A question on the hypocricies of religion

[foray]

Melon, I agree with you that the crucifixes et al HELP people in their religion. I think that in the Old Testament days, the reason why there were so many rituals and such was that people were still immature in their understanding of God. When I say 'immature', I don't mean that they were less godly, just that Man's ("Person's" for the politically correct?

) idea of God had not developed as much as they have now.

But I also agree with Debbie in that crucifixes, bleeding Mary statues, stigmatas (I added a few eg.s of my own) etc. can in fact lead people astray; as in, they would lend their focus to the images themselves rather than to Jesus.

Thus it is a fine line to walk when one needs the help of crufixes, rituals, miracles etc. in leading their spiritual lives.


foray

------------------
"Please--tame me!" he said. "I want to, very much," the little prince replied. "But I have not much time. I have friends to discover, and a great many things to understand." "One only understands the things that one tames," said the fox.

[This message has been edited by foray (edited 03-12-2001).]

 

[]{arao]{e]

The display of the crucifixion of Jesus was always shown in Christendom in order to educate the masses and remind them of that moment all the time..in order to move them to reverence for Jesus. However, it does teach idolatry when you kiss the feet or bow down to that image! Thus the hypocrisy.

The "miraculous" crying of statues just serves the believer's desire to have VISUAL evidence of Holy Spirit being active in and round a certain place of worship....it's commonly the stamp of approval of a church to have an object ( a piller, stained cloth, cup of the covenent, etc.) that has divine powers. It's superstition and not very reasonable based on Jesus's teachings of worshipping God "in spirit and truth". However, Christendom ignored this teaching in order to gain more pagan believers...appeasing their need for something to bow down to...which they were used to doing before they were "converted".

 

[dream wanderer]

Originally posted by Angell:


Dream Wanderer--in the OT it specifically states that if a man claims that his wife was not a virgin, and it turns out she was not--she was stoned. The sex laws in the OT are sverely slanted to favor the males, but they are there, sex was not allowed (for females at least) before marriage. Joseph even thought of leaving Mary when he found out she was pregnant, because he knew it wasn't his, and did not want to be dishonored by marrying a non-virgin. God convinced him otherwise.

The instances you are speaking of if is the woman had sex with a man while she was engaged to the accuser..infidelity during the engagement time was the same as adultery in those days..Joseph thought Mary was unfaithful during the engagement period..

I have had Jewish friends agree with me on this point of the law.....a single non commited man...and a single non commited woman were not stoned...the man either married the girl or paid the guy a fine...
Now if the girl passed herself off as a virgin...when she was not...that is is a different issue...and it has to do with fraud and not with sex...

 

[]{arao]{e]

Yes, I am a Jehovah's Witness.

A cult is a religion that is said to be unorthodox or that emphasizes devotion according to prescribed ritual. Many cults follow a living human leader, and often their adherents live in groups apart from the rest of society. The standard for what is orthodox, however, should be God's Word, and Jehovah's Witnesses strictly adhere to the Bible. Their worship is a way of life, not a ritual devotion. They neither follow a human nor isolate themselves from the rest of society. They live and work in the midst of other people.

The point of this discussion is to reveal instances of hypocrisy in religious bodies and NOT to be judgmental or accusatory. I'm sorry if I offended you Melon.

 

[melon]

Well, I am sorry I got a little touchy. I just get tired of having to defend Catholicism from stereotypes and generalities. I've heard everything from that Catholics are cannibals and vampires (the body and blood of Christ, a.k.a., the Eucharist) to being idol worshippers (statues, etc.), and, frankly, I grow very tired of it all.

So you wonder why I have a very negative view of Christianity, in general? That's why.

But I shouldn't be taking my rage out on you. It's unwarranted, and I apologize. No hard feelings?

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[BabyGrace]

hey Ang, I'm a little late on this one, as always in this forum but since I can't argue viewpoints well or explain things well, this is my simple answer:

God is perfect, therefore he forgives and loves unconditionally.
humans, on the other hand are imperfect, and they often feel the need to condemn in order to feel more worthy, perhaps of God's love, not realizing it's unconditional. meaning, people are probably trying to force others to do the 'right thing' set out in the Bible, feeling this makes them followers of God's word.
please don't ask me about the rules in the Bible, or religion itself, I'm still trying to figure out a lot of those myself

hey madamc, please don't get upset by this but I was wondering if you could look at it this way: Jesus is called the Son of God but it also says that he was God, made flesh and blood to suffer what we humans have to go through and die for us as one of ourselves. I've always looked at God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as one entity anyway. maybe that makes a little more sense as to where the terminoligy comes from, I think it's more figurative.


------------------
contradiction is balance

 

[scatteroflight]

Originally posted by melon:
Once again, when you say "Christendom," you do mean "Catholicism" again, as a lot of this phenomena is indicative of Catholicism.

Use of images in worship certainly isn't confined to Catholicism, though, so I don't think that was necessarily who karaoke was pinpointing. People in quite a lot of Christian faiths wear crosses, don't they?? I guess that's not exactly the same thing, though.

 

[melon]

Originally posted by ]{arao]{e:
The display of the crucifixion of Jesus was always shown in Christendom in order to educate the masses and remind them of that moment all the time..in order to move them to reverence for Jesus. However, it does teach idolatry when you kiss the feet or bow down to that image! Thus the hypocrisy.

While you do say "Christendom," you inevitably mean, "Catholicism," as--correct me if I'm wrong--Roman Catholicism is the only sect that uses the crucifix.

Your opinion on idolatry is just that--an opinion--and it is one that I repeatedly and vehemently disagree with. First of all, this doesn't happen much anymore in Catholicism; it appears that the emphasis on simplicity that originated from Calvinist Protestantism has found it's way into the Catholic Church. However, for those who still do use statues and other icons--and even if they do bow down to a crucifix and kiss its feet--it's not idolatry! Catholics do not see the crucifix as their God. It is simply a visual representation of Jesus, more indicative of tradition than anything else.

The "miraculous" crying of statues just serves the believer's desire to have VISUAL evidence of Holy Spirit being active in and round a certain place of worship....it's commonly the stamp of approval of a church to have an object ( a piller, stained cloth, cup of the covenent, etc.) that has divine powers. It's superstition and not very reasonable based on Jesus's teachings of worshipping God "in spirit and truth". However, Christendom ignored this teaching in order to gain more pagan believers...appeasing their need for something to bow down to...which they were used to doing before they were "converted".

Once again, when you say "Christendom," you do mean "Catholicism" again, as a lot of this phenomena is indicative of Catholicism. However, belief in any of this is not required, and--in many circumstances--it is discouraged! The Church has only recognized three phenomena that Catholics are permitted to believe in--Guadalupe during the 1500s, Fatima in 1917, and one more that I forget. Even the most prominent of phenomena today, Medjugorje, has not received approval! Yet, even those three that have been approved are optional beliefs, not required ones.

You are free to believe as you wish, but do realize that religious criticism goes both ways. I do believe you are a Jehovah's Witness, correct? Many faiths do label this religion as a "cult," so do keep that in mind before you make sweeping generalities about other peoples' religions.

Peace,
Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[Angela Harlem]

Hey BabyG!!!!

Nice to hear from ya.

I didn't actually mean to start a war here, and wish it didn't cause arguments, but well...

You summed it up pretty well though BG, it is people that make the mistakes, not God. I still belive there is huge distinction between God and religion. I think they are entirely seperate, and its a human failing. We dont need to go to a church to be closer to God, or to be a good Christian, Catholic, Jew, whatever. And we dont need a name for our beliefs either.

 

[melon]

Originally posted by scatteroflight:
Use of images in worship certainly isn't confined to Catholicism, though, so I don't think that was necessarily who karaoke was pinpointing. People in quite a lot of Christian faiths wear crosses, don't they?? I guess that's not exactly the same thing, though.

There is a terminology difference. The "crucifix," which karaoke used specifically, refers to the image where Jesus is crucified on the cross. Most Protestants just use an empty "cross," without Jesus. Of course, without Jesus, in my opinion, the cross is meaningless.

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[pub crawler]

oops.

[This message has been edited by pub crawler (edited 09-03-2001).]

 

[pub crawler]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
I still belive there is huge distinction between God and religion. I think they are entirely seperate, and its a human failing. We dont need to go to a church to be closer to God, or to be a good Christian, Catholic, Jew, whatever. And we dont need a name for our beliefs either.

What is god?

 

[Angela Harlem]

That, PC, is the question innit?

 

[pub crawler]

Yeah, well, I was just curious about what you thought.

I wouldn't argue with you much 'cause I'm an Episcopalian. We rock.



------------------
-pub

 

[BabyGrace]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
I still belive there is huge distinction between God and religion. I think they are entirely seperate, and its a human failing. We dont need to go to a church to be closer to God, or to be a good Christian, Catholic, Jew, whatever. And we dont need a name for our beliefs either.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm not a regular church-goer but I do like to show up once in awhile because God is so tangible there, not in all the tradition or ceremony but in the blind belief of so many people. of course, God can be found in many other places too, and I don't believe in a specific denomination, that's why i wasn't confirmed.
anyway, I've always wondered, people in different parts of the world have different views, different lives, different experiences, right? so if religion is man-made, why can't all religions be worshipping one God? after all, wasn't the Christian Bible written by humans, flesh and blood, just like us?

it all comes down to this, I think: God is what He is to you



------------------
contradiction is balance

 

[Trash Can]

Oy Vey!!! (a Jewish expresion, by the way)

Why do we argue about religion and faith!??

It all boils down to "faith". To believe in the unseen. PERIOD.
Now, how can you argue that!??
Maybe if I just state what I believe.
... I AM Roman Catholic. I believe in the Holy Trinity. I believe that Jesus is Lord. God is Love. I believe God is all around us and in us.. And all I hve to do is invite God in. I do not worship idols. Statues are simply reminders, as are ceremonies and rituals.I can haveall the fanfare &"bells and whistles" Iwant... but without true faith, without dying into myself and handing my life over to God, it is all just a bunch of noise.

I absolutely LOVE the way Jesus referred to God as "Abba", which translates best as "Daddy". "Yahweh", "God", "Abba", "Allah".... Folks, it still is the same Creator.
I also believe that YOU have the right to believe anything you want... It HAS to be that way! We HAVE to learn to live together.
Afganistan's way is not the way. Northern Irelandsway is not the way.

MadamC, I dont know you, but I feel I do... in a way. See, I left the Catholic Church years ago... A lot of bitterness and anger towards it stayed with me. I used to put it down...Give uninformed and BIASED info on the Church. I wanted people to follow me and leave it... So that I would feel better about MY decision. All the sacraments and rituals and rules PISSED me off!! Who the hell were they to tell ME what was what!??

I've made peace since then... Peace with myself! Ive forgiven and released the prisoner... The prisoner which was ME! The Church is not my enemy. Evil is. Pride is. Fear is. If the Church or someone in the Church does wrong... I pray for them or it... BUT I do not follow in that wrong. I am not a zombie. I am an individual who chooses to worship God through the Catholic Faith. I dont have to be there, I dont have to do a thing the Pope says... But I choose to. It is my will.
If you have a new faith... Wonderful. Peace be with you and may God bless you.
Speak of YOUR faith. Speak of your faith's truthes and virtues.
If you don't believe in the Christian way, well of course you can say so too... and you can knock down and put down how YOU see the Catholic Church.
BUT, dont speak for me, a Catholic. Dont tell these good people what "wrong" I do and how I "offend" God and "sin".

IF you want to learn about Catholicism, Christianity,... any faith! I encourage all of you to do your OWN research! Go on the net, go to the library!... God forbid!... Go to a house of worship and ask!!!
I also invite you to have an open mind... and respect all faiths and people. And if you dont believe in it... Walk away and try to live in peace.

By the way, MadamC, your views and opinions dont offend me. I am simply trying to give these folks another option. Another voice in the views of Catholicism.

Anyway... I have to go to a Church meeting now!

Peace!


------------------
My love for you
It's in the things I do and say
If I wanna live I gotta
Die to myself someday.
Surrender.

 

[Angela Harlem]

BabyG, you said it! I sometimes wonder if in the end all the world's religions end up in the same place, and God or whoever He is, made it possible for us to have our different ways of going about it. I mean no one really knows the truth, its all about belief, so wouldn't that mean we really can't go wrong no matter how we choose it? For me personally I can't 'choose' a name for my beliefs because I dont want to think Im mostly this type and find that Im not the perfect fit, and end up feeling like Ive failed it. Something or someone created everything, whether you believe in science or God, it started somewhere somehow with something. I call it God cos I have no better name for it. I also think its all mapped out for us, we see examples of fate all the time. For instance a few months ago I was driving along the highway and it was virtually deserted except for this truck loaded up with roof trusses and frames for a house. For some reason I pulled over 3 lanes of traffic. Then watched as all the wood fell off and hit the road where the car would have been. I pulled over and thought "Jesus!...um, thanks (?)". Im sure everyone has hundreds of weird things like this happen all the time. What Im trying to say is life is all planned, and if I was supposed to die at that time in my life I would have done so. But thankfully it obviously wasn't meant to be. I guess athiests would call it luck. But Im prolly more agnostic than anything else. According to Melon's test he posted, Im a reformed Judaist. And while I am very curious to know some about that, I wouldn't like to follow the religion because chances are Im not the perfect concept of a reformed Judaist, and it would cause me hang-ups. I would see it as failure and weakness on my part as a human being to know that I couldn't fulfil the correct criteria. I hope im not offending anyone, but religion to me complicates things. Besides leading to hate, and drawing away from what its all meant to be about (in some circumstances). Im happy enough to make my mistakes, say Im sorry and make amends with my own belief that this big 'ole creator knows I'm genuine and I'm forgiven if I really mean it.

The question I'd really love to see debated it where did it all start? This whole reality we know didn't just appear. If science is your slant, what started the very first oprganism to create the lead up to the big bang? If religion and all that is your thing, what made whatever was able to create us all? Who made that 'being/thing' possible? and so on....

I guess the answer IS fries. This makes my brain hurt.

 

[A|catura]

Jesus made some bold claims as to whom he was. No matter who you are, you have to have some sort of opinion about him because his claims are either true or false.

If he really is the only way to find God and eternal life, he is the best thing we'll ever find. If his claims aren't true, then you have to consider him incredibly evil (for pointing needy people in the wrong direction) or just plain dumb (for saying things he had no clue about).

It's like our old burning building analogy. Assume we're all in a burning building, trying to find the way out. It's only a matter of time before we die of smoke inhalation, flames, or being trampled on by someone else.

Now some people come up and tell you there is only one way out, and they tell you exactly where it is. If their claim about the exit is true, they are messengers with very good news and you owe them your life. They have shown you the only way to save yourself.

However, if their claims about the exit aren't true, they are either evil spirited or ignorant. Evil spirited in the sense of giving a dying man the promise of life where there is none. it's wrong to say there is an exit somewhere there isn't. By the time the person gets there and discovers there is no door, it might be too late.

Or they might just be ignorant. Maybe all their friends told them there was an exit over there, but they never checked it out for themselves to see if it was true. they just trusted their friends. And in the end it may cost them their life.

So you see its similar with Jesus. Either he has saved our lives from the power of a sure death or he is a liar. But we have to be on one side or the other. For him or against him.

Jesus was either God incarnate or he was a complete liar. If he was NOT God, he could not be a "good teacher" or a "profit" and proclaim these lies.

You either have to trust ALL that he taught or you have reject it all. Unfortunately, there is no possible way to be in the middle.

God or liar? You choose........

-----------------------------------------



------------------
I have a brother, when I'm a brother in need. I spend my whole time running. He spends his running after me.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by A|catura:
God or liar? You choose........

I agree totally with you. Truth is not relative, it is absolute.

Hey, you've been reading C.S. Lewis, haven't ya?

 

[melon]

It would be black-and-white if the Bible was written by unbiased individuals, but it wasn't. The New Testament was created by the Catholic Church, not vice versa. Even then, it was created by one of two sects that dominated the early Church.

It is more than reasonable to question what has been given before us, especially considering the contradictory writing and language we get from the four gospels.

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[Trash Can]

Originally posted by melon:
It would be black-and-white if the Bible was written by unbiased individuals, but it wasn't. The New Testament was created by the Catholic Church, not vice versa. Even then, it was created by one of two sects that dominated the early Church.

It is more than reasonable to question what has been given before us, especially considering the contradictory writing and language we get from the four gospels.

Melon

Interesting tid-bit I learned yesterday in a church class I had ( this week, it delt with the history of the Bible). Apparently, there were more than just four gospels circulating around when the books of the Bible were still being "chosen". I forgot the man's name but this guy (God... I sound sooo learned, dont I???) chose the four and only four gospels, because in his view, four was the "perfect" number. And for no other reason.
I'm sure each denomination has its view of the Bible. For example, I believe Fundementalists take each and everything the Bible says as fact and directly from the mouth of God. Well, in Catholicism, the Bible is viewed as "nspired"by God, but written by men, so then it is not perfect. There ARE many inaccuracies in the Bible.
It is not viewed as a historical document. It is stories... that show how God works in our lives, and that tell about one man who claimed to be the Christ.
In the end, it always... ALWAYS falls back to faith and what one chooses to believe in or reject.

One side note: apparently it was discussed during the Vatican II meetings in the 60's that in fact one could be "saved" and go to heaven, if that person had never heard of Jesus, yet lived a "Jesus-like" life... Be it, in service to God, by serving and LOVING others...

Interesting, eh????


------------------
My love for you
It's in the things I do and say
If I wanna live I gotta
Die to myself someday.
Surrender.

 

[80sU2isBest]

TC, where'd you hear that? I had always heard it was decided on by a consortium, not one man.
Also, the Vatican discussing that man can be saved by living a Jesus-like life? Good gried, I'm glad that's not the way to be saved. I'd never make it...(neither would anyone else)...To be Jesus-like is to never sin.

 

[foray]

Originally posted by melon:
There is a terminology difference. The "crucifix," which karaoke used specifically, refers to the image where Jesus is crucified on the cross. Most Protestants just use an empty "cross," without Jesus. Of course, without Jesus, in my opinion, the cross is meaningless.

Melon

melon melon, are you looking? Boy, who dug up this ancient thread, anyway?

The difference between a crucifix and a cross is, yes, the image of Jesus dying on it. However, I must put it to you that the reason Protestants don't have the image of Jesus on their crosses, is the fact that Jesus has triumphed from the cross and Death. It is the 'empty cross' that signifies victory to Protestants.

Personally, I also think that the 'empty cross' is a way of not focusing so much on the crucifixion, like the Catholics seem to do; rather, focusing on his might and power. Not an image of a limp Jesus hanging on the cross. That is my personal opinion, not representative of other Protestants here.

foray

 

[kerc]

I personally hate the way Jesus is represented on most religious literature, art, etc. as a skinny, pale, weak man. Apart from the fact that he was/is the son of God, hey, he was the son of a carpenter! He worked with his father...and there were no Craftsman tools at that time!

I think that representing him as a pitiful man, or maybe worse, as a baby in Christmas, weakens his image to the people, you know what I mean?

------------------
k e r c

La aventura del comienzo
La intriga de lo incierto
No temas y busca lo nuevo
S?lo empieza desde cero

 

[kerc]

I personally hate the way Jesus is represented on most religious literature, art, etc. as a skinny, pale and weak man. Apart from the fact that he was/is the son of God, hey, he was the son of a carpenter! He worked with his father...and there were no Craftsman tools at that time!

I think that representing him as a pitiful man, or maybe worse, as a baby in Christmas, weakens his image to the people, you know what I mean?

------------------
k e r c

La aventura del comienzo
La intriga de lo incierto
No temas y busca lo nuevo
S?lo empieza desde cero

 

[melon]

I think he was often portrayed as "skinny" and "weak," because Jesus was meant to be portrayed as one of "us." The people he preached to weren't exactly bodybuilders, and with a Europe in turmoil during for over a millennium after His death and resurrection, it was seen as comforting. Also remember that Jesus was likely less than 5' tall, as that was the average height back then.

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[melon]

Well, foray, Protestants can do what they want, but often the symbolism came after the change. Most of the stuff was just changed to be contrary to Catholicism during the Reformation. Of course, I think that both the crucifix and the cross are equally valid meaning-wise.

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[melon]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
TC, where'd you hear that? I had always heard it was decided on by a consortium, not one man.
Also, the Vatican discussing that man can be saved by living a Jesus-like life? Good gried, I'm glad that's not the way to be saved. I'd never make it...(neither would anyone else)...To be Jesus-like is to never sin.

This is where I get honestly and sincerely confused. In one aspect, it sounds as if it is easier to be saved, as you rely on faith-alone. However, as I listen to a hysterical campus evangelist, he condemns everyone to hell and makes it act like it's very difficult to get into Heaven. So what is it?!

Also remember, 80s, that Catholicism also has purgatory, which has it's basis in Maccabees, a book omitted from the KJV as "apocryphal." So it isn't black-and-white like heaven or hell after you die.

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by melon:
This is where I get honestly and sincerely confused. In one aspect, it sounds as if it is easier to be saved, as you rely on faith-alone. However, as I listen to a hysterical campus evangelist, he condemns everyone to hell and makes it act like it's very difficult to get into Heaven. So what is it?!

Also remember, 80s, that Catholicism also has purgatory, which has it's basis in Maccabees, a book omitted from the KJV as "apocryphal." So it isn't black-and-white like heaven or hell after you die.
Melon

Melon, you'll never hear ME say that it takes anything other than faith, so don't ask me that question. Ask one of the people you've heard preach works that question. The only thing that it takes to spend eternity with the Father is by faith in the son of God, Jesus Christ, by the grace of God.
I, of course, don't believe in Purgatory. None of the books outside the Apocrypha support the concept of Purgatory. In fact, in one place in the Bible it says that "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that the judgment", and in another, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord", and there are other passages that directly oppose the Apocrypha, which is probably one of the reasons the council rejected the Apocrypha. Now, those who have never heard of Christ? God is just, and the scriptures say that they will be judged according to what they do with what they do know. Without sounding too new-agey, the Bible speaks of an "inner knowing" that these people have been granted.

 

[kerc]

Originally posted by melon:
I think he was often portrayed as "skinny" and "weak," because Jesus was meant to be portrayed as one of "us." The people he preached to weren't exactly bodybuilders, and with a Europe in turmoil during for over a millennium after His death and resurrection, it was seen as comforting. Also remember that Jesus was likely less than 5' tall, as that was the average height back then.

You can be short but do not have to look puny and weak, or pale. See what I mean? It degrades him in a certain way.



------------------
k e r c

La aventura del comienzo
La intriga de lo incierto
No temas y busca lo nuevo
S?lo empieza desde cero