Freyr,
I never claimed to know anything about any anthropological theories, I was responding to something that Polycarp mentioned earlier.
I don’t find your litte joke to be amusing. I find it distasteful and insulting.
If my allusion to the Elijah story was offensive to you, I apologize.
Gaudere,
Duly noted. I won’t use anymore ‘signs’, sense even Jesus said they wouldn’t work.
**Navigator wrote:
I don’t find your litte joke to be amusing. I find it distasteful and insulting.**
Sorry, I apologize for that. Looking back, it is over the top. I humbly retract that remark.
But I still maintain for a proper challenge there ought to be a level playing field. Think of it this way, if two Olympic class atheletes, one a swimmer, the other a weight lifter, are competing. Would you have the weight lifter swim and the swimmer lift weights? It wouldn’t be a fair contest. Find an equitable middle ground.
**you also said:
I never claimed to know anything about any anthropological theories, I was responding to something that Polycarp mentioned earlier.**
There’s an old anthropological theory, back from the 19th century that “shows” the evolution of religion, from animism to polytheism to monotheism, with that “crowning achievement;” Xianity.
This sort of thing went by the wayside with Piltdown Man, etc. Since my degree is in anthropology, whenever I see this sort of mis-information being kicked about, I try to correct the situation.
Think of it this way, if you heard someone proposing Ptolomey’s geocentric theories as valid astronomy, wouldn’t you try to correct them?
That settles it, I am not voting for Cardinal Ratzinger for next Pope. Those who believe in God/gods/First Principle/etc should be allies. The encyclical, in any form, should not have been released because it will direct attention away from the true enemy. Folks, we will have the legions of Satan coming down on us sometime. I’ll volunteer in the RCC theatre of operations and will pick off the the bad guys until I run out of ammo, but I sure hope the Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, good pagans and religous Jews are allies, will also see it as their fight and will be there to hold up their fronts.
So that’s the way you theists wanna play, eh, mipsman? Explain again exactly who you’re gonna be picking off with your rifle? And exactly what do you think the god(s) are gonna think of you after you pick us off?
If it ever came down to it, Lemur, I would risk my immortal soul to extirpate the vermin, maggots and cancers that plague the world so that the good guys win.
Wrong. If I killed Tymp, and God immediately struck me dead, then I’d concede you had a valid analogy. But that is not how God acts.
But, let us suppose Tymp had an Uncle. Let’s call him Sam. So Tymp’s Uncle Sam finds out I killed Tymp, and decides to lock me away in his basement for the rest of his life. Now, generally, even if I am repentant and beg forgiveness, that is about the best I can do – at least U.S. isn’t frying me. Of course, Uncle Sam has no way of knowing if I’m genuinely repentant or not. But, according to Christ’s law, Uncle Sam should still forgive me (until I kill for about the 77th time then all bets are off, or maybe it is the 490th time – although maybe you are allowed seven murders a day?) if I am repentant.
It would seem to me that God is more just than Uncle Sam.
Well, the problem is God does not allow for repentance after you die. He gives you every opportunity while you are alive, but once you are dead that is the end of the story. Which again is a requirement of justice. A murderer might think his is going to get away with it, but after his verdict and sentence is rendered he can be sorry all he wants – and why wouldn’t he be?
It is exactly that humans are imperfect that the judgement is best left up to God. Of course, man’s punishment lasts only until death, while God’s lasts forever (or until the second soming?). But, since Uncle Sam doesn’t believe in an afterlife himself, what is the fundamental diff?
That is strictly true, but there seem to be a few flaws in their argument.
Well, that depends on how you define “knowing.” I mean if someone tells you not to run stop signs, don’t you then know it is wrong to run stop signs? Although you have to believe the person who told you – but then we are really talking about a lack of belief not a lack of knowledge, right?
How do you define “no fault of their own”? Again, if you tell someone the Truth is contained in a book anyone can read at their local public library, and they fail to do so, isn’t that their fault?
That is one possible interpretation, but I don’t think the Vatican would say that, otherwise the document they put out makes no sense. This is just saying, again, that you can believe anything you want to as long as you are a “good” person, as far as you know.
That isn’t clear at all. Of course the Church doesn’t reject what is True and Holy in other religions. Don’t murder? True, true. Christ has redeemed all, but the individual still must accept his redeption according to the RCC. That isn’t saying “[Christ] ‘has his own ways’ of doing things” – it is saying exactly what it is saying – that Christ has his own way of reaching them. If they reject him however, tough luck.
I love the way American Catholics just ignore everything that comes out of Rome. The Boston Globe on Sunday quoted a “church official” (presumably a bishop) who just threw it away when he got it, but then had to go and get another copy when reporters started calling him about it.
Thank you.
From a Christian source
“Elijah’s challenge to them to bring down fire from heaven was appropriate, because the Canaanites believed that Baal could shoot lightning flashes from the sky. Elijah’s mocking of Baal struck at the heart of their claims; he knew that Baal was powerless, that the prophets of Baal had misled the people, and that only the Lord God of Israel was alive and able to answer.” - Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary
Also the context of the challenge was during a widespread drought (IIRC seven years) which was a direct counter to Baal, since he was the fertility God, as well as the God that brought rain. (“Baal was considered the god who brought rain and fertility (especially good harvests and animal reproduction). In a number of passages in Canaanite literature he is identified as Hadad, another god believed to bring the rains, storms, and fertility. Hadad is the god Adad of Assyria.” - Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary))
So perhaps the playing field was a bit more level than is popularly thought.
Yes, I would. Thank you for the information.
Peace.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**
jmullaney, and I “love” the way you continue to paint a particular religious group with such a broad brush–very open-minded of you. Your post was otherwise interesting; too bad you had to close in a manner that did nothing to dispel my previous impressions of you.
I hope you don’t take this as malicious. Is it possible you don’t understand how offensive it is for you to disdainfully attribute a particular behavior such as this to every Catholic in the U.S.? It reminds me of your “See how they always…” comment in the thread on the Vatican selling off its wealth. The fact that “they” refers to Catholics and not to African-Americans or Jews does not render it any less bigoted.
I don’t ask that we agree, only that you maintain civility in your “commitment to honest debate,” as you have described it previously. Otherwise I will continue to interpret your ongoing contempt as Catholic-bashing.
You can take this as your cue to completely ignore the point I am making to discuss some tangential issue that you feel justifies any comment you make in your “search for truth.”
Yup. I’m not a catholic. I’m not one of the chosen ones.
"A devoutly religious man stood and prayed to himself: ‘I thank you, God, that I am not as other men are: extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as that poor schmuck over there; I fast twice a week, and I give tithes of all that I posess.’
"And the man who served the unrighteous stood afar off, and would not even lift his eyes toward heaven, but struck his chest and cried, saying ‘God be merciful to me, a sinner.’
“This I say to you, this man went home to his house justified, rather than the religious man; for every one that lifts themselves up and gives themselves honor will be humiliated, and he that humbles himself shall be given honor and praise’” (Luke 18:11-14, paraphrased)
I’ll take my chances as a lowly Protestant.
Freyr:
Key word is seem to…not actually do.
Presumably, your reference to the 1st commandment is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” This doesn’t imply that there are other gods. It is stating a commandment not to acknowledge any other being as G-d.
They all are…as long as they’re read correctly.
Chaim Mattis Keller
You are right – that was a broad brush. I should have said the majority, but even that may not be completely true – or maybe the leadership, as the article implied. Believe it or not while I was reading this article in the Boston Globe, which to my mind was blantant Catholic bashing, why, in Boston which I always thought was one of the Catholic hubs of the world (they go nuts on St. Patty’s day) why the Globe would be so blantantly misleading (saying that the Church said only Catholics could be saved, which I think we’ve agreed is not what the document in question says). I could give you his answer, but then I’d be going into way politically incorrect territory. There are weird uncurrents of racism and ethnicism in this state I’m not used to dealing with back home in mutt/mullato-ville Texas.
I thought I made clear in that thread, although perhaps you stopped reading it, was that “they” did not in anyway refer to Catholics however much you would like to stake your identity there. That was an aside to someone who agreed with my argument characterizing those who disagreed with my argument.
Look, even despite the Catholic bashing in that article, I walked away with the reinforced impression that the Catholic Church in America and the Catholic Church in Rome can generally be said to have “issues” with each other – and that was what I meant to convey. I don’t know how active you are in the Church but I thought this was generally well known to be the case. I appreciate the fact that the media which puts out polls on, for example, the use of birth control among American Catholics, which seem to show they are ignoring Rome on this issue, but in reality, the media may be presenting false propaganda.
So please let us continue with our debates and in the interest of fairness, try not to jump down my throat everytime I, in my habit of brevity, do not properly couch my meaning in the most unoffensive way and give me the benefit of the doubt.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**
Fair enough. Perhaps I’ve been overly sensitive. I appreciate your response, both in its content and spirit.
**Navigator wrote:
From a Christian source
"Elijah’s challenge to them to bring down fire from heaven was appropriate, because the Canaanites believed that Baal could shoot lightning flashes from the sky. Elijah’s mocking of Baal struck at the heart of their claims; he knew that Baal was powerless, that the prophets of Baal had misled the people, and that only the Lord God of Israel was alive and able to answer." -
Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary**
I checked around and couldn’t find a reference in a non-Xian source about Baal and lightning, so I question that validity. But the Britannica said: Baal article. Showing Baal as a god of storms, rain and fertility. So, again, the challenge; but this time YHWH and his fire while Baal can conjure storms. Up to it?
**cmkeller wrote:
They all are…as long as they’re read correctly.**
grumble Not meaning to be rude, but for G-d to speak so authoritatively, he seems to have left a LOT of it open to interpretation.
To be honest, I never considered it a challenge. I merely stated that I liked the story.
(Being a god of storms, and thunder, and lightening, it should have been fairly easy to get a lightening bolt to hit that alter, but alas it didn’t even rain until after all the prophets of Baal had been killed.)
The funny thing about ‘showy’ miracles is that they very rarely change peoples behavior, or beliefs. King Ahab was a witness to the Baal challenge and saw the power of God strike the alter Elijah made. He didn’t repent, didn’t change his views towards YHWH, but continued in his rebellion, even killing a man for his field.
So even if I desired to accept the challenge, I have the feeling it would be fruitless.
Thanks for the offer though.
Peace.
As an ancient COBOL coder, I am always in favor of lightning striking an ALTER statement.
(Sorry. The typo simply invoked the memory of a boss who always admonished newhires, “If I find an ALTER in your code, I will sacrifice you upon it.”)
::smacks hissef::
I really should take the time to proof read, thanks!
“You non-Christians wouldn’t believe in God even if He raised the dead in front of you. Why, it says in the Bible God did miracles and someone didn’t believe, therefore no matter what miracles were done for you you would never accept that my God might be real.” C’mon, Nav; this is like me saying that in my Great Big Golden Book o’ Atheism there is a story about a man 100 years ago who didn’t believe that Abe Lincoln was a good person, even when it was empirically proven to him that Abe did many good things; therefore if I say Abe is a good person, and you ask for some sort of empirically valid evidence that he did good things, I don’t have to give any because based on that story you won’t believe it anyhow. Heck, I can think of quite a few of us “soft” atheists who are open to empirical proof of God’s existence such as miracles. Anyhow, Freyr doesn’t even disbelieve in your God, as I understand it; he just wants a fair demonstration of the two deities’ respective powers. He’s willing to put one of the Gods he believes exists up the the challenge, just as Elijah and the priest of Baal did so long ago. Why did Elijah put God up to a challenge if you can’t/shouldn’t, anyhow?
tomndebb wrote:
And far be it from me to rub salt in an open wound, Navigator, but “lightening” (with an “e” in the middle) sounds like something you frost your hair with. 
**Gaudere wrote:
Anyhow, Freyr doesn’t even disbelieve in your God, as I understand it; he just wants a fair demonstration of the
two deities’ respective powers. He’s willing to put one of the Gods he believes exists up the the challenge, just as Elijah and the priest of Baal did so long ago. Why did Elijah put God up to a challenge if you can’t/shouldn’t, anyhow?**
Quite right! One, minor point. I believe all god/ddesses exist. It’s my choice of which one to follow, which one is the right one for me.
What raises my hackles so much are the claims by Xians that their god is the ONLY, ONE, TRUE god.
My studies aren’t complete, but as far as I can tell, none of the Antique Pagan faiths ever made the claim that their’s was the ONE, TRUE FAITH and all others are false. Only the god of the Jews, Xians and of Islam ever makes this claim.
Even modern non-Abrahamic faiths don’t make this claim. I’ve read up on many of them and never have they claimed to be the one, true, only faith. shrug