"Thou Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me"

[Alinestra Covelia]

Is the Virgin Mary herself a "saint" in the beatification scheme of things? I seem to remember she occupies an odd place in Catholic doctrine but it was never really explained to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is the Virgin Mary herself a "saint" in the beatification scheme of things? I seem to remember she occupies an odd place in Catholic doctrine but it was never really explained to me.

She's a saint. The reason she's set apart from the others is that she's the Theotokos, or "God bearer", and that she was sinless. Like a few of the other saints, Elijah and Enoch, she was translated into heaven.

[Sava]

No we don't.

And the depiction of saints in artwork seems like a violation of the commandment against idol worship. The saints and angels are all above with Jesus (and God, behind him), in heaven.

edit: dammit, img wouldn't link

http://media.photobucket.com/image/catholic%20saints/mark618/all_saints_day.jpg

Personally, I think belief in Jesus as a godly figure is idol worship.

You are going to roast in the lake of fire. You know that, right?

[BlackCat]

Actually, all this praying is obsolete - just pay a sufficient amout of money to the church and you go to heaven - gods stand-in on earth have said so .

[Ben Kenobi]

And the depiction of saints in artwork seems like a violation of the commandment against idol worship.

The strictest interpretation would have no images at all. Catholics don't have a problem with it unless you actually worship the idols. Depictions of God are just fine. As for the saints, they aren't any different then pictures of other people.

Personally, I think belief in Jesus as a godly figure is idol worship.

We have a living God.

You are going to roast in the lake of fire. You know that, right?

Then I look forward to having your company for eternity.

That's a really beautiful piece of Art Sava.

Thank you.

[Sava]

The strictest interpretation would have no images at all. Catholics don't have a problem with it unless you actually worship the idols. Depictions of God are just fine. As for the saints, they aren't any different then pictures of other people.

Catholics are all going to hell.

We have a living God.

There is one God, and only God. Read the Bible.

Then I look forward to having your company for eternity.

That's a really beautiful piece of Art Sava.

[Traianvs]

It's completely useless, IMO. We ought to treat all texts as the Law come down from Moses unless we have evidence to the contrary. We have to assume that what the text says is what was actually meant rather then dismissing testimonies which do not fit into our modern perspective.

IMO, 'modern' redefinitions are suspect. The transformation is not in the texts but in ourselves.

Like I told you before it's exactly the opposite. You are actually the one interpreting the bible incorrectly. Either you interpret the bible according the modern mindset (men and women are equal, political freedom, democracy etc.) and learn lessons from it, which is just fine for me btw, or you interpret it almost literally, like you and the fundamentalists do.

And taking the word and the bible as it appears in the text to us inevitably causes you to construe it incorrectly. Simply because you live today and not 2000 years ago. The bible was written over a long period, and if you don't take into account what lies behind it all (the politics, the customs and cultural peculiarities and what not) you're already interpreting it with the current mindset, however literally you may treat the text. The worst of it all, if you imagine ancient culture with the bible as your sole and most important source you are already misled. Would you base your entire view on our current society on one text or body of texts? I don't think so.

And most importantly: taking any text literally as it appears to you is folly. There's no such thing as a text that can be interpreted the same way in every culture, timeframe, location etc. Therefore to really understand it, you need scientific research to discover the true meanings of the texts.

[Ben Kenobi]

Like I told you before it's exactly the opposite. You are actually the one interpreting the bible incorrectly. Either you interpret the bible according the modern mindset (men and women are equal, political freedom, democracy etc.) and learn lessons from it, which is just fine for me btw, or you interpret it almost literally, like you and the fundamentalists do.

IOW we squish it to make it fit.

This is precisely the wrong approach. Why should we expect the bible to conform to our modern prejudices? It's not a modern document, and we have to remember when it was written and for what purpose.

And taking the word and the bible as it appears in the text to us inevitably causes you to construe it incorrectly.

How so? We should accept the text at face value.

Simply because you live today and not 2000 years ago. The bible was written over a long period, and if you don't take into account what lies behind it all (the politics, the customs and cultural peculiarities and what not) you're already interpreting it with the current mindset, however literally you may treat the text.

Then why are you saying we should interpret it with the modern mindset? I agree that we must understand it as it was back then. To do that we should rely upon the commentary from then and not now, which means we read the fathers of the church.

And most importantly: taking any text literally as it appears to you is folly. There's no such thing as a text that can be interpreted the same way in every culture, timeframe, location etc. Therefore to really understand it, you need scientific research to discover the true meanings of the texts.

Then the modern mindset is irrelevant. The only reason you say that is because you want to change the bible to what you think it should say.

[Sava]

How so? We should accept the text at face value.

Face value. By this, do you mean accepting the reality that it has been translated and mistranslated countless times by truly unholy people for selfish purposes?

Not that it's entirely unreliable as a legitimate source of God's word. But the lesson that should be learned is to take it into context with the rest of your existence.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not that it's entirely unreliable as a legitimate source of God's word. But the lesson that should be learned is to take it into context with the rest of your existence.

I'd bet it's more reliable then any other document from before 1850.

[Sava]

I'd bet it's more reliable then any other document from before 1850.

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

And I bet colonial American documents are pretty damned reliable... so yeah. Try again.

[Ben Kenobi]

And I bet colonial American documents are pretty damned reliable... so yeah. Try again.

Thus the point is made. Thanks Sava.

[Traianvs]

We should definately not take it at face value, because you simply can't without interpreting the text with your current mindset. This is entirely my point.

You can take any random sentence from the bible and interpret it to what you think it should say.

To refrain from that mistake, scientific research should be done, including other historical texts and whatever archaeological and other evidence can be brought forward.

And quite naturally yes, commentaries from ancient times, if they are available, should be scrutinized. Including the -what is it?- 40 or so apocryphal gospels. They also give clues about ancient society and about Jesus, albeit from points of view that were later dismissed by the church authorities when they accepted the Damasine list. All I'm saying is: be critical and be cautious about your sources.

[Ben Kenobi]

And quite naturally yes, commentaries from ancient times, if they are available, should be scrutinized. Including the -what is it?- 40 or so apocryphal gospels. They also give clues about ancient society and about Jesus, albeit from points of view that were later dismissed by the church authorities when they accepted the Damasine list. All I'm saying is: be critical and be cautious about your sources.

And were rejected as authoritative by those who were closer to the source.

That's like relying on the weekly world news for your information.

The biggest problem is interpolation, people reading into the bible what they want to be there, rather then what it actually says.

[Traianvs]

The biggest problem is interpolation, people reading into the bible what they want to be there, rather then what it actually says.

Which is why all that fundamentalism, particularly in the US, is really scary. Wouldn't you agree?

And about the other gospels: some of them definately got rejected because they didn't reflect the orthodoxy back in the days. It's endemic to religious (or heck any) institution. So there. Still doesn't mean they have no value at all. That's why textual criticism is so important. To prevent that interpolation.