| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Rosena" |
| Date: |
12 Mar 2006 04:39:28 PM |
| Object: |
@ Silly Report @ |
Been researching for hours and now in state of confused enlightenment.
Could find much on destruction of Mass rituals, but not what really
interested in. Wanted to find more on debate over transubstantiation
(physical reality of Christ in bread). I did. And wow, really
difficult arguments such as, for example, over Greek meaning of idea
"this is" in scripture (I.e. this is my body) and philosophical dispute
over being of esse, i.e. essence or "to be".
I LOVE this stuff but time for a shower to wash away confusion and then
put together.
Really not relevant but this is way I fight depression so sort of
relevant.
Anyone up on this stuff. Contrarian? Curious about thoughts of
others.
Rosena
.
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: SPOILER Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
13 Mar 2006 08:11:51 AM |
|
|
On 2006-03-12, Rosena <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
Been researching for hours and now in state of confused enlightenment.
Could find much on destruction of Mass rituals, but not what really
interested in. Wanted to find more on debate over transubstantiation
(physical reality of Christ in bread). I did. And wow, really
difficult arguments such as, for example, over Greek meaning of idea
"this is" in scripture (I.e. this is my body)
My own 'take' is to compare with common English usage where for example
two people are discussing a soccer game and use handy objects to represent
particular players, so 'the teapot is Stanley Matthews and the ketchup is
Pele'; or an adult trying to feed a reluctant baby 'here comes the
choo-choo into the tunnel' or 'the post-man wants to deliver a parcel' as
the spoon of gloop is dramatically aimed at the obstinately closed
[mouth|tunnel|letterbox].
Early promoters of the new religion seem to have felt the need to introduce
'mysteries' and 'magic' to compete with similar features of the other
popular religions. (Arguably, some parts of the New Testament were
written with this purpose in mind).
Many things that ended up as 'tradition' or 'doctrine' or 'creed' in (some
parts of) the Christian Church have a clear origin (or at least parallel)
in pagan religions of the first century, often in conflict with scripture
and Jewish tradition - thus requiring scholarly spinning and obfuscation
to overcome the apparent inconsistencies, and conveniently adding weight
to the suggestion that the laity are required only to believe and obey,
not to question and thereby confuse themselves with things that are 'not
for them'.
As the Roman form of Christianity was being exploited as an arm of
government in the collapsing Roman empire, and by later rulers in what had
been the Western Empire, unquestioning faith and obedience was something
to be encouraged wherever possible so as to help maintain the status quo
(once the quo had reached a status pleasing to those seeking to maintain
it, that is!).
Constantine I set the pattern for this abuse of faith - himself infamously
only accepting baptism on his deathbed, despite having exploited (and
encouraged the re-modelling of) the new religion for his own ends for
decades. (Bitter? Moi?). OK, that is a great over-simplification of
history ;))
and philosophical dispute
over being of esse, i.e. essence or "to be".
Much safer to argue about things like that than to question the authority
or mandate or morals of worldly rulers ;))
I LOVE this stuff but time for a shower to wash away confusion and then
put together.
Really not relevant but this is way I fight depression so sort of
relevant.
Anyone up on this stuff. Contrarian? Curious about thoughts of
others.
You did ask!
I've spoilered this thread, for obvious reasons :))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER gratuitious, irrelevant criticism of Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
13 Mar 2006 10:40:07 AM |
|
|
In article <76bge3-evd.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
I've spoilered this thread, for obvious reasons :))
So did I. ":))"
--
Support the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's
"Out of the Darkness" overnight walks. Heal. Help. Hope.
http://tinyurl.com/l7v2b
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER gratuitious, irrelevant criticism of Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
13 Mar 2006 10:42:19 AM |
|
|
"RGB" <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HfhRf.139332$5Z2.131797@fe03.news.easynews.com...
In article <76bge3-evd.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
I've spoilered this thread, for obvious reasons :))
So did I. ":))"
--
Support the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's
"Out of the Darkness" overnight walks. Heal. Help. Hope.
http://tinyurl.com/l7v2b
me too
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rosena" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER gratuitious, irrelevant criticism of Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
13 Mar 2006 11:02:07 AM |
|
|
RGB wrote:
In article <76bge3-evd.ln1@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
I've spoilered this thread, for obvious reasons :))
So did I. ":))"
Your spoiler was gratuitious. Whisker's wasn't. And it was misleading
since it wasn't "criticism" but just discussing issue in my research
which is about a spiritual subject granted.
R.
--
Support the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's
"Out of the Darkness" overnight walks. Heal. Help. Hope.
http://tinyurl.com/l7v2b
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER gratuitious, irrelevant criticism of Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
13 Mar 2006 11:13:53 AM |
|
|
In article <1142269327.562107.117680@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
Your spoiler was gratuitious. Whisker's wasn't. And it was misleading
since it wasn't "criticism" but just discussing issue in my research
which is about a spiritual subject granted.
You raised an abstract issue in theology, I didn't see why it was
necessary to "spoilerize" it if you didn't. And if you don't consider
his references to "spinning", "obfuscation", "exploitation", "abuse" to
be criticism, and irrelevant criticism to boot, what would be?
A long time ago, someone commented that people make a lot of noise about
the supposed need for spoilerization of posts mentioning religion in any
way, but see no need to likewise spoilerize posts that criticize
religion. I see a double standard there, and took the liberty of
revising his spoilerizer, just as he took the liberty of revising yours.
--
Support the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's
"Out of the Darkness" overnight walks. Heal. Help. Hope.
http://tinyurl.com/l7v2b
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosena" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER gratuitious, irrelevant criticism of Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
13 Mar 2006 11:21:46 AM |
|
|
I am Sorry - I get confused sometimes about your intentions and I guess
I am just wary of you . . . my own problem, and I apologize. Sincerely.
Rosena
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER gratuitious, irrelevant criticism of Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
13 Mar 2006 11:32:17 AM |
|
|
In article <1142270506.547317.157250@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
I am Sorry - I get confused sometimes about your intentions and I guess
I am just wary of you . . . my own problem, and I apologize. Sincerely.
Believe it or not, I was actually sort of taking your side, as I see the
geometry of the thread. I find theological issues interesting and wish
people didn't always have to politicize them, both in terms of history
and newsgroup "rules".
By the way... I saw your remark in that other thread about "yes, Mark,
this is a blatant plea for attention", and was wondering if you'd
forgotten our detente, and if you actually expected me to say something
unfriendly to you in connection with the distress you were expressing.
Anyway, I hope you got some of the comfort you were seeking there, and I
hope you're less distressed today.
Mark
--
Support the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's
"Out of the Darkness" overnight walks. Heal. Help. Hope.
http://tinyurl.com/l7v2b
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosena" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER gratuitious, irrelevant criticism of Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
13 Mar 2006 01:56:39 PM |
|
|
RGB wrote:
In article <1142270506.547317.157250@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>,
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
I am Sorry - I get confused sometimes about your intentions and I guess
I am just wary of you . . . my own problem, and I apologize. Sincerely.
Believe it or not, I was actually sort of taking your side, as I see the
geometry of the thread. I find theological issues interesting and wish
people didn't always have to politicize them, both in terms of history
and newsgroup "rules".
Right, I completely get it. Like I said, my fault for being
reactionary! Apologies.
BTW, it is interesting (and I don't like it) all much in the history of
the Reformation is put down to "politics" rather than real theological
conflicts etc. It is wrong, for these issues really mattered to the
laity. I do not know if the average "Christian" today (Catholic,
Baptist, all in between) think about the transsubstantiation much. I
completely agree with you (as I often do on many things).
By the way... I saw your remark in that other thread about "yes, Mark,
this is a blatant plea for attention", and was wondering if you'd
forgotten our detente, and if you actually expected me to say something
unfriendly to you in connection with the distress you were expressing.
This makes me laugh in a good way. Seems we both misunderstand each
other. Naw, I was just tagging it with a friendly tap at you. I have
come to learn that you have genuine concern for people in distress. I
was just embarrased to directly ask for attention and thought I'd nudge
you in a friendly way.
Anyway, I hope you got some of the comfort you were seeking there, and I
hope you're less distressed today.
Thanks. I got extension on one paper, and some rest so I feel better
able to cope. It is amazing how rest can help eh?
Rosena
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: SPOILER religion |
13 Mar 2006 02:35:32 PM |
|
|
On 2006-03-13, RGB <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1142269327.562107.117680@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
Your spoiler was gratuitious. Whisker's wasn't. And it was misleading
since it wasn't "criticism" but just discussing issue in my research
which is about a spiritual subject granted.
You raised an abstract issue in theology, I didn't see why it was
necessary to "spoilerize" it if you didn't. And if you don't consider
his references to "spinning", "obfuscation", "exploitation", "abuse" to
be criticism, and irrelevant criticism to boot, what would be?
I don't know how what I wrote could be described as irrelevant to the
question asked by Rosena; you may disagree with my words, but that only
makes their relevance stronger - and of course you are free to explain how
and why you disagree, if you wish. If you don't do that, then
'gratuitous and irrelevant' describes your actions, not mine.
I believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation is un-necessary at best,
and superstitious magical nonsense at worst. The Roman church has many
such accretions which obscure and confuse Jesus' teachings and have no
scriptural basis, if not actually contradicting the Gospels. The
existence of a priesthood distinct from 'all believers' is one, for
instance, and seeking intercession from saints is another. Not all
Christians (individuals and churches) believe in or accept or follow any of
these things. Most (including many Roman Catholics, in all probability)
do not waste any time thinking about them at all, or keep quiet about
their thoughts rather than confront the possible consequences. Some
churches still encourage such discretion.
People can believe differently from me in all these things, and be good
Christians, and be good people and pious worshippers and worthy of respect
and love. There is room for differences - and good Christians differ in
their beliefs and opinions about many more things than I've mentioned
here.
The existence of a church as an organisation has only the most tenuous of
scriptural bases. That does not mean that I want to abolish all churches;
certainly not! They can be a great power for good, as well as for evil.
This is not a denigration of religion in general or of Christianity in
particular. I am a Christian, in that I try to understand and follow the
teaching of Jesus Christ; something which for a long long time the Roman
church sought to prevent anyone not admitted to the priesthood from even
having the means to attempt - to the extent of killing anyone who dared to
let anyone have access to the Bible in their own language. Not even the
present leaders of that church believe their predecessors were right about
that.
So I am certainly very critical of some of the things done and practised by
those in power in the past, and indeed in the present, in the name of 'the
Church' or of Jesus or of God. That is neither irrelevant nor gratuitous -
and is very relevant for me to express if I choose to respond to a direct
question that is bound up with all these things.
A long time ago, someone commented that people make a lot of noise about
the supposed need for spoilerization of posts mentioning religion in any
way, but see no need to likewise spoilerize posts that criticize
religion. I see a double standard there, and took the liberty of
revising his spoilerizer, just as he took the liberty of revising yours.
I think it is a single standard; there are people of all shades of opinion
and belief, and unbelief and disbelief, who can be 'triggered' by any
discussion around religion. I would have been not so long ago.
I can certainly imagine that some people will be offended or upset or
angered or shocked by what I have chosen to say, so I think it was only
good manners for me to put a warning in the subject. That reflects what I
think of my own words, it is not a comment on what Rosena wrote or what she
chose as a subject for her article.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosena" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER for Not Getting Along! |
13 Mar 2006 05:40:35 PM |
|
|
Don't get angry at each other, kay guys? I understand what Whiskers
said for many see theological issues as non-issues and reinterpret them
as political or social issues.
Intellectually, my thinking lines up with Mark both on arguing from
within the paramaters of the framework of a discussion and about
spoilers. Well, at least when it is us regulars posting and we
"understand" each other somewhat. BUT, I also really appreciate
Whiskers responding because frankly I get lonley for dialogue on this
stuff and it was nice he took the time to respond.
So everyone - Time out eh?
Best to you both (sincerely)
Rosena
Whiskers wrote:
On 2006-03-13, RGB <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1142269327.562107.117680@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
Your spoiler was gratuitious. Whisker's wasn't. And it was misleading
since it wasn't "criticism" but just discussing issue in my research
which is about a spiritual subject granted.
You raised an abstract issue in theology, I didn't see why it was
necessary to "spoilerize" it if you didn't. And if you don't consider
his references to "spinning", "obfuscation", "exploitation", "abuse" to
be criticism, and irrelevant criticism to boot, what would be?
I don't know how what I wrote could be described as irrelevant to the
question asked by Rosena; you may disagree with my words, but that only
makes their relevance stronger - and of course you are free to explain how
and why you disagree, if you wish. If you don't do that, then
'gratuitous and irrelevant' describes your actions, not mine.
I believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation is un-necessary at best,
and superstitious magical nonsense at worst. The Roman church has many
such accretions which obscure and confuse Jesus' teachings and have no
scriptural basis, if not actually contradicting the Gospels. The
existence of a priesthood distinct from 'all believers' is one, for
instance, and seeking intercession from saints is another. Not all
Christians (individuals and churches) believe in or accept or follow any of
these things. Most (including many Roman Catholics, in all probability)
do not waste any time thinking about them at all, or keep quiet about
their thoughts rather than confront the possible consequences. Some
churches still encourage such discretion.
People can believe differently from me in all these things, and be good
Christians, and be good people and pious worshippers and worthy of respect
and love. There is room for differences - and good Christians differ in
their beliefs and opinions about many more things than I've mentioned
here.
The existence of a church as an organisation has only the most tenuous of
scriptural bases. That does not mean that I want to abolish all churches;
certainly not! They can be a great power for good, as well as for evil.
This is not a denigration of religion in general or of Christianity in
particular. I am a Christian, in that I try to understand and follow the
teaching of Jesus Christ; something which for a long long time the Roman
church sought to prevent anyone not admitted to the priesthood from even
having the means to attempt - to the extent of killing anyone who dared to
let anyone have access to the Bible in their own language. Not even the
present leaders of that church believe their predecessors were right about
that.
So I am certainly very critical of some of the things done and practised by
those in power in the past, and indeed in the present, in the name of 'the
Church' or of Jesus or of God. That is neither irrelevant nor gratuitous -
and is very relevant for me to express if I choose to respond to a direct
question that is bound up with all these things.
A long time ago, someone commented that people make a lot of noise about
the supposed need for spoilerization of posts mentioning religion in any
way, but see no need to likewise spoilerize posts that criticize
religion. I see a double standard there, and took the liberty of
revising his spoilerizer, just as he took the liberty of revising yours.
I think it is a single standard; there are people of all shades of opinion
and belief, and unbelief and disbelief, who can be 'triggered' by any
discussion around religion. I would have been not so long ago.
I can certainly imagine that some people will be offended or upset or
angered or shocked by what I have chosen to say, so I think it was only
good manners for me to put a warning in the subject. That reflects what I
think of my own words, it is not a comment on what Rosena wrote or what she
chose as a subject for her article.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER for Not Getting Along! |
13 Mar 2006 06:02:32 PM |
|
|
In article <1142293235.004400.225360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
Don't get angry at each other, kay guys? I understand what Whiskers
said for many see theological issues as non-issues and reinterpret them
as political or social issues.
Intellectually, my thinking lines up with Mark both on arguing from
within the paramaters of the framework of a discussion and about
spoilers. Well, at least when it is us regulars posting and we
"understand" each other somewhat. BUT, I also really appreciate
Whiskers responding because frankly I get lonley for dialogue on this
stuff and it was nice he took the time to respond.
So everyone - Time out eh?
Best to you both (sincerely)
Hey! This post was NOT properly spoilerized!!!
I opened it expecting to see people "not getting along", but what do I
find? You being all friendly and conciliatory and asking people not to
get angry and expressing appreciation and calling people "nice" and
offering your "best" and now I am ALL "TRIGGERED" by this sudden display
of cordiality with no warning at all!!!
--
Support the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's
"Out of the Darkness" overnight walks. Heal. Help. Hope.
http://tinyurl.com/l7v2b
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosena" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER for Not Getting Along! |
13 Mar 2006 08:14:37 PM |
|
|
RGB wrote:
In article <1142293235.004400.225360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
Don't get angry at each other, kay guys? I understand what Whiskers
said for many see theological issues as non-issues and reinterpret them
as political or social issues.
Intellectually, my thinking lines up with Mark both on arguing from
within the paramaters of the framework of a discussion and about
spoilers. Well, at least when it is us regulars posting and we
"understand" each other somewhat. BUT, I also really appreciate
Whiskers responding because frankly I get lonley for dialogue on this
stuff and it was nice he took the time to respond.
So everyone - Time out eh?
Best to you both (sincerely)
Hey! This post was NOT properly spoilerized!!!
I opened it expecting to see people "not getting along", but what do I
find? You being all friendly and conciliatory and asking people not to
get angry and expressing appreciation and calling people "nice" and
offering your "best" and now I am ALL "TRIGGERED" by this sudden display
of cordiality with no warning at all!!!
OHHHHHH Mark. I do not laugh easy but I just howled outloud - I can't
stop laughing, this is the funniest post/reply ever . . . .
trying to shut up howls
Rosena
--
Support the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's
"Out of the Darkness" overnight walks. Heal. Help. Hope.
http://tinyurl.com/l7v2b
.
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER for Not Getting Along! |
13 Mar 2006 10:05:04 PM |
|
|
In article <1142302477.286588.124040@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
OHHHHHH Mark. I do not laugh easy but I just howled outloud - I can't
stop laughing, this is the funniest post/reply ever . . . .
Aw, garsh, thanks. <toes in dirt>
But the "severed finger in the chili" one was better.
--
Support the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's "Out of the Darkness"
Overnight Walk / San Francisco CA, July 22, 2006. Heal. Help. Hope.
http://tinyurl.com/l7v2b
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER for Not Getting Along! |
13 Mar 2006 10:10:01 PM |
|
|
hi
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER for Not Getting Along! |
14 Mar 2006 07:19:15 AM |
|
|
On 2006-03-13, Rosena <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
Don't get angry at each other, kay guys? I understand what Whiskers
said for many see theological issues as non-issues and reinterpret them
as political or social issues.
Some people don't see theological debate as a seperate box not
communicating with or affecting or affected by any other human acivity.
Theology has a huge impact on peoples' lives, particularly when it gets
combined with politics. The intelectual exercise is fun or useful for
those taking part, at least sometimes (as long as torture and killing are
not used as debating tools), but I believe that it is irresponsible to
ignore the practical ramifications.
Intellectually, my thinking lines up with Mark both on arguing from
within the paramaters of the framework of a discussion and about
spoilers. Well, at least when it is us regulars posting and we
"understand" each other somewhat. BUT, I also really appreciate
Whiskers responding because frankly I get lonley for dialogue on this
stuff and it was nice he took the time to respond.
So everyone - Time out eh?
Best to you both (sincerely)
Rosena
This is confusing because I'm called mark too <G>
I'll try to avoid following any drifts this thread may take away from what
the original question means to me. I don't think I can change my opinion
about the scope of that question though, so I cannot take sole
responsibility for the way anyone may react to what I write. OK?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER religion, burritos, spoilers, bulky sweaters |
13 Mar 2006 05:23:24 PM |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
Whiskers wrote:
I don't know how what I wrote could be described as irrelevant to the
question asked by Rosena
If someone posted a question regarding, say, musicological analysis of
Beethoven's symphonies, and you replied with a diatribe about how
Beethoven sucks and how his patrons were a bunch of aristocratic
assholes, I'd call that irrelevant, too.
I believe that the doctrine of transubstantiation is un-necessary at best,
and superstitious magical nonsense at worst.
Actually, I do, too. But your (and, let me emphasize, my) opinion that
transubstantiation is "superstituous magical nonsense" isn't exactly
germane to a scholarly discussion of the different schools of
theological thought on the subject. Which is what Rosena was inviting
participation in.
I think it is a single standard; there are people of all shades of opinion
and belief, and unbelief and disbelief, who can be 'triggered' by any
discussion around religion. I would have been not so long ago.
Yeah, yeah, so we've all heard, countless times. But there are probably
also people who can be "triggered" by mention of dogs, or cars, or
bridges, or bulky sweaters, or parents, or hot weather, or money, or
tobacco, or discussion of "spoilers" for that matter. I frankly do not
buy the sacred ASD dogma that there are all these terribly vulnerable
readers out there just ripe to be "triggered" into horrific episodes of
depression by the mere sight of the word "God" or some other
theological theme. And jumping into an abstract theological thread
someone else started and spoilerizing it because you think they were
lax in not doing so strikes me as a little silly and a little rude.
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rosena" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
14 Mar 2006 12:41:02 AM |
|
|
Many things that ended up as 'tradition' or 'doctrine' or 'creed' in
(some
parts of) the Christian Church have a clear origin (or at least
parallel)
in pagan religions of the first century, often in conflict with
scripture
and Jewish tradition - thus requiring scholarly spinning and
obfuscation
to overcome the apparent inconsistencies, and conveniently adding
weight
to the suggestion that the laity are required only to believe and obey,
not to question and thereby confuse themselves with things that are
'not
for them'.
It is conventional wisdom that Catholicism incorporated many many pagan
traditions. But I think you are not seeing the theological reasons why.
Catholicism, unlike other strands of Christian faith such as Baptist or
Methodist, are wedded to tradition and custom more than abstract fixed
text. To put it differently, they are your diehard "liberal"
constitutionalists who believe in a living tradition that must be
understood in CONTEXT always of the streams of historical life as
opposed to a "thing" abstracted from life.
Therefore, wedded to living tradition, Medieval and modern catholicism
finds modes of expressions, nuances in belief, manners of worship in
infinitely diverse ways -- It adapted, took on, transformed, and
borrowed the way any living tradition does from what came before, or
from the place in which it finds itself. Hence Mexican American and
Italian Catholics are all quite different for the culture affects in a
beautiful way the religious expression of the given people. The same
for pagan tradition.
There was not a politic going on in Augustine, for example. There was
a man understanding his faith IN CONTEXT of his time (pagan) and
surrouding traditions.
Well that is my two cents. :)
Rosena
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
14 Mar 2006 12:44:12 AM |
|
|
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: SPOILER Religion / Christianity (was: Re: @ Silly Report @) |
14 Mar 2006 08:23:42 AM |
|
|
On 2006-03-14, Rosena <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
Many things that ended up as 'tradition' or 'doctrine' or 'creed' in (some
parts of) the Christian Church have a clear origin (or at least parallel)
in pagan religions of the first century, often in conflict with scripture
and Jewish tradition - thus requiring scholarly spinning and obfuscation to
overcome the apparent inconsistencies, and conveniently adding weight to
the suggestion that the laity are required only to believe and obey, not to
question and thereby confuse themselves with things that are 'not for
them'.
It is conventional wisdom that Catholicism incorporated many many pagan
traditions. But I think you are not seeing the theological reasons why.
Now you are trying to argue that theology is inseperable from the rest of
life - but in your article
<1142293235.004400.225360@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> dated 13 Mar 2006
15:40:35 -0800 elsewhere in this thread you tried to argue the opposite.
I think that this time you are correct; the church of Rome did indeed
change its teaching and practices to strengthen its social and political
position. That may be 'practical theology' but it feels remarkably like
what power-at-any-price politicians do today: "What do I stand for? I
stand for what my sponsors stand for - but I'll say I stand for what the
voters stand for if that means I get their votes".
Catholicism, unlike other strands of Christian faith such as Baptist or
Methodist, are wedded to tradition and custom more than abstract fixed
text. To put it differently, they are your diehard "liberal"
constitutionalists who believe in a living tradition that must be
understood in CONTEXT always of the streams of historical life as
opposed to a "thing" abstracted from life.
So liberal that they hunted down, persecuted, tortured, and killed, anyone
who chose to disagree or criticise or hold different beliefs. Of course,
that was /after/ they had manipulated their own beliefs and practices so
successfully that the church of Rome was not so much a branch of
government as the government.
As for the message of the Gospels being 'abstract' ... isn't Christianity
a 'Religion of the Book'? We may debate and disagree about the meaning of
the text, in whole or in part, but once we lose hold of the text then we
are adrift and lost.
Therefore, wedded to living tradition, Medieval and modern catholicism
finds modes of expressions, nuances in belief, manners of worship in
infinitely diverse ways -- It adapted, took on, transformed, and
borrowed the way any living tradition does from what came before, or
from the place in which it finds itself. Hence Mexican American and
Italian Catholics are all quite different for the culture affects in a
beautiful way the religious expression of the given people. The same
for pagan tradition.
.... preserving and strengthening the heirarchy and organisation and wealth
and power, but losing sight of the truth?
There was not a politic going on in Augustine, for example. There was
a man understanding his faith IN CONTEXT of his time (pagan) and
surrouding traditions.
In common with St Paul, he has a lot to answer for ;))
New readers start here <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/>
"Aurelius Augustinus [more commonly "St. Augustine of Hippo," often simply
"Augustine"] (354-430 C.E.)". Not to be confused with "St Augustine of
Canterbury" or any other St Augustine.
Well that is my two cents. :)
Rosena
I think we may have to agree to differ about quite a lot of things :))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: @ Silly Report @ |
13 Mar 2006 04:47:44 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Rosena wrote:
Been researching for hours and now in state of confused enlightenment.
Could find much on destruction of Mass rituals, but not what really
interested in. Wanted to find more on debate over transubstantiation
(physical reality of Christ in bread). I did. And wow, really
difficult arguments such as, for example, over Greek meaning of idea
"this is" in scripture (I.e. this is my body) and philosophical dispute
over being of esse, i.e. essence or "to be".
I LOVE this stuff but time for a shower to wash away confusion and then
put together.
Really not relevant but this is way I fight depression so sort of
relevant.
Anyone up on this stuff. Contrarian? Curious about thoughts of
others.
Rosena
I'm re-reading a history of Europe textbook that I stole from my frat 20
years ago. It was written in 1943. He briefly mentioned that topic -
the supposed fundamental essence of the bread vs. the surface
characteristics - I forget the technical terms, Markypoo might know.
I read this book in 1987. I don't remember a thing from it. It's
sticking a bit more now, I have more background knowledge I think.
Still, even though it's a thick book, each page could probably be it's
own separate book. Hard to do justice to over 2000 years of history in
one book.
For me, this is a good get-to-sleep book - interesting enough, but not
so interesting that I stay up all night reading it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noon Cat Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: @ Silly Report @ |
13 Mar 2006 12:15:44 PM |
|
|
Rosena wrote:
Been researching for hours and now in state of confused enlightenment.
Could find much on destruction of Mass rituals, but not what really
interested in. Wanted to find more on debate over transubstantiation
(physical reality of Christ in bread). I did. And wow, really
difficult arguments such as, for example, over Greek meaning of idea
"this is" in scripture (I.e. this is my body) and philosophical dispute
over being of esse, i.e. essence or "to be".
I LOVE this stuff but time for a shower to wash away confusion and then
put together.
Really not relevant but this is way I fight depression so sort of
relevant.
Anyone up on this stuff. Contrarian? Curious about thoughts of
others.
Regarding the Koine (New Testament) Greek meaning of "this is," I'll ask
my former pastor, Fr. Basil Papanikolaou. Fr. Basil studied philology at
the U of IL in Urbana-Champaign, specifically concentrated on Koine
Greek. He'd be the best source I could name. But don't hold your breath.
He's not easy to contact these days.
Another idea: Check the writings of Dr. George M. Lamsa. Dr. Lamsa came
from an area of the world where Northern Aramaic, the language of Jesus
and the Apostles, is still spoken, with (according to Lamsa) nearly no
linguistic or cultural changes since the time of Christ. He contended
that the books of the New Testament canon (save the Pauline Epistles)
were originally written in Northern Aramaic, and later translated into
Koine Greek. Dr. Lamsa asserted that the sentences "Eat my body" and
"Drink my blood" were Aramaic idioms corresponding in meaning to "Do my
work" and "Follow my teachings".
The various Aramaic tongues, according to Lamsa, are highly colloquial,
and often many phrases encountered in both the Hebrew Tanakh and the
Christian Scriptures are idiomatic. In one of his books, Lamsa
illustrated that the statement "I have eaten and drunk the flesh and
blood of my ancestors while building this house" means, colloquially, "I
have worked very long and hard and diligently in building this house."
He maintained that this is the same idiomatic idea expressed by Christ
at the Last Supper.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosena" |
|
| Title: Re: @ Silly Report @ |
13 Mar 2006 02:00:11 PM |
|
|
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Rosena wrote:
Been researching for hours and now in state of confused enlightenment.
Could find much on destruction of Mass rituals, but not what really
interested in. Wanted to find more on debate over transubstantiation
(physical reality of Christ in bread). I did. And wow, really
difficult arguments such as, for example, over Greek meaning of idea
"this is" in scripture (I.e. this is my body) and philosophical dispute
over being of esse, i.e. essence or "to be".
I LOVE this stuff but time for a shower to wash away confusion and then
put together.
Really not relevant but this is way I fight depression so sort of
relevant.
Anyone up on this stuff. Contrarian? Curious about thoughts of
others.
Regarding the Koine (New Testament) Greek meaning of "this is," I'll ask
my former pastor, Fr. Basil Papanikolaou. Fr. Basil studied philology at
the U of IL in Urbana-Champaign, specifically concentrated on Koine
Greek. He'd be the best source I could name. But don't hold your breath.
He's not easy to contact these days.
Thanks! So kind of you to think of this.
Another idea: Check the writings of Dr. George M. Lamsa. Dr. Lamsa came
from an area of the world where Northern Aramaic, the language of Jesus
and the Apostles, is still spoken, with (according to Lamsa) nearly no
linguistic or cultural changes since the time of Christ.
Wow - to think of a fixed language for so long.
He contended > that the books of the New Testament canon (save the
Pauline Epistles)
were originally written in Northern Aramaic, and later translated into
Koine Greek. Dr. Lamsa asserted that the sentences "Eat my body" and
"Drink my blood" were Aramaic idioms corresponding in meaning to "Do my
work" and "Follow my teachings".
Ah, very interesting. I will look at his work for sure.
The various Aramaic tongues, according to Lamsa, are highly colloquial,
and often many phrases encountered in both the Hebrew Tanakh and the
Christian Scriptures are idiomatic. In one of his books, Lamsa
illustrated that the statement "I have eaten and drunk the flesh and
blood of my ancestors while building this house" means, colloquially, "I
have worked very long and hard and diligently in building this house."
He maintained that this is the same idiomatic idea expressed by Christ
at the Last Supper.
Thanks - I knew nothing about this lexicon and its possible bearing on
the question. Often learn something on ASD!
Rosena
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noon Cat Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: @ Silly Report @ |
13 Mar 2006 02:53:56 PM |
|
|
Info on Lamsa and the Peshitta (Aramaic) Bible may be found (among other
places) at:
www.aramaicpeshitta.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lamsa
www.christianseparatist.org/ast/hist/aramaic.htm
www.peshitta.org/pdf/intro.pdf
www.studylight.org/info/copyright/bible/pes.html
www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/ text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0032a.html
(or
72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ZvzpxIulrDYJ:www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0032a.html+lamsa+peshitta&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8&ie=UTF-8)
www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa023.htm
www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/lbp.htm
www.metamind.net/nestor1.html
www.keithhunt.com/Peshita2.html
www.kjvonly.org/aisi/2000/aisi_3_1_00.htm
www.studylight.org/col/at/
aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/outside/Lamsaintro1.htm
www.answers.com/topic/peshitta
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: @ Silly Report @ |
13 Mar 2006 02:58:08 PM |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
I'm re-reading a history of Europe textbook that I stole from my frat 20
years ago. It was written in 1943. He briefly mentioned that topic -
the supposed fundamental essence of the bread vs. the surface
characteristics - I forget the technical terms, Markypoo might know.
It's been a long time, but as I recall, the theological notions of
"essence" or "substance" vs. "surface characteristics" or "accidents"
go back to Aristotle. An object has a certain set of essential
properties that make it what it is, that define its substance, and
without which it would not exist as that object. It also has a certain
set of properties that are what you would call optional. For example,
take that green car parked outside. It could have been originally
painted red and it would still be the same car. But it couldn't have
come into existence as an artichoke, it makes no sense to suggest that
THAT CAR could somehow have been an artichoke, had things gone a bit
differently.
Somebody somewhere along the line (Aquinas?) tried to explain the
supposed phenomenon of transubstantiation by suggesting that you had
the underlying substance of the body and blood of Christ but with ALL
the properties, superficial AND essential, of bread and wine. Again, if
I recall correctly, this was met with some outrage, as it is both
counter-Aristotelian and a little silly, like saying you could have a
car with all the properties of an artichoke and none of the properties
of a car.
Not sure if that's related to what you had in mind, but now I want a
burrito.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rosena" |
|
| Title: Re: @ Silly Report @ |
13 Mar 2006 05:47:07 PM |
|
|
Somebody somewhere along the line (Aquinas?) tried to explain the
supposed phenomenon of transubstantiation by suggesting that you had
the underlying substance of the body and blood of Christ but with ALL
the properties, superficial AND essential, of bread and wine. Again, if
I recall correctly, this was met with some outrage, as it is both
counter-Aristotelian and a little silly, like saying you could have a
car with all the properties of an artichoke and none of the properties
of a car.
I have to go back and check Summa but I think Aquinas argues that the
accidents remain in the bread (appears like bread) but essence is
transformed. I think what you are referring to is constubstantiation
which says pretty much what you did - ALL properites of bread and
Christ simultaneously.
This stuff is important to me spiritually. But historically, it is so
profound in what the wordly and otherworld, or spiritual and physical
or thought to mix. Miri Rubin, a real trendy cultural historian wrote a
great book called Corpus Christi about the Eucharist feasts they use to
have in England (and the mystery plays) and she really shows how -- in
the end -- it is the medieval mind in love with the flesh as full of
significance (as opposed to us, heirs of the sexual revolution).
Best
Rosena
.
|
|
|
| User: "%" |
|
| Title: Re: @ Silly Report @ |
13 Mar 2006 05:48:55 PM |
|
|
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1142293626.959800.252090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Somebody somewhere along the line (Aquinas?) tried to explain the
supposed phenomenon of transubstantiation by suggesting that you had
the underlying substance of the body and blood of Christ but with ALL
the properties, superficial AND essential, of bread and wine. Again, if
I recall correctly, this was met with some outrage, as it is both
counter-Aristotelian and a little silly, like saying you could have a
car with all the properties of an artichoke and none of the properties
of a car.
I have to go back and check Summa but I think Aquinas argues that the
accidents remain in the bread (appears like bread) but essence is
transformed. I think what you are referring to is constubstantiation
which says pretty much what you did - ALL properites of bread and
Christ simultaneously.
This stuff is important to me spiritually. But historically, it is so
profound in what the wordly and otherworld, or spiritual and physical
or thought to mix. Miri Rubin, a real trendy cultural historian wrote a
great book called Corpus Christi about the Eucharist feasts they use to
have in England (and the mystery plays) and she really shows how -- in
the end -- it is the medieval mind in love with the flesh as full of
significance (as opposed to us, heirs of the sexual revolution).
Best
Rosena
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RGB" |
|
| Title: Re: @ Silly Report @ |
13 Mar 2006 06:23:39 PM |
|
|
In article <1142293626.959800.252090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
I have to go back and check Summa but I think Aquinas argues that the
accidents remain in the bread
Is that anything like the finger that woman found in her bowl of
Wendy's chili? (Actually she only pretended to find it and was a
complete fraud , but never mind that now... gotta run off back to work,
more metaphysics later...)
--
Support the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention's
"Out of the Darkness" overnight walks. Heal. Help. Hope.
http://tinyurl.com/l7v2b
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
