"Cult of Mary"

Quote: FrGamble

It's a good image because the different branches for all those centuries were still connected to the one vine.

And all the 3000 current brands of Christianity
are all solidly connected to the NT. Does that
make them all correct?

Quote: FrGamble

The Orthodox Church started to break away from the Catholic Church in the Great Schism and after the disastrous fourth crusade (beginning of 13th century) .

But the Oriental Orthodox split away in the
5th century. Catholics love to say they were
the only church for 1500 years, when they
were very much not.

'The schism between the Oriental Orthodox and the rest of Christendom occurred in the 5th century. The separation resulted in part from the refusal of Pope Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria and the other 13 Egyptian Bishops, to accept the Christological dogmas promulgated by the Council of Chalcedon, which held that Jesus is in two natures: one divine and one human. They would accept only "of or from two natures" but not "in two natures".

Quote: FrGamble

Bob do you tire of being wrong? As I've mentioned and shown many times the Bible is greatly concerned about slavery. From the chosen people whom God frees from slavery through Christ who commands that we love others as He has loved us. You also couldn't be more wrong about the treatment of women. Jesus had many women disciples who followed him, they were the first witnesses of the Resurrection, Mary is held out as the greatest example of what it means to be a Christian. Paul speaks about there being no slave or freed person, Jew or Gentile, male or female in the Christ - we are all equal in God's eyes. Yes we have different roles, but this has nothing at all to do with who is smarter or better.

Now if you want to talk about women looked at as possessions please direct your ire where it should be, namely the scourge of pornography. This widespread phenomenon has caused more harm to women than could ever be imagined from the past patriarchal society.

Late to the party, but wanted to comment on this.

Remember when I mentioned one of my "big issues with religion"? Well, this is another.

I remember getting smashed at WoV. The topic was "If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?". Now, that's a silly question. I don't even think it's supposed to be answered, it just one of those things. But I, of course, tried to answer it. And I did so, many years ago. It was a very proud moment for me, I thought I was the smartest man in the world. For years I got to put people in their place and flex my mental acuity, it was great. So when the question came up at WoV, man, was I amped.

I came cocked, locked, and ready to rock. And when I released my genius... I was challenged. How? Why? I couldn't believe it, it was so perfectly simple. But DJTB, MathExtremist, maybe even Doc were all pitted against me, blowing my "genius" to pieces.

That was hard to take. I was so sure. I was so proud. But in the end, the was no recourse for me. There was one and only one thing I could do - admit that I was wrong.

This is what bugs me about the church. There are things in the Bible that just couldn't have happened. There are things in there that aren't right, not proper. But when challenged, not once ever in my 34 years have I heard "we were wrong".

Slavery? No, God was against slavery, as evidenced by the story of Moses (my last cat's name, btw ;)). Mysogyny? No, God loved women, as evidenced by the story of Mary.

While EB may make sweeping generalizations, the fact remains that there has been stuff condoned by the church that just isn't right. The condemnation of slavery as evidenced by Exodus does not excuse the slavery that was approved, no more than the defeat of Hirohito excuses the killing of tens of thousands of innocents in Nagasaki. You can say it was needed, you can say it was unavoidable, you can say it's better than the alternative, but you can not say it was "good".

I'm not arguing that the Bible is "full of suspicious acts". But if there is even one, it seems like it should be addressed. However, anytime something is addressed, it's either A) allegory, or B) pushed aside in favor of all the things that contradict it.

So many things can be said about these questionable acts. "That's the way things were back then". Totally acceptable. 'Those were the customs of the culture". Perfectly reasonable. But none of that is ever said. It's not even admitted that these things were wrong! All I ever see is a song and dance to smooth over and get passed, leaving the issue standing as it were. The story of Mary proves God loved women. The current culture of pornography shows that mysogyny is still alive and well. But neither of those address the issue we're on, that the Bible wasn't all that nice to the ladies.

It's hard to admit you were wrong. I know, I had to do it when I was oh so proud and oh so sure. But while it hurt my pride, didn't I also receive respect for doing so? Wasn't that a part of what allows people to take me seriously now?

For a long time, one thing I really wanted was to get a religious person to admit that they were wrong. Now, I'd accept simply a reason why they can't. Because I just don't get it.

Quote: Face

For a long time, one thing I really wanted was to get a religious person to admit that they were wrong. Now, I'd accept simply a reason why they can't. Because I just don't get it.

You get it, you're just not looking at it
right. They can't say they're wrong because
that would mean god was wrong and
made a mistake. Which, if you believe
in the Christian god, is impossible.

As I said, the god you invent is only
as smart as the times you live in. The
god they invent now is light years
smarter than the one in the OT, but
you can't let on that it's true. It's all
supposed to be the same god and it so
obviously isn't.

I think so often on the forum I am responding to sweeping statements that aggressively seem to say things like God hates women or He is pro-slavery. At least that is the way I interpret it. The questions or challenges are not nuanced and therefore my responses tend not to be as well. Look I am first to admit, along with the Church, that there were many times in our history that we were wrong. Pope Benedict not too long ago went through a long list of mea culpas. I just can't stand by when people extrapolate from those sins that the Church teaches so and so and that God is so and so.

Also any serious Scripture scholar will recognize that there are aspects of the Old Testament in particular that are "imperfect and provisional" (to quote Vatican II) but this does not invalidate the entire Scriptures or mean that God was wrong. This is the unique character of inspiration using sinful human beings as the instruments of revelation, they can get things wrong but the larger message is preserved by the Holy Spirit.

So I have probably been wrong not to say it enough, we were wrong. Thanks be to God for His loving mercy and forgiveness.

Quote: FrGamble

Look I am first to admit, along with the Church, that there were many times in our history that we were wrong. .

Not just wrong, but wrong on a staggering
scale. The Church is supposed to be a direct
line to an infallible god. It it was, such huge
mistakes would not be possible. To us on
the outside, you don't look any better or
worse than non Christians, yet you still
set yourselves up as the moral authority.
All the while running an organization that
cares more about it's inner politics than
about doing 'gods work', whatever that
is.

Aha! Now I see where the problem may lie. You are mistaken about the nature of the Church. The Church is not a direct line to an infallible God, that would be Jesus Christ and Him alone. In fact you yourself have a direct line to God yourself through prayer. He established His Church on earth to reveal and safeguard His message of love and mercy. Sometimes that happens by Jesus showing mercy even to the Church He established. This is exactly what happened to the first Pope Peter. He denied the Lord three times when most in need and what does Jesus do after the Resurrection; He calls Peter over and shows him love and forgiveness. The early Church learned an important lesson there. We are fallible human beings and we simply can't do any of this without God's help. Seriously do you think any institution made of human beings could have lasted now for some 2,000 years without divine intervention, especially considering how many mistakes we have made?

Quote: Face

Late to the party, but wanted to comment on this.

Remember when I mentioned one of my "big issues with religion"? Well, this is another.

I remember getting smashed at WoV. The topic was "If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?". Now, that's a silly question. I don't even think it's supposed to be answered, it just one of those things. But I, of course, tried to answer it. And I did so, many years ago. It was a very proud moment for me, I thought I was the smartest man in the world. For years I got to put people in their place and flex my mental acuity, it was great. So when the question came up at WoV, man, was I amped.

I came cocked, locked, and ready to rock. And when I released my genius... I was challenged. How? Why? I couldn't believe it, it was so perfectly simple. But DJTB, MathExtremist, maybe even Doc were all pitted against me, blowing my "genius" to pieces.

That was hard to take. I was so sure. I was so proud. But in the end, the was no recourse for me. There was one and only one thing I could do - admit that I was wrong.

This is what bugs me about the church. There are things in the Bible that just couldn't have happened. There are things in there that aren't right, not proper. But when challenged, not once ever in my 34 years have I heard "we were wrong".

Slavery? No, God was against slavery, as evidenced by the story of Moses (my last cat's name, btw ;)). Mysogyny? No, God loved women, as evidenced by the story of Mary.

While EB may make sweeping generalizations, the fact remains that there has been stuff condoned by the church that just isn't right. The condemnation of slavery as evidenced by Exodus does not excuse the slavery that was approved, no more than the defeat of Hirohito excuses the killing of tens of thousands of innocents in Nagasaki. You can say it was needed, you can say it was unavoidable, you can say it's better than the alternative, but you can not say it was "good".

I'm not arguing that the Bible is "full of suspicious acts". But if there is even one, it seems like it should be addressed. However, anytime something is addressed, it's either A) allegory, or B) pushed aside in favor of all the things that contradict it.

So many things can be said about these questionable acts. "That's the way things were back then". Totally acceptable. 'Those were the customs of the culture". Perfectly reasonable. But none of that is ever said. It's not even admitted that these things were wrong! All I ever see is a song and dance to smooth over and get passed, leaving the issue standing as it were. The story of Mary proves God loved women. The current culture of pornography shows that mysogyny is still alive and well. But neither of those address the issue we're on, that the Bible wasn't all that nice to the ladies.

It's hard to admit you were wrong. I know, I had to do it when I was oh so proud and oh so sure. But while it hurt my pride, didn't I also receive respect for doing so? Wasn't that a part of what allows people to take me seriously now?

For a long time, one thing I really wanted was to get a religious person to admit that they were wrong. Now, I'd accept simply a reason why they can't. Because I just don't get it.

Well, does it?

Quote: FrGamble

Seriously do you think any institution made of human beings could have lasted now for some 2,000 years without divine intervention, especially considering how many mistakes we have made?

It hasn't lasted, it's a shadow of what it
once was. It's falling just like Rome fell,
it's inevitable. The Church controlled it
all for a long time and then got greedy,
as is human nature. The Bible finally
got translated into English, despite the
Churches best efforts to keep it in Latin
and Greek. Is the guy who translated it
the one the Vatican dug out of his grave
and burned at the stake, or was that
somebody else they didn't like.

If the Church is no better than any other
group, as you imply, and Jesus is such an
obvious bad manager, being prayed to
for guidance 24/7, then I have to ask what
is the point of it. Unless you're desperate for
company, a smart person is better off on
his own.

Quote: Face

There are things in there that aren't right, not proper. But when challenged, not once ever in my 34 years have I heard "we were wrong".

Slavery? No, God was against slavery, as evidenced by the story of Moses (my last cat's name, btw ;)). Mysogyny? No, God loved women, as evidenced by the story of Mary.

I've tried this many times. Even as recently as the 1860s in the US, both sides of the abolition debate could, and did, cite the Bible for justifications of their respective positions. This would render the Bible ambiguous at best on the matter of slavery, regardless of what the church leaders thought or who they were.

A book that treats something as important and fundamental as slavery ambiguously at best, or positively at worst, is not fit to be a guide to morality.