Theology IV

[Nurvingiel]

Lief, thank you so much for your well thought-out perspective on women bishops. You know me well enough to know that I profoundly disagree with everything you said (especially the feminist movement for equality between men and women contributing to the breakdown of the family unit ), but what you said about Christian symbolism really illuminated the other side for me. So, thanks a lot.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Don't you think a person should be fired who publicly advertises, asking that someone sell him a living human being for him to desecrate and humiliate on film? YES Anyone who isn't a sick pervert would say yes.

He has sought the opportunity to do this to Christ Himself. The Eucharist is Jesus Christ. Therefore yes, the man definitely deserves to be fired.

At the very least.

I'm a Christian, and therefore think what he wants to do is really wrong. However, I don't think the Eucharist actually is Jesus Christ. Not all Christians believe that you know, even ones less "liberal" than me.

One might argue that he is showing religious intolerance, which would be grounds for firing him, except that he isn't discriminating against a co-worker (which would be the precedent for such a dismissal). He very well could get canned. I doubt he's making himself popular at work stirring up all this controversy. People have been fired for less.

So we'll see.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lief, thank you so much for your well thought-out perspective on women bishops. You know me well enough to know that I profoundly disagree with everything you said (especially the feminist movement for equality between men and women contributing to the breakdown of the family unit ), but what you said about Christian symbolism really illuminated the other side for me. So, thanks a lot.

Glad to help .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm a Christian, and therefore think what he wants to do is really wrong. However, I don't think the Eucharist actually is Jesus Christ. Not all Christians believe that you know, even ones less "liberal" than me.

Most Christians do think that, though, actually. Catholics are more than half the Christians in the world, and they think it is Christ. Orthodox make up about half the remainder of non-Catholic Christians, and they also believe this about the Eucharist. So those that don't think this are very much a minority. They actually didn't exist throughout most of the Church's history. Protestants are particularly notorious for rejecting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

One might argue that he is showing religious intolerance, which would be grounds for firing him, except that he isn't discriminating against a co-worker (which would be the precedent for such a dismissal). He very well could get canned. I doubt he's making himself popular at work stirring up all this controversy. People have been fired for less.

So we'll see.

It would be hard to fire him with modern laws as the basis. I agree with Tessar that if laws were created enforcing religious respect, and those laws were constructed with a modern premise treating all religions equally, they could easily end up doing more damage than they create. It would end up culling out of religions (or, more accurately, attempting to do so) by force anything seen through the lens of current political correctness to be intolerant. Which would actually be like enforcing a pseudo-liberal religionish belief system.

Sis also quoted a very good section from the Economist. Very useful insight into how Religious Freedom is assaulted by enforced religious respect.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

No. It's a cracker.

Says you oh sum of all wisdom!

How do you know?

There's actually more evidence that it is the Body of Christ than there is that it isn't. Catholics have a theology about accidents and substance. Accidents are like the weight and measurement of a thing. You can't know what something is by knowing how tall it is and what it weighs. That's a part of what it is, but not the completeness. Similarly, the "cracker" is part of what the Eucharist is, like the weight and height of a thing, but it is not the substance. Much of the substance cannot be seen. Therefore, since this is the theology, any scientific evidence that the cracker is a cracker does not disprove that it is in fact an accident of the Body of Christ, made part of it through God's power that descended on and transformed the substance of the cracker by a miracle.

Another example would be to think about any human you see. You see the person, you see skin, hair, eyeballs, teeth, the exteriors of lips, fingernails, a lot more skin- you don't see the blood or much in the way of bone. You don't see any of the internal organs. You might have circumstantial evidence that that's all there ("What's filling you dude? How'd you get so thick?"), but you can't see it physically unless you cut the person open. Skin is one of the primary accidents of a human being. It is not the substance of what makes someone someone, even though it (plus other things visible on the surface of a person), are all that you see.

Similarly, you can't see all the parts of what, or rather Who, the Eucharist is by looking at the accidents.

The internal parts of the Eucharist cannot be found by scientific examination, any more than the heart of a human can be found by carefully examining his skin, most of the time.

Since there can, therefore, be no scientific evidence that the Eucharist is not what Catholics say it is, the only possible evidence is either positive or non-existent. And there is a good deal of this evidence. There are many Eucharistic miracles (just Google "Eucharistic miracles" or "bleeding host" and you'll quickly see some of the famous ones) that provide evidence, some of which scientists have done studies on, that the Eucharist is in fact human blood and tissue.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Just FYI, I don't altogether agree with everything Lief wrote re: women's ordination; I'll put up an alternate version later.

But no, his university issued a statement that he won't get fired. They removed the link to his blog from their website (not because of what he was doing, but because it was against university policy to have links to private sites), but that's all.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Just FYI, I don't altogether agree with everything Lief wrote re: women's ordination; I'll put up an alternate version later.

Well, I knew and said a few times in that post that there was more to it than what I wrote . What I wrote was just what I know.

I know there are Catholics who disagree with parts of what I said, though. However, there's a lot of revisionist, modern thinking that goes into the approach that this isn't what the Church traditionally thought. It is history. Tradition. And it's in the Bible.

The feminist movement had its origins in the 16th century or so. Before that, women did submit to men and this was seen as typological of the submission of the Church to her Christ.

If you want to try to refute that, though, I'll listen and then get you citations.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But no, his university issued a statement that he won't get fired. They removed the link to his blog from their website (not because of what he was doing, but because it was against university policy to have links to private sites), but that's all.

Tragically enough, I'm forced to say I think that's a good thing, given our modern culture . Because if they banned this horrific treatment of our Christ, they'd probably also ban the expression of many "intolerant" parts of Christian belief, and the preservation and passing on of the precious doctrines of Christianity are a large part of the reason Christ laid down his life for us in the first place.

The man should be punished. He deserves to be, for this horrific, incredibly grotesque act. However, he should be punished by a moral law based on Christian principles, not through the development of an even worse law than are those that currently exist.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Glad to help .

Most Christians do think that, though, actually. Catholics are more than half the Christians in the world, and they think it is Christ. Orthodox make up about half the remainder of non-Catholic Christians, and they also believe this about the Eucharist. So those that don't think this are very much a minority.

Also note, it is a tenet of the Lutheran theological tradition, as well (consubstantiation), as well as something which many (though not all) Anglicans believe.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Most Christians do think that, though, actually. Catholics are more than half the Christians in the world, and they think it is Christ. Orthodox make up about half the remainder of non-Catholic Christians, and they also believe this about the Eucharist. So those that don't think this are very much a minority. They actually didn't exist throughout most of the Church's history. Protestants are particularly notorious for rejecting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

All I said was that not all Christians believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

This Wikipedia article screwed up the numbers of the different denominations of Christianity, but the discussion page reveals these estimations:

Orthodox: 240 million
Catholic: 1.1 billion
Protestant: 600 million
(The Nontrinitarians weren't counted.)

Yes, there are actually about 600 million of those notorious Protestants out there.

I couldn't find a better source than Wikipedia, sorry.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

No. It's a cracker.

Actually, it's a wafer. See?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Just FYI, I don't altogether agree with everything Lief wrote re: women's ordination; I'll put up an alternate version later.

I am most interested to read it.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Glad to help .


respect.

Says you oh sum of all wisdom!

How do you know?

There's actually more evidence that it is the Body of Christ than there is that it isn't. Catholics have a theology about accidents and substance. Accidents are like the weight and measurement of a thing. You can't know what something is by knowing how tall it is and what it weighs. That's a part of what it is, but not the completeness. Similarly, the "cracker" is part of what the Eucharist is, like the weight and height of a thing, but it is not the substance. Much of the substance cannot be seen. Therefore, since this is the theology, any scientific evidence that the cracker is a cracker does not disprove that it is in fact an accident of the Body of Christ, made part of it through God's power that descended on and transformed the substance of the cracker by a miracle.

Not only am I aware of the philosophical concept, I encounter it fairly often in my everyday life.

For example, my adopted hometown has a local god, Han Dan, who protects the town. Like many Chinese gods, he started life as a real person, in this case a notorious bandit who terrorised the area. The townsfolk finally seized him, and. administering frontier justice, decided to take matters into their own hands ( this happened a couple of hundred years ago- as deities go, he's a whippersnapper).

However, he threatened to come back and haunt the town if they killed him, so they came up with a plan. Since spirits can't cross open water, they decided to tie him up, stick him in a boat loaded with gunpowder, push him out to sea, and bombard him with fireworks.

The plot worked,the boat blew up, but, just as he was sinking into the sea, Kwang Yin -the Goddess of Mercy- showed up and castigated him for his wicked ways. In a fit of repentance, he vowed that from the spirit world he would become the protector of the town.

(I'm not sure how anyone actually knew this, but since the story comes down from eyewitnesses we obviously must accept it as true)

To honour the god, we hold a procession every year. A young man is nminated to be the deity, and undergoes a ritual of purification. On the day of the festival, the spirit of Han Dan descends and the chosen person actually becomes the living god.
Obviously, any scientific evidence that this is just a local kid does not disprove that he is really a divinity, so there is actually more evidence that he is than he isn't.

There are of course miraculous manifestations. While everyone else who goes to the festival wears heavy clothes, gloves, and even full-face motorcycle helmets to protect against the rockets and powerful firecrackers that are directed against the god's skin for hours (all he wears is a small pair of shots) he is never burnt!

Another example is Matsu, the Goddess of the Sea. Taiwan is an island, and many people are fisherman or sailors, so she is a very powerful goddess.
Her main temple is in Fujian in Mainland China, but every few years there is a procession where her statue is brought to Taiwan. Most of the time, her statue is just a piece of wood (Chinese are not idolaters) but on special occasions the actual goddess descends into her statue, and at these times performs many miracles which have been attested to by respected science laboratories and doctors in Taiwan.

A final example- it's Ghost Month again, which means Chinese people put out food and burn Ghost money to feed the hungry spirits, and take care of their ancestors. Of course, you can' just toss a couple of apples in the backyard, any more than you can pull out a Zippo and fire up a bunch of Hell banknotes.

Like the Eucharist, the proper incantations and magic rituals have to be performed, to ensure that the difference between accident and substance is created.

I, of course, maintain the proper respect towards other's beliefs. I rank the miracle of the Eucharist right up there with Han Dan, the incarnation of Kwang Yin, the transformation of ordinary paper into Ghost Money, the belief in the Eternal Existence of the Koran, or the idea of sticking pins into voodoo dolls.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

What I wonder is, how Han Dan can protect the town since he can't cross the water.

Also, isn't Quan Yin a Buddhist bodhisattva, not a folk-religion goddess?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Not only am I aware of the philosophical concept, I encounter it fairly often in my everyday life.

For example, my adopted hometown has a local god, Han Dan, who protects the town. Like many Chinese gods, he started life as a real person, in this case a notorious bandit who terrorised the area. The townsfolk finally seized him, and. administering frontier justice, decided to take matters into their own hands ( this happened a couple of hundred years ago- as deities go, he's a whippersnapper).

However, he threatened to come back and haunt the town if they killed him, so they came up with a plan. Since spirits can't cross open water, they decided to tie him up, stick him in a boat loaded with gunpowder, push him out to sea, and bombard him with fireworks.

The plot worked,the boat blew up, but, just as he was sinking into the sea, Kwang Yin -the Goddess of Mercy- showed up and castigated him for his wicked ways. In a fit of repentance, he vowed that from the spirit world he would become the protector of the town.

(I'm not sure how anyone actually knew this, but since the story comes down from eyewitnesses we obviously must accept it as true)

To honour the god, we hold a procession every year. A young man is nminated to be the deity, and undergoes a ritual of purification. On the day of the festival, the spirit of Han Dan descends and the chosen person actually becomes the living god.
Obviously, any scientific evidence that this is just a local kid does not disprove that he is really a divinity, so there is actually more evidence that he is than he isn't.

If we ignored the evidence that Christianity is the true religion, I'd agree. If Christianity is true, though, then this kid is not a god. Therefore it would be necessary to compare the evidence supporting various other religions with the evidence supporting this religion you describe. I know that the evidence for Christianity's accuracy is incredibly strong, and I don't know anything about the evidence for this other religion. It sounds as though the basis for this belief comes from folklore. Which is acceptable as good evidence supporting the original story, if we could solidly connect the story to real original eyewitnesses. If it can't be connected to real people in a way that passes normal scholarly standard tests, then there isn't sufficient evidence to support it.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

There are of course miraculous manifestations. While everyone else who goes to the festival wears heavy clothes, gloves, and even full-face motorcycle helmets to protect against the rockets and powerful firecrackers that are directed against the god's skin for hours (all he wears is a small pair of shots) he is never burnt!

That would certainly be strong evidence to support the story. It doesn't negate the possibility of witchcraft, of course.

If a man can resurrect himself from the dead, though, inheriting a glorified body and then rising into Heaven before everyone, while claiming he's God, that supreme sign is harder to pin on witchcraft.

The folklore you mention, by the way, is not necessarily absolutely contrary to Christian theology. It is possible that some powerful demon forced the spirit of the convicted man to "protect" the town while actually leading it astray into magic and idolatry. This would simply be another interpretation of the claimed eyewitness stories, if they really are verifiably eyewitness stories.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Another example is Matsu, the Goddess of the Sea. Taiwan is an island, and many people are fisherman or sailors, so she is a very powerful goddess.
Her main temple is in Fujian in Mainland China, but every few years there is a procession where her statue is brought to Taiwan. Most of the time, her statue is just a piece of wood (Chinese are not idolaters) but on special occasions the actual goddess descends into her statue, and at these times performs many miracles which have been attested to by respected science laboratories and doctors in Taiwan.

Which should be enough to show you that you can't say with any degree of confidence that you're right and they're wrong.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

A final example- it's Ghost Month again, which means Chinese people put out food and burn Ghost money to feed the hungry spirits, and take care of their ancestors. Of course, you can' just toss a couple of apples in the backyard, any more than you can pull out a Zippo and fire up a bunch of Hell banknotes.

Like the Eucharist, the proper incantations and magic rituals have to be performed, to ensure that the difference between accident and substance is created.

I, of course, maintain the proper respect towards other's beliefs. I rank the miracle of the Eucharist right up there with Han Dan, the incarnation of Kwang Yin, the transformation of ordinary paper into Ghost Money, the belief in the Eternal Existence of the Koran, or the idea of sticking pins into voodoo dolls.

If there is strong evidence supporting any of these claims, it is absurd for you to discard them. If there is weak evidence supporting them, then it makes sense for you to withhold judgment until greater evidence is provided, or reject it because stronger evidence contradicts it.

[brownjenkins]

Any religion that has to prove itself upon its own "truth" is sorely lacking.

Truth is self-evident, or it simply isn't there at all.

[Nurvingiel]

I disagree Brownie, I don't think truth is always obvious. What's obvious to one can be impossible to another.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Which should be enough to show you that you can't say with any degree of confidence that you're right and they're wrong.

Doesn't that apply to all religions though? We can't prove to others that Jesus is the Son of God and Christianity is true, but we believe it to be so. If we could prove it, I think our faith would have less meaning.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

I, of course, maintain the proper respect towards other's beliefs. I rank the miracle of the Eucharist right up there with Han Dan, the incarnation of Kwang Yin, the transformation of ordinary paper into Ghost Money, the belief in the Eternal Existence of the Koran, or the idea of sticking pins into voodoo dolls.

I feel this way as well to a certain extent. I don't think that all truths are equally true because we can't possibly apply this measuring stick to truth. However, I acknowledge that one person's world view is as true to him as Christianity is to me. Since neither can prove our beliefs our right or wrong, then live and let live I say.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What I wonder is, how Han Dan can protect the town since he can't cross the water.

Spirits can't cross water, but gods can. They put him in the boat to stop the dead spirit from coming back to the village, but before his death out there, he became a god. That's my understanding of the matter.

Also, if you still feel like writing about women's ordination, I still feel like reading it.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That would certainly be strong evidence to support the story. It doesn't negate the possibility of witchcraft, of course.

Lief, I'm not sure what you mean by "witchcraft". Even actual Witches (who, I must point out, or not evil - Witchcraft is actually a real religion) don't believe there is magic that makes you invulnerable to fire and exploding things.

It's probably more likely that he doesn't get burnt because he truly believes the firecrackers won't hurt him, in the same way that people can walk over hot coals without burning their feet.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I disagree Brownie, I don't think truth is always obvious. What's obvious to one can be impossible to another.

The study of science has clearly refuted the idea that all truth is obvious. But I don't think that Brownie was actually arguing that all truth was obvious. I think he was saying you can't assume what you're supposed to prove, if you're going to prove it. Which I agree with. And I think Christianity passes that test easily, with dazzling colors . There are lots of evidenciary ways of showing that Christianity is true, but it's not really evidence that convinces people, because ultimately, humans aren't ruled by reason. People tend to have to be emotionally or personally impacted in some way before they're willing to accept evidence that contradicts what they believe.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Doesn't that apply to all religions though?

Here's one of the big errors, one that was evident all over GrayMouser's post. That's the assumption that the evidence supporting all religions is just as great or small. It's a very convenient way of lumping them all together and classifying them- it's about the same as if I were to blindly assume that all scientific theories or hypotheses have the same amount of evidence supporting them. It's bogus. They have different levels of evidence supporting them, some have more and some have less, some have shaky supports and others very sturdy supports, some verifiable and some unverifiable. The difference in evidence quantity and quality between these different cases makes a big difference in whether one should choose to believe one religion or another.

Other people make the assumption that, as you said, "We can't prove to others that Jesus is the Son of God and Christianity is true," because they haven't researched the evidence. Then they assume that because they've always experienced their own religion as belief alone without evidence, all religions are belief alone, and their religion is belief alone. That's a big mistake. There's evidence for almost all the religions out there- reason or evidence based arguments for their truth. Even in the Bible (and in real life today), God is frequently proving His reality to people, accomplishing miracles, which are objective evidence, to prove to people that He is real and is who is messengers say He is.

Evidence supporting a religion should not be discarded because, "they all have evidence." Some have good evidence and some have bad evidence, or a mixture of the two, and they have different qualities and quantities of evidence, some greater and some lesser. And some, such as some of the arguments and evidence for Christianity, are irrefutable. God set it up that way, to help people to come to believe in him who otherwise would have rejected him.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

We can't prove to others that Jesus is the Son of God and Christianity is true, but we believe it to be so. If we could prove it, I think our faith would have less meaning.

No, it has more meaning the way it is. If it's all blind faith, then the reasonable choice is not Christianity but agnosticism. Because with zero evidence you have no reason to believe one religion instead of another, no way to know what's true. So one's faith can lose all meaning if one has no reason to believe it's true. That's one of the reasons why Christianity is a revelation. Humans can't invent the correct religion for themselves- the true religion has to be revealed to them for it to escape the realm of pure guesswork.

All the Bible is God's truth revealed to mankind. All the experiences anyone has had with God, according to Christian teaching, are God revealing himself to them. He has a way of doing that. He loves to do that because he loves unity, to be with people in a recognizable, clear way, so that they can know him as he is rather than making guesses. The Bible and human experience since the Bible has been full of God interacting with humans. Christ was the most visible, direct form of that ever- God in human form present with everybody visibly. The Eucharist is now the most visible form of that, for it too is Christ present with us (though it's not evidenciary, except when God performs a Eucharistic miracle). But it's all God coming to us and revealing himself, which is automatically evidenciary.

And the truth of Christianity can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It can't be proven beyond that, for someone can always demand another piece of evidence and say that what's been provided isn't enough.

The books Wisdom, Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus- as well as Psalms, to some extent, deal with the beauty of reason and the glory of the fact that God gave it to humanity.

Faith, in Christianity, is about living it. You can have a ton of evidences in your brain that something's true, but then going and doing something while relying on it for the first time is hard. For instance, I may have a ton of evidence that God has performed miracles and that God is asking me to go and pray that someone will be healed. Praying quietly in my room is easy, but if God wants to reveal his power to a multitude by having me do it publicly, that's incredibly hard and takes a lot of faith, no matter how much evidence I have.

There's also faith involved in believing the evidence. You believe the Earth is round because of various evidences. You don't know it's round- you simply believe it, though you have a lot of good reasons to believe it, and it's easy to believe because there's almost nobody who doesn't believe it. So everything that everyone holds to- for instance the belief that 2 + 2 = 4, is faith. It's faith supported by evidence of various kinds.

Religion is no different. And of course faith is involved, as it takes faith to believe anything about the world, but God also gives us evidence so that we might have good reason to trust him and do what he says. And more importantly, because he loves the intimacy with us that giving us experiences of knowing him offers . Most importantly the Eucharist, though there are countless other less intimate (though occasionally more evidenciary, more visibly spectacular) ways of experiencing him that he offers.

I strongly, strongly recommend you read "The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel, my favorite book. It really lays out the evidence in a superb way. I could gush about it for 50 minutes if you like.

I can't describe to you how strengthening and marvelous it is for me to know about many of the evidences God has given for us to believe Christianity. If everything was blind faith, there'd be nowhere to turn but human reason, which has proven itself all over our history books to be extremely prone to error, and that's a horrifying idea. Also hopeless. For you'd ultimately be completely ignorant about the meaning of life. You might invent some human meanings and they'd die with you or the next person, or a few generations later would be washed away, but human meanings have no future. They also are all error-prone. They're empty. True meanings are not empty, though. But no one can know what is a true meaning unless God shines a light from Heaven on the meaning and reveals it to them.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lief, I'm not sure what you mean by "witchcraft". Even actual Witches (who, I must point out, or not evil - Witchcraft is actually a real religion) don't believe there is magic that makes you invulnerable to fire and exploding things.

Any spiritual power that doesn't come from God comes from the enemy. All spiritual power has a source, and sometimes it's an evil source. The kinds of claims witches make about the source and nature of their power strongly conflict with Christian teaching about God. And plus there are all the Christian teachings from the Bible and the Church condemning witchcraft, and that stuff does come from our God. So there is a conflict as to power/source. And the logical conclusion of Christian faith is that witches are getting their power from the devil. Plus the spiritual experiences of people who have come out of a witchcraft environment tend to confirm that.

I don't know what the limits of magical power are. Most people I've heard of who are involved in witchcraft say that there are limits to what effective spells can be cast. And there are of course charlatans or people with little power. The Book of Revelation talks about one of the Beasts calling fire down from heaven in plain sight of men.

There are plenty of people involved in witchcraft who do believe that magic really can have great power to impact the natural world. They are probably the minority, though, especially in modern times in the West. That belief is a traditional part of Christian teaching, too. Just look at the story of Moses facing off with the magicians. There are others, too, in the Bible and the stories of the lives of the saints. Balaam, for instance, or Elymas . . .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It's probably more likely that he doesn't get burnt because he truly believes the firecrackers won't hurt him, in the same way that people can walk over hot coals without burning their feet.

I would really want to know more about it before drawing any conclusions.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What I wonder is, how Han Dan can protect the town since he can't cross the water.

What Nurv said

Also, isn't Quan Yin a Buddhist bodhisattva, not a folk-religion goddess?

It is generally accepted that Guanyin originated as the Sanskrit Avalokiteśvara (अवलोकितेश्वर), which is her male form. Commonly known in the West as the Goddess of Mercy, Guanyin is also revered by Chinese Taoists as an Immortal. It should be noted that in Taoist mythology, Guan Yin has other origination stories which are unrelated to Avalokitesvara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guan_Yin


The Chinese are flexible about these things. In some of the syncretic cults/house churches springing up in China, some combination of Guanyin, Matzu and the Virgin Mary are all conflated.

Interestingly, when the Jesuits first came to China they emphasised Mary over Jesus in their imagery. The Chinese were horrified by the graphic Spanish crucifixes, and figured anyone who revered an image of man being tortured must be a devil-worshipper, whereas a mother with an ( especially male) baby was a very good thing. (The Chinese character for "good" is a combination of "woman" and "child".)

To this day the Chinese for Catholicism is 'Tianzhujiao" (Heaven Teaching) whereas Protestants are 'Yesujiao' (Jesus teaching)

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It's probably more likely that he doesn't get burnt because he truly believes the firecrackers won't hurt him, in the same way that people can walk over hot coals without burning their feet.

Firewalking

Walking across hot coals without getting burned does seem impossible to many people, but in fact it is no more impossible than putting your hand in a hot oven without getting burned. As long as you keep your hand in the air and don't touch the oven, its metal racks or any ceramic or metal pots, you won't get burned even if the oven is extremely hot. Or, if you do touch the oven, metal racks or pots, and are wearing insulating gloves or using "hot pads," you won't get burned. Why? Because "the air has a low heat capacity and a poor thermal conductivity...." while "our bodies have a relatively high heat capacity...."(Leikind and McCarthy, 188). And an insulator will insulate! Thus, even if the coals are very hot (1,000 to 1,200 degrees), a person with "normal" soles won't get burned as long as he or she doesn't take too long to walk across the coals and as long as the coals used do not have a very high heat capacity. Volcanic rock and certain wood embers will work just fine.

Also, "both hardwood and charcoal are good thermal insulators.... Wood is just as good an insulator even when on fire, and charcoal is almost four times better as an insulator than is dry hardwood. Further, the ash that is left after the charcoal has burnt is just as poor a conductor as was the hardwood or charcoal" (Willey).

Nevertheless, some people do get burned walking across hot coals, not because they lack faith or willpower, but because the coals are too hot or are have a relatively high heat capacity, or because the firewalker's soles are thin or he doesn't move quickly enough. But even very hot coals with a high heat capacity can be walked over without getting burned if one's feet are insulated, e.g., with a liquid such as sweat or water. (Think of how you can wet your finger and touch a hot iron without getting burned.) Again, one must move with sufficient speed or one will get burned.

http://www.skepdic.com/firewalk.html


Same thing applies to firecrackers- a little distance is enough to prevent being burned unless the firecracker is actually trapped or contained in contact with the skin.

I included this point a bit ironically, as in "it looks miraculous, but it ain't"- a bit of a warning against being too credulous.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

a bit of a warning against being too credulous.

Good luck with that, me boyo.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I disagree Brownie, I don't think truth is always obvious. What's obvious to one can be impossible to another.

My point exactly.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know there are Catholics who disagree with parts of what I said, though. However, there's a lot of revisionist, modern thinking that goes into the approach that this isn't what the Church traditionally thought. It is history. Tradition. And it's in the Bible.

The feminist movement had its origins in the 16th century or so. Before that, women did submit to men and this was seen as typological of the submission of the Church to her Christ.

Just curious here but...do you believe that men and women are equal?

I don't think that women should be priests but I do believe that we were created to be the equals of men. I believe that women and men complement each other. Of course in a world ruled by the physical elements, this can be hard to see sometimes.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

Just curious here but...do you believe that men and women are equal?

What do you mean by "equal?" I think they're certainly equally valuable, and equally made in the image of God. I also think they're equally necessary for the well being of humanity. One good father (or two good fathers) raising a child will not do as good a job as one good father and one good mother. Because women's minds tend to have certain talents and characteristics that men lack. We need women . As you said, our genders are complementary. Neither is "better" than the other, but the two genders tend to have different talents. One gender might tend to be better than the other at a specific role, or skill. Men, for instance, tend to be leaders more than women because of their gender, and women tend to be more nurturing than men because of their gender. Speaking generally.

We complement one another. I don't think we're equal in the sense that a woman has exactly the same kind of brain as a man and would have all the same talents as men regardless of her gender, if not for socialization. I think men won't have exactly the same kind of talents as women either, because we aren't women. So our genders might tend to be better than one another at specific things, but we're equally valuable and necessary.

The value of women's traditional role, and the value of femininity, is severely downplayed in modern times. Feminism since the 16th century has little by little often attempted to usurp men's traditional gender role, based on the belief that gender does not create predispositions to certain skills. Feminism is often severely critical of the supportive and nurturing gender role women held in the past that was critical to the mental and physical health of the human race. It tries to destroy women's traditional role, often scorning it and talking about it as repressive, psychologically destructive, and vicious, when countless women find it an incredible blessing and joy. Feminists often attack that.

But because of the era we grow up in, conservative Christians tend to accept historical feminist movements, but not the modern ones. That's how every generation has grown up: Disagreeing with the newest steps of feminism in their generation, but agreeing with its past movements. Only prior to the beginning of the feminist movement was there a real consistency of attitude. I'd be willing to bet you a LOT that in another few generations, the feminist movement's current steps in support of lesbian relationships and reproductive rights are going to be generally accepted and there will be new big debates about the newest "radical" feminism. Seen as "radical" because it lurches away from what that future generation sees as normal, which is not what we'd see as normal.

In past centuries, people would almost universally have said women shouldn't have the right to vote, because that's part of man's leadership gender role. Feminists over many decades trained women to think differently, to see themselves as repressed when in the past they'd generally been very content with their condition.

Similarly, most women in the past were very happy to not have the right to abortion. They thought abortion was murder. Then feminists started training them to think that abortion is a fundamental reproductive right, and taught them to think of themselves again as being repressed. So they started seeing it that way. Though many conservative women still absolutely reject that point of view.

Same with sexual "freedom," another feminist "right." Etc. etc. Each generation initially overwhelmingly condemns it, but slowly, with dedicated feminist work, the atmosphere changes. Beliefs change. And then it's the next big hurdle for feminism- which I find to often be twisted in some way, or even evil.

It is one ideological logical progression that has moved on throughout centuries. Earlier feminists would have strongly rejected what modern feminists fully support. It has changed radically every few centuries. And I think all the time for the worse, pretty much. Originally, there was a Christian model of social relationships that endured for a thousand years in the Medieval Ages, and there weren't any big feminist movements in that era. The progression of feminism dawned as that era died for one reason: It was fundamentally not a Christian worldview.

Feminism's original adherents may have been "Christian," but their cause broke from traditional Catholicism.



I don't think men and women are equal in the sense of being exactly the same. Men and women have different physical bodies. The brain is part of that physical body, and there are differences between the general behavior patterns of men and women that evidence suggests trace back to different psychological makeups.

I think that the brains of men and women are equally essential to humanity's well being. I think the genders tend to have different complementary and equally necessary talents, though, that come from their being different genders.

I suspect that that answers your question . . . what do you think?

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What do you mean by "equal?" I think they're certainly equally valuable, and equally made in the image of God. I also think they're equally necessary for the well being of humanity. One good father (or two good fathers) raising a child will not do as good a job as one good father and one good mother. Because women's minds tend to have certain talents and characteristics that men lack. We need women . As you said, our genders are complementary. Neither is "better" than the other, but the two genders tend to have different talents. One gender might tend to be better than the other at a specific role, or skill. Men, for instance, tend to be leaders more than women because of their gender, and women tend to be more nurturing than men because of their gender. Speaking generally.

We complement one another. I don't think we're equal in the sense that a woman has exactly the same kind of brain as a man and would have all the same talents as men regardless of her gender, if not for socialization. I think men won't have exactly the same kind of talents as women either, because we aren't women. So our genders might tend to be better than one another at specific things, but we're equally valuable and necessary.

The value of women's traditional role, and the value of femininity, is severely downplayed in modern times. Feminism since the 16th century has little by little often attempted to usurp men's traditional gender role, based on the belief that gender does not create predispositions to certain skills. Feminism is often severely critical of the supportive and nurturing gender role women held in the past that was critical to the mental and physical health of the human race. It tries to destroy women's traditional role, often scorning it and talking about it as repressive, psychologically destructive, and vicious, when countless women find it an incredible blessing and joy. Feminists often attack that.

But because of the era we grow up in, conservative Christians tend to accept historical feminist movements, but not the modern ones. That's how every generation has grown up: Disagreeing with the newest steps of feminism in their generation, but agreeing with its past movements. Only prior to the beginning of the feminist movement was there a real consistency of attitude. I'd be willing to bet you a LOT that in another few generations, the feminist movement's current steps in support of lesbian relationships and reproductive rights are going to be generally accepted and there will be new big debates about the newest "radical" feminism. Seen as "radical" because it lurches away from what that future generation sees as normal, which is not what we'd see as normal.

In past centuries, people would almost universally have said women shouldn't have the right to vote, because that's part of man's leadership gender role. Feminists over many decades trained women to think differently, to see themselves as repressed when in the past they'd generally been very content with their condition.

Similarly, most women in the past were very happy to not have the right to abortion. They thought abortion was murder. Then feminists started training them to think that abortion is a fundamental reproductive right, and taught them to think of themselves again as being repressed. So they started seeing it that way. Though many conservative women still absolutely reject that point of view.

Same with sexual "freedom," another feminist "right." Etc. etc. Each generation initially overwhelmingly condemns it, but slowly, with dedicated feminist work, the atmosphere changes. Beliefs change. And then it's the next big hurdle for feminism- which I find to often be twisted in some way, or even evil.

It is one ideological logical progression that has moved on throughout centuries. Earlier feminists would have strongly rejected what modern feminists fully support. It has changed radically every few centuries. And I think all the time for the worse, pretty much. Originally, there was a Christian model of social relationships that endured for a thousand years in the Medieval Ages, and there weren't any big feminist movements in that era. The progression of feminism dawned as that era died for one reason: It was fundamentally not a Christian worldview.

Feminism's original adherents may have been "Christian," but their cause broke from traditional Catholicism.



I don't think men and women are equal in the sense of being exactly the same. Men and women have different physical bodies. The brain is part of that physical body, and there are differences between the general behavior patterns of men and women that evidence suggests trace back to different psychological makeups.

I think that the brains of men and women are equally essential to humanity's well being. I think the genders tend to have different complementary and equally necessary talents, though, that come from their being different genders.

I suspect that that answers your question . . . what do you think?

Interesting. When I was in college I did a paper on Mary Cassatt. She was an impressionist painter whose emphasis was on mother and child. From what I researched, she very much wanted to embrace TRUE feminism and to portray that in her art. True Feminism was the reality of woman embracing her natural talents and abilities....being a mother for instance. (Being a mother is one (if not THE) hardest jobs in the world. I should know because I am one. Somedays are worst than others. I really think that being a mom is harder than being a dad.) I must say, I agree. Women have a role designated to them by God. I believe that Original Sin as severely affected our (men's as well as women's) natures.

However, I don't' believe that women must submit to everything their husband wants (and this includes sex). In reality the husband could force the wife, but just because a man can overtake a woman physically doesn't mean that he should. The husband needs to respect what his wife wants. He needs to know that her wants are valid. She was created to be his companion. There are things she can do that he cannot....like giving birth....I don't' know many (if any) men who could endure 9 mths of pregnancy and then have to endure labor and end it with pushing a baby out of you. Pregnancy is hard stuff!

And I agree with you about leadership. Women can be leaders but I think it comes with a price. I don't know many (if any) women who are in CEO or VP positions who are not divorced and overly aggressive. I wonder why this is. My boss at work is like this. My friend's boss is as well. We were discussing it one night. Aggressive women are scary!

I guess I will always wonder what we would have been like had Adam and Eve not sinned.

Edit: I oppose abortion. I'm not going to debate it here b/c this isn't the thread for it. But...being a woman, and a Christian...God designed us to carry human life....going against that is going against the will of God...bottom line. Again, God designed women to be fertile a few days a months...going against that (contracepting) is going against the will of God.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

Interesting. When I was in college I did a paper on Mary Cassatt. She was an impressionist painter whose emphasis was on mother and child. From what I researched, she very much wanted to embrace TRUE feminism and to portray that in her art. True Feminism was the reality of woman embracing her natural talents and abilities....being a mother for instance.

Yes, I've heard of this particular brand of feminism. It seems to primarily thrive among conservative Christians. I very highly regard it.

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

(Being a mother is one (if not THE) hardest jobs in the world. I should know because I am one. Somedays are worst than others. I really think that being a mom is harder than being a dad.)

I am fully with you that mothers have an extremely hard job.

I'm not personally in a position to comment on which might be harder, as I'm neither a mother nor a father.

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

I must say, I agree. Women have a role designated to them by God. I believe that Original Sin as severely affected our (men's as well as women's) natures.

However, I don't' believe that women must submit to everything their husband wants (and this includes sex). In reality the husband could force the wife, but just because a man can overtake a woman physically doesn't mean that he should. The husband needs to respect what his wife wants. He needs to know that her wants are valid. She was created to be his companion.

Agreed. Jesus taught that he who wants to be a leader must be a servant of all. That's what a husband should be. And, Jesus taught, the husband should love his wife so much that he would die for her, just as Christ died for his Church.

He described the genuine Christian leadership role as a pretty demanding one, not one where you sit back and make your wife do all the work.

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

There are things she can do that he cannot....like giving birth....I don't' know many (if any) men who could endure 9 mths of pregnancy and then have to endure labor and end it with pushing a baby out of you. Pregnancy is hard stuff!

And I agree with you about leadership. Women can be leaders but I think it comes with a price. I don't know many (if any) women who are in CEO or VP positions who are not divorced and overly aggressive. I wonder why this is. My boss at work is like this. My friend's boss is as well. We were discussing it one night. Aggressive women are scary!

I guess I will always wonder what we would have been like had Adam and Eve not sinned.

Edit: I oppose abortion. I'm not going to debate it here b/c this isn't the thread for it. But...being a woman, and a Christian...God designed us to carry human life....going against that is going against the will of God...bottom line. Again, God designed women to be fertile a few days a months...going against that (contracepting) is going against the will of God.

I agree with you completely.

Nice to meet someone so wholly in accord with me on this! Usually when I consider saying what I just said, especially about women not having the right to vote, I fully expect to get burned alive. Which can get lonely.

It's really nice to find out you're of like mind on so much .