Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[The Alma Mater]

Today in Christianity:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/04/europe/mo ... onization/

I KNOW!!!!

AND IT'S.

ABOUT.

TIME.

A CELEBRATION I SAY!!!!!

So you disagree with the accusations that mother Teresa was a sadist who enjoyed to let her patients suffer needlessly, that she only used a small fraction of the donations given to her to actually help the sick, that her "hospitals" were actually just "places to die horribly" etc. etc. ? The list is rather long...

[Talvezout]

Today in Christianity:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/04/europe/mo ... onization/

I KNOW!!!!

AND IT'S.

ABOUT.

TIME.

A CELEBRATION I SAY!!!!!

A celebration so great and nice it must be done thrice

[Cill Airne]

So, I am curious - the Gospel was read twice during the Mass for St. Teresa's canonisation. It was repeated in Greek. This is not typical for Masses, and I was wondering if anyone knows of the reason why it was done that way yesterday?

Although, I also gotta admit Pope Francis' homily was great.

[Luminesa]

I KNOW!!!!

AND IT'S.

ABOUT.

TIME.

A CELEBRATION I SAY!!!!!

A celebration so great and nice it must be done thrice

Apparently so. BLAME MY BAD INTERNET CONNECTION FOR THAT. XD

[Luminesa]

I KNOW!!!!

AND IT'S.

ABOUT.

TIME.

A CELEBRATION I SAY!!!!!

So you disagree with the accusations that mother Teresa was a sadist who enjoyed to let her patients suffer needlessly, that she only used a small fraction of the donations given to her to actually help the sick, that her "hospitals" were actually just "places to die horribly" etc. etc. ? The list is rather long...

Wholeheartedly. Hitchens is not the only person who's ever been to Calcutta and seen her Order. Susan Conroy went to Calcutta as well, and wrote a book about what she saw as well. I have said book. It is amazing, and it inspired me to want to become a sister (though I have been called to be a Dominican, and not a Missionary of Charity.) I myself have helped the sisters in their soup kitchen/shelter in Baton Rouge. They are wonderful, holy people. Accusations are completely false.

[The Alma Mater]

So you disagree with the accusations that mother Teresa was a sadist who enjoyed to let her patients suffer needlessly, that she only used a small fraction of the donations given to her to actually help the sick, that her "hospitals" were actually just "places to die horribly" etc. etc. ? The list is rather long...

Wholeheartedly. Hitchens is not the only person who's ever been to Calcutta and seen her Order..

He is not the only one criticising it (and her) either...
But honestly, I want to believe she was a good person. I want to believe she did good. So I am going to join the party.

[Luminesa]

Wholeheartedly. Hitchens is not the only person who's ever been to Calcutta and seen her Order..

He is not the only one criticising it (and her) either...
But honestly, I want to believe she was a good person. I want to believe she did good. So I am going to join the party.

YAY!!!!!!!

*Throws confetti over Alma.*

I saved you some cake.

*Hands them a piece of cake.*

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

I've pointed this out twice already, but that's a different question.

You can agree with the consensus on one question, and disagree on a different question.

It is understandable that each of us hold different opinions and you are entitled to your own.

But as the consensus of the historians and scholars on the subject represent educated and informed views of experts who studied it for a lot of time and professional training, they have a lot more expertise on the subject to say what is true and not, and their opinion has a more significant chance of being true than somebody who is not educated.

Other than personal bias and belief, there is little reason to flat out reject the academic consensus. It is fine to disagree with them, but the consensus should serve as a warning sign. For example, we trust the experts in medicine because they are more educated in the field.

No, I'm not. I'm not confused about, or confusing them, at all.

You can apply scientific rigour, objective measurement, and analysis of physical evidence to history.

We don't always do this, because of the lack of evidence. I don't consider that a good enough excuse for setting the evidence bar so low.

Again, history is not like the natural sciences. Yes, scientific rigor or objective measurement or analysis of physical evidence can be applied.

Also, your use of the phrase "physical evidence" is vague. What do you mean by "physical evidence"? If "physical is to mean "material" or "made of matter", even the Bible is a "physical evidence" because it is made of parchment and paper.

Nevermind, the primary source of information in historical study is not like the "physical evidences" you mentioned, but historiographical sources and records. Because history is the study of past events, and unlike in natural sciences past events cannot feasibly leave "physical evidences" due to their nature, hence we rely on historical records to know more about them. There is no lack of evidence or setting the evidence bar low, the method of gathering information in history and the natural sciences are simply different because of their different natures.

We have physical evidence of 13,000 years of human occupation of Ireland - 7,000 of which probably consisted primarily of small tribal/family groups.

We have physical evidence of new cultures entering Ireland about 6,000 years ago, including preserved neolithic farming, monuments and burial plots.

We have physical evidence of another culture entering Ireland about 4,000 years ago, bringing new cultural artifacts including metallurgy.

You absolutely can have physical evidence of something like sequential invasions - and we do.

Here, we go to concrete examples.

In your Ireland example, how were you able to conclude that sequential invasions happened just because new megalithic monuments and artefacts sprung up? You hastily concluded that new monuments and artefacts are proof of invasion, which is faulty because a lot of other events might have happened.

By the way the actual historical research on Ireland is here: http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf31/31thomas.pdf. And says, it is also possible that it is not an invasion.

I would not argue at that Ireland history since I lack the expertise. The point is - if we are left with only physical evidences such as artefacts, monuments and sites, it is very difficult to know the context behind them and we are left to make guesses, speculations and assumptions, albeit educated ones. A physical artefact can only tell us so much if we know its context, hence we rely on historical records and documents since they provide the needed context and information. So, it is important to corroborate what we know from physical artifacts with historical records.

I decided to spoiler this to not ruin the whole thread.

Also, I think that it's better that we take this discussion somewhere because it is no longer related to Jesus or Christianity. We are threadjacking at this point.

[Diopolis]

So, I am curious - the Gospel was read twice during the Mass for St. Teresa's canonisation. It was repeated in Greek. This is not typical for Masses, and I was wondering if anyone knows of the reason why it was done that way yesterday?

Although, I also gotta admit Pope Francis' homily was great.

It could just have been for the language thing.

[Cill Airne]

So, I am curious - the Gospel was read twice during the Mass for St. Teresa's canonisation. It was repeated in Greek. This is not typical for Masses, and I was wondering if anyone knows of the reason why it was done that way yesterday?

Although, I also gotta admit Pope Francis' homily was great.

It could just have been for the language thing.

See, that's what I thought at first. But everything was being repeated in Italian, Spanish and English - not Greek, with the exception of the Gospel. And the Vatican Radio's commentators even mentioned how rare it is for the Gospel to be read in Greek following the Latin reading, which leads me to believe there's a reason behind it - just one i've yet to discover. xD

[Luminesa]

It could just have been for the language thing.

See, that's what I thought at first. But everything was being repeated in Italian, Spanish and English - not Greek, with the exception of the Gospel. And the Vatican Radio's commentators even mentioned how rare it is for the Gospel to be read in Greek following the Latin reading, which leads me to believe there's a reason behind it - just one i've yet to discover. xD

Pope Francis wants you to take more languages for your electives!

[Salus Maior]

It could just have been for the language thing.

See, that's what I thought at first. But everything was being repeated in Italian, Spanish and English - not Greek, with the exception of the Gospel. And the Vatican Radio's commentators even mentioned how rare it is for the Gospel to be read in Greek following the Latin reading, which leads me to believe there's a reason behind it - just one i've yet to discover. xD

Was Greek Mother Theresa's mother tongue?

[Herskerstad]

It could just have been for the language thing.

See, that's what I thought at first. But everything was being repeated in Italian, Spanish and English - not Greek, with the exception of the Gospel. And the Vatican Radio's commentators even mentioned how rare it is for the Gospel to be read in Greek following the Latin reading, which leads me to believe there's a reason behind it - just one i've yet to discover. xD

The Latin counterparts have attempted to reach to the Greek Orthordox on numerous occasions, that might be related.

[Conscentia]

Huh.
I'm not too sure about pre-existence, but Traducianism seems a bit heretical? I'm pretty sure that God creates human souls, and while I can't at the moment remember a verse that explicitly says that, I know I've read verses that do say that.

Traducianism doesn't say that God didn't create the human soul at all - it holds that God created Adam's soul directly, and therefore indirectly all human souls descended from it.

I don't know whether it's considered heretical by any Christian denomination. According to Wikipedia it had adherents amongst the Church Fathers: "Traducianism was developed initially by Tertullian and arguably propagated by Augustine of Hippo, the most influential theologian of Western Christianity. It has been endorsed by Church Fathers such as Sts. Gregory of Nyssa, Anastasius Sinaita, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, and other theological figures in the early centuries of the Orthodox Church."

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Huh.
I'm not too sure about pre-existence, but Traducianism seems a bit heretical? I'm pretty sure that God creates human souls, and while I can't at the moment remember a verse that explicitly says that, I know I've read verses that do say that.

Traducianism doesn't say that God didn't create the human soul at all - it holds that God created Adam's soul directly, and therefore indirectly all human souls descended from it.

I don't know whether it's considered heretical by any Christian denomination. According to Wikipedia it had adherents amongst the Church Fathers: "Traducianism was developed initially by Tertullian and arguably propagated by Augustine of Hippo, the most influential theologian of Western Christianity. It has been endorsed by Church Fathers such as Sts. Gregory of Nyssa, Anastasius Sinaita, Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, and other theological figures in the early centuries of the Orthodox Church."

It is likely that Augustine embraced it, as it would seemingly support his version of Original Sin. I would disagree that each soul descends from Adam. The Platonism inherent to Pauline Christianity suggests that our souls are not of substance, and created seperately but simultaneously at conception. Each soul is a unique entity, while the flesh is begotten of flesh

[Luminesa]

See, that's what I thought at first. But everything was being repeated in Italian, Spanish and English - not Greek, with the exception of the Gospel. And the Vatican Radio's commentators even mentioned how rare it is for the Gospel to be read in Greek following the Latin reading, which leads me to believe there's a reason behind it - just one i've yet to discover. xD

Was Greek Mother Theresa's mother tongue?

No, it probably would have been Albanian, since she was from Albanian.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I KNOW!!!!

AND IT'S.

ABOUT.

TIME.

A CELEBRATION I SAY!!!!!

So you disagree with the accusations that mother Teresa was a sadist who enjoyed to let her patients suffer needlessly, that she only used a small fraction of the donations given to her to actually help the sick, that her "hospitals" were actually just "places to die horribly" etc. etc. ? The list is rather long...

propaganda and lies from militant anti-theists.

[Coulee Croche]

With the canonization of St Teresa of Calcutta that took place yesterday, I thought this image would be appropriate to mark the occasion.

St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, St. Therese of Liseux, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Teresa of Calcutta.

O you Roses of the Church, pray for us and the whole world!

[Salus Maior]

Was Greek Mother Theresa's mother tongue?

No, it probably would have been Albanian, since she was from Albanian.

Well, there are a significant minority of Greeks in Albania.

[Luminesa]

(Image)

With the canonization of St Teresa of Calcutta that took place yesterday, I thought this image would be appropriate to mark the occasion.

St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, St. Therese of Liseux, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Teresa of Calcutta.

O you Roses of the Church, pray for us and the whole world!

I LOVE IT!!!!!!

[Pope Joan]

Was Greek Mother Theresa's mother tongue?

No, it probably would have been Albanian, since she was from Albanian.

What with recently changing boundaries, her home town of Skopje is in Macedonia, a country near Greece

[Sanctissima]

No, it probably would have been Albanian, since she was from Albanian.

Well, there are a significant minority of Greeks in Albania.

Yes, but she wasn't ethnically Greek. Teresa was Albanian, more specifically a Kosovar Albanian from Skopje. The first language she would have learned is Albanian, or rather the local Kosovar dialect of it.

[Luminesa]

No, it probably would have been Albanian, since she was from Albanian.

What with recently changing boundaries, her home town of Skopje is in Macedonia, a country near Greece

Ah, right. I see.

[Cill Airne]

See, that's what I thought at first. But everything was being repeated in Italian, Spanish and English - not Greek, with the exception of the Gospel. And the Vatican Radio's commentators even mentioned how rare it is for the Gospel to be read in Greek following the Latin reading, which leads me to believe there's a reason behind it - just one i've yet to discover. xD

Pope Francis wants you to take more languages for your electives!

I'm already taking Biblical Hebrew and Greek. ;-; TOO MUCH! TOO MUCH PAPA FRANCIS! XD

See, that's what I thought at first. But everything was being repeated in Italian, Spanish and English - not Greek, with the exception of the Gospel. And the Vatican Radio's commentators even mentioned how rare it is for the Gospel to be read in Greek following the Latin reading, which leads me to believe there's a reason behind it - just one i've yet to discover. xD

Was Greek Mother Theresa's mother tongue?

I suppose that is possible. She was born in the Ottoman Empire in what'd now be Macedonia. So it is possible for her to have used/learnt Greek. But I believe her mother tongue would have been Albanian (as she's ethnically Albanian), but the proximity to Greece means it's entirely possible she would have learnt it.

[Novsvacro]

As Catholics, can we ask for the intercession of martyrs before they are officially recognized as saints? I was thinking about praying to the priest recently killed in France