A question on the hypocricies of religion

[Diemen]

People here seem to forget that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, and the bible isn't the only "holy book". People also seem to forget that Christianity is like a pot pourri of many theologies, Judaism the most prominent. So all Christians, and Catholics a like, have Jewish roots. Hey, it's the same G-d! There's only one. And your Lord, Jesus, was a Jew, and Mary was a Jew, and Joseph, etc.

And some people seem to think that simply because other people remain Christian, they must be ignorant and uneducated on other religions and even their own. As if we didn't know that Jesus Mary and Joseph were Jewish and that Christianity came from Judaism.

Sorry, but this is turning in tone from a discussion among peers into a lecture from the 'enlightened one(s).' No one likes getting talked down to. I apologize if any of my posts came across that way, but I'm gonna leave this thread alone for now, because nothing is getting accomplished other than posturing egos right now.

[madamc]

you did ask, and I answer...

And some people seem to think that simply because other people remain Christian, they must be ignorant and uneducated on other religions and even their own. As if we didn't know that Jesus Mary and Joseph were Jewish and that Christianity came from Judaism

some do forget that! and if you read the posts, people only think that christians get blamed for being hypocrites, is because they are the ones who strive for "perfection".

Ill leave this post alone as well, what a great idea

[This message has been edited by madamc (edited 03-06-2001).]

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by madamc:
Christians are hypocrites: they also idolise! which is a sin They hate pagans, but just like pagans, they idolise.

Thank you, Madamc, for telling me what I am as a Christian! Also, thanks for telling me what I believe and how I worship as a Christian!

I'm always glad when people say such nice things about others, and word it with such class!

[madamc]

the topic is about the hypocracies of religion. i gave my opinion. that's all.

[Angela Harlem]

Christians are hypocrites: they also idolise! which is a sin They hate pagans, but just like pagans, they idolise.

U2Bama, Im not sure if I read your sarcasam correctly or not, but apart from the generalisation, if this is indeed true, and Christianity on the whole, idolises, then is a sin. If Pagans do the same, and they frown on Paganism, then that is hypocritical.

This thread was after all about the hypocricies of religion. If the Christian faith is in the habit of idolising, then that,on a technicality, is what they in their own words call a sin. Of course there are going ot be exceptions, and you yourself may make the distinction between worshiping and idolising, but many can't or won't.
Naturally you will be defensive when you feel your religion is being questioned. I just doubt madamc intended to offend you directly like that.

[U2Bama]

Who/what do we allegedly idolize? Sure, the stained glass windows in the sanctuary where I worship depict scenes from the Bible including images of Christ, but we don't go in there and worship the windows or their inclusive images. We "worship" the Trinity (Father/Son/Holy Spirit), none of whom "live" in our stained glass windows.

I'm just trying to figure out this idolatry connection.

[DebbieSG]

Putting anything before God is idolizing. That means caring more about money, your job, your spouse, your children, your car, a band, a recording, a trip, anything. Covetness is idolizing--wanting what someone else has.

WO says "Love is not the easy thing, the only baggage you can bring...is all that you can't leave behind." Bono has himself said he believes God is Love. So God is all that you can't leave behind.

That's Jesus first commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt 22:37)

[Angela Harlem]

U2Bama, sorry to get your back up over that. I didn't mean to sound as it did, it sounded different after I read over what I said.

Like i said earlier, I'm not very 'learned' on rligion itself, but I went and looked up 'idol' in the dictionary for clarification. It had a whole heap of stuff but essentially this:

i·dol (dl)
n.


An image used as an object of worship.
A false god.
One that is adored, often blindly or excessively.
Something visible but without substance.

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

idol \I"dol\, n. [OE. idole, F. idole, L. idolum, fr. Gr. ?, fr. ? that which is seen, the form, shape, figure, fr. ? to see. See Wit, and cf. Eidolon.] 1. An image or representation of anything. [Obs.]

Do her adore with sacred reverence, As th' idol of her maker's great magnificence. --Spenser.

2. An image of a divinity; a representation or symbol of a deity or any other being or thing, made or used as an object of worship; a similitude of a false god.

That they should not worship devils, and idols of gold. --Rev. ix. 20.

3. That on which the affections are strongly (often excessively) set; an object of passionate devotion; a person or thing greatly loved or adored.

The soldier's god and people's idol. --Denham.

4. A false notion or conception; a fallacy. --Bacon.

The idols of preconceived opinion. --Coleridge.


I use the term idol in refernce to an icon or figurehead. In the instace of a religious debate, I guess you could say the statue of the Virgin Mary, the representation of Jesus Christ -whether in stained glass or painting, all the figures from the bible etc. But in your case I guess you see that as meaning you worship the actual icons directly, which we can safely assume is not true. They are representations of what it is you are worshipping or idolising (in the dictionary sense of the word). So this could explain your annoyance (?) at the response.

I can't speak on madamc's behalf, but I do want to clear up my meaning in the reply I made.

[Diemen]

Madam, you have a really strange definition of believe if you say I don't believe. So believers aren't allowed to have any doubts? That's pretty ridiculous. I have plenty of doubts, but that doesn't stop me from believing. Faith and belief are intimately connected to one another, and to suggest that in order to believe you have to rid yourself of all doubts is pretty far-fetched. I am sure my grandparents had plenty of doubt at whether my dad would ever walk, but that didn't stop them from believing. Belief in the way I'm familiar doesn't mean totally giving up all your inhibitions and human doubts - but it means that even with those doubts, you know that you are on the right path and are determined to stay on it.

I really don't like it when people label believers as mindless sheep. I never claimed to have no doubts. I don't know with absolutely certainty (hence, without any doubt) that it was the Virgin Mary who helped my dad. But I believe it was.

[DC]

I have one question about the virgin conception of Jesus - Why does the Gospel according to Mathew give the geneology of Jesus on Joseph's side if he was not sired by Joseph? This doesn't make any sense.

Also, what kind of complications would occur during pregnancy and childbirth if the hymen was still intact? I assume it would have to be intact, otherwise no one would really know if she was a virgin or not.



------------------
"I think you should defend to the death the KKK's right to march, and then go down and meet them with baseball bats." - Woody Allen

[madamc]

I just find it intriguing that madamc, who wrote that she is Roman Catholic, uses the Jewish way of writing "God," and several other beliefs (both on the Virgin Mary and including her belief on the origin of homosexuality coincidentally enough) is not Roman Catholic. This is not a slam against madamc at all, because religion is definitely very personal, and I respect everyone's religious beliefs.

I was born into a Roman Catholic family, I was baptised as a Roman Catholic. Like, I have said before, I have studied other religions. My thoughts on the Virgin Mary are not Catholic, obviously, and neither are my thoughts about Christianity Christian. Just because I was born in a certain religion, shouldn't keep me from learning about other religions, keeping me ignorant.

People here seem to forget that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, and the bible isn't the only "holy book". People also seem to forget that Christianity is like a pot pourri of many theologies, Judaism the most prominent. So all Christians, and Catholics a like, have Jewish roots. Hey, it's the same G-d! There's only one. And your Lord, Jesus, was a Jew, and Mary was a Jew, and Joseph, etc.

Melon, for the last time, my assumptions of the origins of homosexuality wasn't a religious one, it was a medical one.

Oh and BTW, I love that quote from Karl Marx, "Religion is the opium for the people." That is exactly why I am 100% for separation of church and state, because religion can definitely be used for evil. However, just because it can be used for evil doesn't mean that it is always evil.

The purpose of that quote is that religion drugs the people. Remember, Catholics and Christians are/were not allowed to question authority, and weren't allowed to read. The church knew early on that knowledge is power. Knowledge is power is another Kabbalah teaching. If you keep people from gaining knowledge, they won't have any power. So, metaphorically, the Christian religion (the ones who believe in christ, like catholics, protestants, etc) gave reasons for people to beLIEve, like a pusher gives drugs to a person, ready to consume. Like a drug, Christianity gave people hope, false hope, because the poor stayed poor and were manipulated to stay that way.

I am more of a spiritualist. I just say what I have learned on my own. And yes, religion is personal.

[DC]

And about science not having any explanation for the "healing" of your father - that does not mean it was a divine power. People used to pray for good weather before we explained the weather with science (and subsequently became able to predict it with a high degree of accuracy). When the weather was good, it was an answer to prayer. When the weather was bad, they just didn't pray hard enough. Now we know that it was all a waste of time because weather patterns don't react to prayer.

Sure there are things that science can't explain right now but science is gradually taking power away from your gods. Eventually, the definition of god will change to adapt to science. As Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which is based on experience, which refuses dogmatic eplanations. If there's any religion that would cope with the scientific needs it will be Buddhism...."

[madamc]

Originally posted by Diemen:
Madam, you have a really strange definition of believe if you say I don't believe. So believers aren't allowed to have any doubts? That's pretty ridiculous. I have plenty of doubts, but that doesn't stop me from believing. Faith and belief are intimately connected to one another, and to suggest that in order to believe you have to rid yourself of all doubts is pretty far-fetched. I am sure my grandparents had plenty of doubt at whether my dad would ever walk, but that didn't stop them from believing. Belief in the way I'm familiar doesn't mean totally giving up all your inhibitions and human doubts - but it means that even with those doubts, you know that you are on the right path and are determined to stay on it.

I really don't like it when people label believers as mindless sheep. I never claimed to have no doubts. I don't know with absolutely certainty (hence, without any doubt) that it was the Virgin Mary who helped my dad. But I believe it was.

Well, I don't have any doubts that there is a G-d, and that I am in one with G-d. I know, and knowledge is power. BeLIEvers do have doubts. Look at the word I put in caps... LIE... isn't that a clue. The english language is loaded with riddles. My definition of beLIEf, as I said before, is insecurity, loaded with doubt. I have gotten rid of the word "beLIEf" out of my vocabulary.

I never said that believers were mindless sheep. Even if I did, why don't you like it? I don't want to pick on you, but do you feel like you are following, and not on your own spiritual path?

Another thing, Jesus is said to be a shepard, and his followers are his sheep...Jesus, the shepard, guides his sheep. Is that a good thing?

[madamc]

Originally posted by DC:
I have one question about the virgin conception of Jesus - Why does the Gospel according to Mathew give the geneology of Jesus on Joseph's side if he was not sired by Joseph? This doesn't make any sense.

Because the term "virgin" meant that she was "in one" with G-d. She was pure minded. In hinduism, we can say that all her chakras were aligned, and she was in perpetually enlightened.

It is said that Joseph was chosen to be the step father of Jesus.

There is a book that talks about Jesus, but I dont remember the title...it is highly controversial. Once I get hold of the title, I'll post it here.

Also, what kind of complications would occur during pregnancy and childbirth if the hymen was still intact? I assume it would have to be intact, otherwise no one would really know if she was a virgin or not.

I think the hymen would have broken when she started to dialate.

[U2Bama]

Yes, Angela, that does explain my annoyance. We have images in the sanctuary, but in my 28 years of attending the Methodist church, I can not recall an instance of worshipping any of these items. I also do not consider the heavier use of images in the Orthodox or Catholic churches to be "idol worship." They are images, statues, etc. much like my stained glass window, used to relate the human features of Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, or whomever.

I do recall from visiting a Hare Krishna temple in New Orleans in 1993 that they informed us that they do pray directly to the idols in their temple, colorful little doll-like statues of Krishna, Vishnu, and other deities. But I'm not Hare Krishna and did not participate in praying to them.

No offense was taken at either your response nor that of Madamc. I just wanted to note for the record that I do not worship idols.

Also, DebbieSG is correct that putting any other object or person before God is idolising.

[This message has been edited by U2Bama (edited 03-07-2001).]

[madamc]

I also do not consider the use of icons in the Orthodox or Catholic churches to be "idol worship." They are images, statues, etc. much like my stained glass window, used to relate the human features of Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, or whomever.

remember when moses found out that his people were worshipping the golden calf? a statue? whether it's human or animal, it's a statue, or a picture, and that is idolising. why isn't it idolising? because the catholic churches do it? that doesn't mean its right. it's still a sin. you are looking up to jesus, mary and joseph instead of G-d. To worship G-d, you don't need a picture or a statue.

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by madamc:
remember when moses found out that his people were worshipping the golden calf? a statue? whether it's human or animal, it's a statue, or a picture, and that is idolising. why isn't it idolising? because the catholic churches do it? that doesn't mean its right. it's still a sin. you are looking up to jesus, mary and joseph instead of G-d. To worship G-d, you don't need a picture or a statue.

The people were "worshipping" the golden calf. Catholics and Orthodox Christians who I know explain to me that they "worship" God the Trinity, not the statues, images, etc. I'll admit I'm not very sharp on all of the "rules" of Catholicism, but if you could give me the Catholic church's official position on idol worship, that would be helpful. Thanks.

[kerc]

Using any type of idol, statue or picture and kneeling in front of it, lighting candles, praying to it or anything else remotely similar is idolatry.

Something I've found very curious is that people find statues that drip blood, glow, etc....Let's suppose it was real; a God-made miracle.

The point is exactly that: What is the point of seeing a statue of the virgin crying blood, for example?

All the miracles made by Jesus, using the power given to him by his Father (who are NOT one), had a purpose. Bleeding statues have no purpose.

Can someone care to explain this?

kerc

[Spiral_Staircase]

madamc, from what I can tell, you are saying that Christianity is inherently hypocritical because it condemns idolatry yet institutionalizes idolatry in it's rituals. Regardless of whether you believe what Christians believe, I think it can be shown that Christianity is consistent with it's view of idolatry.
As madamc pointed out, Moses rebuked the Israelites for worshiping a golden calf, a statue. I agree with madamc that the fact that it was a statue of an animal is insignificant. Whether it was a statue of a human, or a picture, a pizza, or even an idea, worshipping an idol rather than God is considered a sin in Christianity. Are there Christians guilty of hypocritically commiting idolatry? Certainly. I think we can agree from the above discussion that hypocrisy is something all people are prone to commit, and that Christians are no exception. But madamc seemed to be saying that hypocritical idolatry was a regular part of Christianity. She mentioned "looking up to mary, joseph, and jesus" as an example. Christianity does not consider "looking up to" something other than God to be idolatry. If someone were to worship Mary or Joseph as God, Christianity would condemn that. As for Jesus, Christianity considers him God, and therefore certainly should be worshipped. The images and icons used in Christianity are not meant to be worshipped. madamc, you're right, you don't need a statue to worship God. But that doesn't mean that the existence of a statue represents idolatry.
I wrote this in 1 or 2 sentence pieces over the span of 45 minutes, so I'm not sure that it's very coherent. Sorry if I just added to the confusion.

[Spiral_Staircase]

ahhh...I just saw melon's post.

Melon, I agree wholeheartedly with you on this one. Well said.
By the way, I think I'll post a new topic on Catholisism and Mary that you might be interested in responding to.