he did manage to impregnate her.