NationStates

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:

Luminesa wrote:
Okay, what denomination of Buddhism do you adhere to?

Mahayana

Also, what do you mean by 'a certain reading'?

Let's use the example of Matthew 16:19, which Catholics take to mean that Peter was given the keys to rightly interpreting scripture which is passed down through the Popes as the successor of Peter, and, by proxy the Church, which is founded upon Peter, the Rock, some will argue that, in the previous verse, the rock there means 'little rock' for the 'big rock' that is Jesus, which other argues is a misreading of the Greek, mistaking Koine Greek for Attic Greek. Other argue that the Rock is not Peter himself, but the statement he makes, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' in Matthew 16:16, which by proxy, means it is not Peter the person that Jesus found his Church on, but that sincere statement of faith, and that the faith, itself, is the Rock, and Peter is called Peter now because of his rock-like faith.

Like most critics of papal primacy, you completely ignore the second half of Jesus's statement "I will give to you the keys to the kingdom" which is far less ambiguous.

Ah, so I learned an important lesson today. If I tell myself "I'll just have a quick look at the Christian thread to see what's going on, but without responding, because I'm supposed to be staying away from NSG until late March", that... well... doesn't work.

Thus, here I am, feeling compelled to respond to some particularly egregious statements that I simply cannot let slide.

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:To use another obvious example- Christmas Mass, everyone acknowledges that the holiday is appropriated from an existing Pagan one, as was All Hallow's Day and Easter Sunday, so it is certain that the first Christians probably didn't celebrate them.

False. That you would even make such a ridiculous statement only serves to display your ignorance.

"Easter Sunday" is very clearly and explicitly the Christian equivalent of the Jewish holiday of Passover. In fact, in most languages, including Greek and Latin, the word for "Easter" is exactly the same as the word for "Passover", and it is a cognate of Hebrew Pesach.

Greek: Πάσχα (Pascha)
Russian: Пасха (Paskha)
Latin: Pascha
Italian: Pasqua
French: Pâques
Spanish: Pascua
Dutch: Pasen
Swedish: Påsk
Norwegian: Påske
Finnish: Pääsiäinen

The origins of Easter are very obviously Jewish, and it was the first and most important Christian holiday, celebrated by Christians from the earliest times.

Christmas originated much later, but it's not at all clear how it began, or even when precisely it began, so we cannot know if Christmas copied certain pagan celebrations or if those celebrations copied Christmas.

As for All Hallow's Day (All Saints' Day), that was originally celebrated on a Sunday in April or May (and continues to be celebrated at that time by the Orthodox Church), but in the West it was moved to November 1st under the papacy of Gregory III (731-741), to mark the dedication of a new oratory in Rome to All Saints. It has precisely nothing to do with any pagan harvest festivals, although, of course, aspects of those festivals were later incorporated into popular celebrations of All Saints' Day (or its eve, Halloween), just as, for example, the vaguely pagan-ish custom of the Christmas tree was invented and popularized in the late 18th and early 19th century.

Almost without exception, the "pagan" aspects of Christian holidays are modern secular inventions inspired by children's stories, with only the most distant and tenuous connection to ancient pagan festivals.

Czechanada wrote:

Luminesa wrote:
Most PEOPLE don't think that Pi is equal to three. It's not, it's 3.1514...you know what I mean.

And what if I were to tell you that reincarnation does not make sense? Buddhists believe in reincarnation, right?

Isn't it kind of hypocritical to state that reincarnation does not make sense while believing in the resurrection of Christ?

Well, the resurrection is coming back once in a glorified state, thus it actually cancels the idea of reincarnation, because with the resurrection of the body that Christ undergoes (and that all Christians hope to go through, on the last day), it will be perfect, and thus there will be no need for reincarnation, which involves coming back over and over again until you are perfect.

So it's either one or the other, basically. Kinda like monotheism or polytheism, you can't believe one and also the other.

Czechanada wrote:

Luminesa wrote:
Most PEOPLE don't think that Pi is equal to three. It's not, it's 3.1514...you know what I mean.

And what if I were to tell you that reincarnation does not make sense? Buddhists believe in reincarnation, right?

Isn't it kind of hypocritical to state that reincarnation does not make sense while believing in the resurrection of Christ?

I think that was Lumi's point, only, well, the other way round.

Constantinopolis wrote:Ah, so I learned an important lesson today. If I tell myself "I'll just have a quick look at the Christian thread to see what's going on, but without responding, because I'm supposed to be staying away from NSG until late March", that... well... doesn't work.

Thus, here I am, feeling compelled to respond to some particularly egregious statements that I simply cannot let slide.

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:To use another obvious example- Christmas Mass, everyone acknowledges that the holiday is appropriated from an existing Pagan one, as was All Hallow's Day and Easter Sunday, so it is certain that the first Christians probably didn't celebrate them.

False. That you would even make such a ridiculous statement only serves to display your ignorance.

"Easter Sunday" is very clearly and explicitly the Christian equivalent of the Jewish holiday of Passover. In fact, in most languages, including Greek and Latin, the word for "Easter" is exactly the same as the word for "Passover", and it is a cognate of Hebrew Pesach.

Greek: Πάσχα (Pascha)
Russian: Пасха (Paskha)
Latin: Pascha
Italian: Pasqua
French: Pâques
Spanish: Pascua
Dutch: Pasen
Swedish: Påsk
Norwegian: Påske
Finnish: Pääsiäinen

The origins of Easter are very obviously Jewish, and it was the first and most important Christian holiday, celebrated by Christians from the earliest times.

Christmas originated much later, but it's not at all clear how it began, or even when precisely it began, so we cannot know if Christmas copied certain pagan celebrations or if those celebrations copied Christmas.

As for All Hallow's Day (All Saints' Day), that was originally celebrated on a Sunday in April or May (and continues to be celebrated at that time by the Orthodox Church), but in the West it was moved to November 1st under the papacy of Gregory III (731-741), to mark the dedication of a new oratory in Rome to All Saints. It has precisely nothing to do with any pagan harvest festivals, although, of course, aspects of those festivals were later incorporated into popular celebrations of All Saints' Day (or its eve, Halloween), just as, for example, the vaguely pagan-ish custom of the Christmas tree was invented and popularized in the late 18th and early 19th century.

Almost without exception, the "pagan" aspects of Christian holidays are modern secular inventions inspired by children's stories, with only the most distant and tenuous connection to ancient pagan festivals.

It needs to also be noted that in Mexico Halloween is not celebrated.

What is celebrated instead is "El Dia De Los Muertos" which is basically the day in which we pay homage to the dead before All Saints' Day.

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:What about my description of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and your insistence on Tradition is wrong?

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:Transubstantiation:

Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Mass, at the consecration in the Lord's Supper (Communion), the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine but only retain their appearance of bread and wine.

Real Presence ≠ Transubstantiation

Only the Catholic Church officially believes in Transubstantiation. The other ancient Churches (including the Orthodox Church) believe in the Real Presence, but not in Transubstantiation. The Real Presence simply means that the Eucharist actually does something, that it is a vehicle through which we receive God's Grace, that it really matters whether you partake of it or not. The Eucharist is the Sacrament through which we receive communion with God, and it is the most important act for a Christian to participate in.

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:The point was that you have no proof that these traditions existed since ancient times, and I provided examples of more modern traditions (celebration of Easter and Christmas on those days they are currently celebrated) as examples of traditions that are new, and whose history we know relatively well, but which we celebrate anyways.

There is proof that they existed since at least the second century. By what standard does this not count as "ancient"?

You are quibbling over the question of whether the Orthodox/Catholic traditions were started by the very first Christians themselves, or by the generation of their grandchildren (because they certainly existed by the time of the grandchildren of the first Christians).

So if we have to choose between:

(a) Traditions that have existed for at least 1900 years, but may not have existed for the full 2000 years of Christianity;
OR
(b) Your own speculations about what Christianity may have been like during those first few decades when these traditions may not have existed.

...then how is there any contest at all between these options? How can anyone in their right mind pick (b) over (a), just on the off chance that for a few short decades Christianity was somehow totally different from what it became just a couple of generations later?

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:The Eucharist does not make sense and is only tentatively supported by scripture.

I hope you realize that by the time the canon of Scripture was set, there already existed an Apostolic Church with weekly celebrations of the Eucharist on Sundays, an all-male priesthood, a clear distinction between laity and ordained clergy, annual celebrations of the Resurrection of Christ on Pascha/Easter, and even, in some places, celebrations of Christmas (yes, Christmas is slightly older than the final version of the New Testament canon).

Arguing that Orthodox/Catholic traditions dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries are "unbiblical" is like arguing that J.K. Rowling is wrong to claim that Dumbledore is gay, because this was never mentioned in the Harry Potter books.

The Apostolic Church, as it existed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, was the authority that compiled the New Testament in the first place. Sure, you can argue that traditions originating in the 4th century or later are "unbiblical" (however bone-headed that argument may be), but to argue that traditions originating in the 3rd century or earlier are "unbiblical" means literally disagreeing with the author of a book about the intended meaning of this book.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Diopolis wrote:The point is that there is too little preaching and catechesis on this very real danger.

I think there's plenty, and I think the Church is pretty much in the right place focusing on the Livable faith and the avoiding sin, rather than looking for the Devil to come possess you or what not. The Devil cannot spiritually harm Christians.

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's."

We need to worry about ourselves more than the Devil.

I count one, two, three Catholics on this screen. Now tell me we shouldn't think the Devil can harm Christians.

Yes, I just pulled Godwin's law. I REGRET NOTHING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!!

Luminesa wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
I think there's plenty, and I think the Church is pretty much in the right place focusing on the Livable faith and the avoiding sin, rather than looking for the Devil to come possess you or what not. The Devil cannot spiritually harm Christians.

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's."

We need to worry about ourselves more than the Devil.

*IMAGES*

I count one, two, three Catholics on this screen. Now tell me we shouldn't think the Devil can harm Christians.

Yes, I just pulled Godwin's law. I REGRET NOTHING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!!

Every unspoilered giant image on an NSG thread is a little window for the Devil to get through.

Angleter wrote:

Luminesa wrote:*IMAGES*

I count one, two, three Catholics on this screen. Now tell me we shouldn't think the Devil can harm Christians.

Yes, I just pulled Godwin's law. I REGRET NOTHING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!!

Every unspoilered giant image on an NSG thread is a little window for the Devil to get through.

Just don't look Goebbels right in the eyes and you should be fine.

Luminesa wrote:I count one, two, three Catholics on this screen. Now tell me we shouldn't think the Devil can harm Christians.

Yes, I just pulled Godwin's law. I REGRET NOTHING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!!

No, that's only two Catholics at most. Himmler was utterly obsessed with occultism and Germanic neo-paganism. While Hitler and Goebbels had an opinion of religion that could be summarized as "meh, sure, whatever" - and therefore they may count as non-practicing Catholics - Himmler was much more serious about religion, and that religion was his own weird blend of myths about Atlantis and a racialized interpretation of the Germanic mythology. Whatever he was, he definitely wasn't Catholic.

None of this really affects your argument, however.

Constantinopolis wrote:Ah, so I learned an important lesson today. If I tell myself "I'll just have a quick look at the Christian thread to see what's going on, but without responding, because I'm supposed to be staying away from NSG until late March", that... well... doesn't work.

Sorry to do this to you, Const

Salus Maior wrote:

Constantinopolis wrote:Ah, so I learned an important lesson today. If I tell myself "I'll just have a quick look at the Christian thread to see what's going on, but without responding, because I'm supposed to be staying away from NSG until late March", that... well... doesn't work.

Sorry to do this to you, Const

No, no, don't be sorry, that's pretty much exactly what happened.

And now that the wrongness has been corrected and no one is wrong on the internet any more, it's time for me to depart once again from NSG (for real this time) until late March.

*murmurs* I must not read NSG. NSG is the time-killer. NSG is the little argument that brings total sleepless nights. I will face my urge to read NSG. I will permit it to pass over me and through me...

Constantinopolis wrote:

Luminesa wrote:I count one, two, three Catholics on this screen. Now tell me we shouldn't think the Devil can harm Christians.

Yes, I just pulled Godwin's law. I REGRET NOTHING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!!

No, that's only two Catholics at most. Himmler was utterly obsessed with occultism and Germanic neo-paganism. While Hitler and Goebbels had an opinion of religion that could be summarized as "meh, sure, whatever" - and therefore they may count as non-practicing Catholics - Himmler was much more serious about religion, and that religion was his own weird blend of myths about Atlantis and a racialized interpretation of the Germanic mythology. Whatever he was, he definitely wasn't Catholic.

None of this really affects your argument, however.

Well, I mean they were Catholic before they all decided to become Nazis.

Still, I have to wonder how Hitler and Goebbels felt seeing Himmler come to meetings with his occult stuff.

Himmler: *Walks into Nazi meeting room wearing Mickey Mouse's Wizard Hat and clothes.* Hey guys!

Goebbels:...Umm...

Hitler: HEINRICH!!! THIS IS THE THIRD TIME YOU HAVEN'T COME IN UNIFORM!!! And what is with you and that costume, anyway?! This is not ComicCon!

Himmler: This is 1942, Mein Fuhrer. I do not get that reference. Anyway, I can actually do magic now! Watch!

Goebbels: You better not summon another 'Horse'.

Hitler: Another WHAT?!

Himmler: Yippity skippity, bippity boppity, spirits answer me, HIMMLER THE NAZI.

*Nothing for a moment.*

Hitler:...Welp, that was uneventful. Now can you please go-

*A giant purple blob with horse-legs is summoned. It roars like something between a sheep and a lion.*

Hitler:...Ummm...call an exorcist?

Goebbels: NO!!! WE ARE NOT GETTING AN EXORCIST!!! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS EVIL!!!

Hitler: YOU WANNA GET EATEN BY THAT THING?!

Goebbels: I got this, Mein Fuhrer. *Stands on a table and throws salt at it.* DIEDIEDIEDIEDIE!!!

Himmler: *Thinking to himself.* Hmmm...did I really get the spell wrong AGAIN?

Goebbels: *Gets thrown into a wall.* AAAAAAAUGH!!! *Crashes.*...Mein Fuhrer, call an ambulance.

Hitler: Aaaaaand an exorcist. *Calls a number.*...Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh huh...Thanks. *Hangs up.* He's coming from Stalingrad, so he's going to be a while.

*Doorbell rings.*

Hitler: Huh. That was fast. *Goes and opens the door.*

*Opens door. It's Stalin, who was pretending to be an exorcist over the phone.*

Hitler:...Oh no.

Stalin: I heard someone needed some EXORCISING, Komrade? That can be arranged. *Takes out gun.* Start running.

Hitler and Goebbels: O.O

Constantinopolis wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:Sorry to do this to you, Const

No, no, don't be sorry, that's pretty much exactly what happened.

And now that the wrongness has been corrected and no one is wrong on the internet any more, it's time for me to depart once again from NSG (for real this time) until late March.

*murmurs* I must not read NSG. NSG is the time-killer. NSG is the little argument that brings total sleepless nights. I will face my urge to read NSG. I will permit it to pass over me and through me...

I. can't. stop. laughing! This is definitely AQ material.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Constantinopolis wrote:No, no, don't be sorry, that's pretty much exactly what happened.

And now that the wrongness has been corrected and no one is wrong on the internet any more, it's time for me to depart once again from NSG (for real this time) until late March.

*murmurs* I must not read NSG. NSG is the time-killer. NSG is the little argument that brings total sleepless nights. I will face my urge to read NSG. I will permit it to pass over me and through me...

I. can't. stop. laughing! This is definitely AQ material.

Yep, totally sigging it

Diopolis wrote:

Luminesa wrote:
Most PEOPLE don't think that Pi is equal to three. It's not, it's 3.1514...you know what I mean.

And what if I were to tell you that reincarnation does not make sense? Buddhists believe in reincarnation, right?

Interestingly enough, the bible doesn't actually say that pi is equal to three. It gives some dimensions that work out to pi as three, fair, but it doesn't give the thickness of the container's rim.

This is assuming that the basin was in fact a perfect circle.

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:

Luminesa wrote:
Okay, what denomination of Buddhism do you adhere to?

Mahayana

Also, what do you mean by 'a certain reading'?

Let's use the example of Matthew 16:19, which Catholics take to mean that Peter was given the keys to rightly interpreting scripture which is passed down through the Popes as the successor of Peter, and, by proxy the Church, which is founded upon Peter, the Rock, some will argue that, in the previous verse, the rock there means 'little rock' for the 'big rock' that is Jesus, which other argues is a misreading of the Greek, mistaking Koine Greek for Attic Greek. Other argue that the Rock is not Peter himself, but the statement he makes, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' in Matthew 16:16, which by proxy, means it is not Peter the person that Jesus found his Church on, but that sincere statement of faith, and that the faith, itself, is the Rock, and Peter is called Peter now because of his rock-like faith.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

1. Oh that certainly is rich. And you're saying Catholicism makes fantastical irrational claims about the universe? Yeah, ok.

I don't believe that Buddhism has ever claimed that its clergy can magic a divine being into bread and booze.

2. I can make the bible justify the mass murder of all people if I really wanted, turn Jesus into a terrible war Lord if I so desired. It's not about what interpretation is less this or that it's about what interpretation is right.

And we usually think that an interpretation is right if it (1) adheres to the text and (2) that is conforms to reality as we currently know it. That is why most Christians don't literally accept that Pi is equal to three.

The Eucharist does not make sense and is only tentatively supported by scripture.

No but if you try hard enough you too can become the Buddha. And if you study the name of the Bodhisattva long enough, you can essentially become the Bodhisattva. Or if you study long enough your body will turn partly to jewels and you will get to go to a new land made entirely of jewels, where every blade of grass, rustling leaf and singing bird proclaims the dharma of the Bhudda.and all those birds leaves and grass are also made jewels. (Granted that's one version of Mahayanna). Look I have the utmost respect for Buddhism, but all our religions make fantastical claims. Glass houses buddy, they're not just for plants.


The Eucharist has already been explained, in your absense and you know what's fucking funny? Buddhism would find the mechanics of Transubstantiation perfectly agreeable. A distinction between the real and the Real, isn't just agreeable to Bhuddhism, its foundational. Its also scripturally sound, you just don't know what you're talking about, For some reason you think Christianity has no relationship to Judaisim but some manufactured version isn't true by a long shot. So how about you leave Christianify to us and piss off? I wouldn't dare to to tell Buddhists how to view their doctrine, show the same respect.

Czechanada wrote:

Luminesa wrote:
Most PEOPLE don't think that Pi is equal to three. It's not, it's 3.1514...you know what I mean.

And what if I were to tell you that reincarnation does not make sense? Buddhists believe in reincarnation, right?

Isn't it kind of hypocritical to state that reincarnation does not make sense while believing in the resurrection of Christ?

She was making a point....

Constantinopolis wrote:Ah, so I learned an important lesson today. If I tell myself "I'll just have a quick look at the Christian thread to see what's going on, but without responding, because I'm supposed to be staying away from NSG until late March", that... well... doesn't work.

I get this. so much.

Welcome back though, man.

Grand Calvert wrote:

Alvecia wrote:As someone who has watched this movie and many other Christian movies thanks to a certain podcast I can confirm that anything with or directed by Kirk Cameron has a greater than normal chance of being straight up awful.

Yeah those Left Behind movies just seem so...bizarre. I always try to find good Christian movies but its pretty hard. The best ones I've come across are the ones that aren't overtly and obviously Christian but the ones with subtle Christian undertones

I liked the Book of Eli. That doesn't appear to be a Christian movie on the surface, but it is underneath

And there was The Giver (I think that's what it was called). That was a super Christian movie, but it was equally as subtle about it.

The United Neptumousian Empire wrote:And there was The Giver (I think that's what it was called). That was a super Christian movie, but it was equally as subtle about it.

I read the Giver and did not notice any Christian themes. I haven't seen the movie though.

Luminesa wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
I think there's plenty, and I think the Church is pretty much in the right place focusing on the Livable faith and the avoiding sin, rather than looking for the Devil to come possess you or what not. The Devil cannot spiritually harm Christians.

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's."

We need to worry about ourselves more than the Devil.

I count one, two, three Catholics on this screen. Now tell me we shouldn't think the Devil can harm Christians.

Yes, I just pulled Godwin's law. I REGRET NOTHING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!!

Ok? What with all of Nazi meme?

Why?

Luminesa wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
I think there's plenty, and I think the Church is pretty much in the right place focusing on the Livable faith and the avoiding sin, rather than looking for the Devil to come possess you or what not. The Devil cannot spiritually harm Christians.

"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's."

We need to worry about ourselves more than the Devil.

I count one, two, three Catholics on this screen. Now tell me we shouldn't think the Devil can harm Christians.

Yes, I just pulled Godwin's law. I REGRET NOTHING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!!

Ok? What with all of Nazi meme?

Why?

Ithqington wrote:

Luminesa wrote:






I count one, two, three Catholics on this screen. Now tell me we shouldn't think the Devil can harm Christians.

Yes, I just pulled Godwin's law. I REGRET NOTHING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!!!

Ok? What with all of Nazi meme?

Why?

I was mentioning these three were all raised as Catholics and then fell away from the Church, because the Devil had indeed effected them spiritually. I just felt like posting memes, though, because why not. XD