Something small and round

The state of Ireland has once again demonstrated her attachment to the 11th century and sought refuge from the beastliness of modernity in our time honoured manner: visions. In most other countries, this fellow would be given psychiatric help, probably within the constraints of a court order. Here, he is a celebrity.

People were shouting to friends that they saw "something small and round" in the sky. One woman said she saw the sun take the form of the sacred Host. :idea2: :book:

However, my point is to deride the hysteria, so much as the spotlight this places on religious faith in general. Scientology has just been convicted of fraud in the French courts because as it is deemed a cult, it has to prove its claims - and apparently, Xenu didn't turn up at the hearing (poor show). However, the Catholic Church, deemed a religion, doesn't have to do the same.

The Knock event however, is disdained by the Church. They think Joe Coleman is bringing the whole religion thing into disrepute. Which is immensely ironic for an organisation that has just had St Theresa's thigh bone trundling round the UK to serious crowds.

Yet in my experience, it is just these "mystical" attachments that give the Roman Catholic faith a great deal of attractive power. Ritual is enormously important to human beings and sun or ancestor worship are ancient tradition.

All religions depend on suspension of disbelief to begin with. That I can cope with - what confuses me is that if one makes that step, how it is possible to then claim your revelation is the exclusively correct one? In this example, the Catholic hierarchy condones one sort of visionary yet bridles at another. But more widely, Christians don't accept any revelation from the Norse pantheon and so on. If one tries to be more consistent and claim that all traditions have validity, one gets into terrible trouble with conflicting "plans" and divine natures. (For example, God cannot be both a personal, loving friend and a bloodthirsty fan of blood eagles). Either that or you end up as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I'm not really interested in the usual "well it's all rubbish anyway" responses. If you believe that, of course it's simple. What I would like to try and understand is how our personal philosophies draw the line between cult and truth, faith and lunacy; and how they might be reconciled in the face of reason. It's also not an opportunity to relentlessly bash the Roman Catholic Church (of which I am a nominal member) as they are just a prominent example of the general inconsistency that makes faith so hard to maintain.

However, I'm quite content for anyone to laugh at my country, because it obviously needs mocking for considerably longer than some of us had assumed. :embarassed:

Babylonianism!

I'm sure I've heard of the exact same phenomenon happening in other places before, with the sun dancing in the sky. Incredibly, if you stare at the sun long enough and unfocus your eyes a bit, it does appear to do this.

As to why this crowd felt the need to participate in such an event... I think this is because all people do on some level believe in a higher power. I don't mean to troll, since it could be an evolutionary thing as many suggest, but the fact is people throughout human history have tended to acknowledge the existence of gods/God. And this far outdates any sort of religious institution, so I don't think it is a social construct. I think we are all naturally inclined to believe in God, however this sense is repressed as people come to learn scientific/whatever arguments against theism.

As to why so many people do not acknowledge the true God (mine, of course :wink:), I think this is because of our corrupt nature, and unwillingness to accept what Christianity really stands for. Nobody is going to accept that they are totally depraved, not just a sinner but sin itself, that God has only chosen a few out of the greater part of humanity to have all the promises of the faith. But since they still have this inate knowledge of God's existence, they invent their own god/gods, and a whole belief system around them.

Add to this all the various laws, ceremonies, traditions etc which emerge when a religion becomes more institutionalised, and you see the emergence of Islam, Catholicism etc. And then the faith is no longer about having a relationship with God and living your life under the hand of providence. This fundamental aspect of the faith is missing. However, maybe if you go see that vision of the Virgin Mary in the sun you will get closer to God... or maybe if go and touch those holy saints bones... or mabye if you do some ritual on a holy day.... and this is where all the corruption in modern day religion comes from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Incredibly, if you stare at the sun long enough and unfocus your eyes a bit, it does appear to do this.

---

It's probably one's vision, waving good bye.

Irish are cute what else is new

I've come to think it's about "control". We seek explanation for the chaos around us, and attempt to make order out of it. And we do (make order; although it can be argued that that is also an illusion), but then, once order is established, we miss the mystery bit. A fickle bunch we are, in that way.

But then, a skeptic could say that my view is only because I haven't yet personally viewed a bush burning whilst not being consumed by the flames, or a dancing sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

As to why so many people do not acknowledge the true God (mine, of course :wink:), I think this is because of our corrupt nature, and unwillingness to accept what Christianity really stands for. Nobody is going to accept that they are totally depraved, not just a sinner but sin itself, that God has only chosen a few out of the greater part of humanity to have all the promises of the faith. But since they still have this inate knowledge of God's existence, they invent their own god/gods, and a whole belief system around them.

Add to this all the various laws, ceremonies, traditions etc which emerge when a religion becomes more institutionalised, and you see the emergence of Islam, Catholicism etc. And then the faith is no longer about having a relationship with God and living your life under the hand of providence. This fundamental aspect of the faith is missing. However, maybe if you go see that vision of the Virgin Mary in the sun you will get closer to God... or maybe if go and touch those holy saints bones... or mabye if you do some ritual on a holy day.... and this is where all the corruption in modern day religion comes from.

---

Actually you summarised it perfectly in the first sentence fragment. There are so many gods that it is impossible to know which one is correct, if any truly are at all. The same reason that you don't believe in the other gods is the same reason that they do not accept yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

....However, my point is to deride the hysteria, so much as the spotlight this places on religious faith in general. Scientology has just been convicted of fraud in the French courts because as it is deemed a cult, it has to prove its claims - and apparently, Xenu didn't turn up at the hearing (poor show). However, the Catholic Church, deemed a religion, doesn't have to do the same.

The Knock event however, is disdained by the Church. They think Joe Coleman is bringing the whole religion thing into disrepute. Which is immensely ironic for an organisation that has just had St Theresa's thigh bone trundling round the UK to serious crowds.

Yet in my experience, it is just these "mystical" attachments that give the Roman Catholic faith a great deal of attractive power. Ritual is enormously important to human beings and sun or ancestor worship are ancient tradition....

---

I'm somewhat more than a nominal Catholic, but I always view these episodes with a somewhat jaundiced eye. It is easy for rolks to see what they wish to see -- regardless of intentions.

As you know, Banquo, the church expends a fair bit of effort exploring these claims and dismisses the vast bulk of them as coincidences etc.

I think the difference from the 11th century, and why Mother Church is not forced to "prove" itself in court, is that The Church does expend such effort to examine such incidents and does not seek to whip up and exploit bits of hysteria such as these for temporary advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Actually you summarised it perfectly in the first sentence fragment. There are so many gods that it is impossible to know which one is correct, if any truly are at all. The same reason that you don't believe in the other gods is the same reason that they do not accept yours.

---

God told me I'm right. :wink:

But for a more useable argument here, Christianity has a major difference from (almost?) all other religions. Whereas Judaism/Islam etc are all about being a good person and living by various laws to get to Heaven, Christianity is about admitting your failure in this respect, and that another guy paid for it.

I also wonder if it's an age thing. Without doing a ton of research, my memory reminds me that many (most?) visions are had by youngish children and older adults - I can't recall one had by a 23 - 45 year old. A chemical condition? A youngish susceptibility to "magic" and an elderly longing for lost magic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I think this is because all people do on some level believe in a higher power.

---

Ever heard of atheism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

But for a more useable argument here, Christianity has a major difference from (almost?) all other religions. Whereas Judaism/Islam etc are all about being a good person and living by various laws to get to Heaven, Christianity is about admitting your failure in this respect, and that another guy paid for it.

---

Judaism is different from almost every other religion because it is still waiting for a prophet to come. Islam is different from almost every other religion because it incorporates other monotheistic beliefs. Etc. etc.

Even if you should discover a truly unique religion; how would this make it right?

Ireland is only just getting over having the European Catholic equivalant of 400 years of Taliban rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Ireland is only just getting over having the European Catholic equivalant of 400 years of Taliban rule.

---

And you're just getting over several cases of cheap beer, I assume?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Ireland is only just getting over having the European Catholic equivalant of 400 years of Taliban rule.

---

Not really correct.

Most of the last 400 years were spent under English rule, and whilst a lot of that included religious persecution, certainly there were some significant benefits to an Anglican approach in the latter 150 years or so. Catholicism for much of that time underpinned a sense of cultural difference and thus a factor to focus political rebellion.

No, the real damage from the Catholic hegemony came when we got independence. We traded the increasingly enlightened despotism of a foreign power for the unfettered tyranny of men of the cloth. That was when the "Taliban" came to town, not under the British.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As you know, Banquo, the church expends a fair bit of effort exploring these claims and dismisses the vast bulk of them as coincidences etc.

I think the difference from the 11th century, and why Mother Church is not forced to "prove" itself in court, is that The Church does expend such effort to examine such incidents and does not seek to whip up and exploit bits of hysteria such as these for temporary advantage.

---

My argument is why there is the distinction? How can Mother Church argue with a straight face that one piece of magic is superior/more acceptable than another? Therein lies the dilemma of all faith - with no independent benchmark of assessment, all claims are surely valid, even unto these crowds chasing their own leprechauns in the sun.

Padre Pio is a classic example. For a long time, this evident self-harmer was rightly scorned by the Church and various popes. Then, as his cult took hold, they reconsidered. On what basis? The marketing franchise (wouldn't be the first time)? He's now a saint. What rational process allows this kind of re-assessment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Ever heard of atheism?

---

Yes, I just think that people are naturally inclined towards theism. Maybe it is an evolutionary feature, who knows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Judaism is different from almost every other religion because it is still waiting for a prophet to come. Islam is different from almost every other religion because it incorporates other monotheistic beliefs. Etc. etc.

Even if you should discover a truly unique religion; how would this make it right?

---

Of course, every religion has its own unique aspects. However, all the major religions save Christianity have a lot in common. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc are all heavily based on ritual, tradition, and clerical/social hierarchies. They have all the features of organised religion such as holy sites/relics, holy days, structured prayer patterns, various festivals, priesthoods etc. Christianity has none of these, they were only later introduced as pagan influences infiltrated the church, as the Book of Revelation said, the Whore of Babylon willl spread her fornication over all the earth (a process we can clearly see happening!).

As to why this makes Christianity right... well, as I said earlier, I believe we are all naturally inclined towards theism, and Chrisitanity is the purest expression of this. All the things mentioned above such as holy relics and ritualistic worship are substitutes which people use for a more direct relationship with the God they by nature acknowledge. However, the principles of Christianity with its outlook on mankind (total depravity) are too difficult to accept, and so these people can never turn to God. And in place of this, they try to get closer to him through rituals, traditions, and building up an ecclesiastical hierarcy, as if they can climb the ladder up to Heaven through it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

My argument is why there is the distinction? How can Mother Church argue with a straight face that one piece of magic is superior/more acceptable than another? Therein lies the dilemma of all faith - with no independent benchmark of assessment, all claims are surely valid, even unto these crowds chasing their own leprechauns in the sun.

---

That's something that bothers me as well.

Aren't christians supposed to be humble before God?

Isn't it incredibly non-humble, not to say "arrogant", to claim to have the truth about what God said?

Is it humble to tell other people what Gods' message is and how they should interprete it?

That's not very humble, is it?

If there is a God, then who am I to know, understand and interprete His message? I'm just a humble human being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

That's something that bothers me as well.

Aren't christians supposed to be humble before God?

Isn't it incredibly non-humble, not to say "arrogant", to claim to have the truth about what God said?

Is it humble to tell other people what Gods' message is and how they should interprete it?

That's not very humble, is it?

If there is a God, then who am I to know, understand and interprete His message? I'm just a humble human being.

---

I never really understood this argument. When a Christian claims to know 'the truth', it is not because they discovered it of their own merit. It's not because we see ourselves as spiritually more pure, or more moral, or more clever than anyone else. Instead, it's because of the regeneration which Christ worked in us. Everything is attributed to God, and nothing to ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I also wonder if it's an age thing. Without doing a ton of research, my memory reminds me that many (most?) visions are had by youngish children and older adults - I can't recall one had by a 23 - 45 year old. A chemical condition? A youngish susceptibility to "magic" and an elderly longing for lost magic?

---

Brain tumors in a specific place, according to "House".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

All religions depend on suspension of disbelief to begin with. That I can cope with - what confuses me is that if one makes that step, how it is possible to then claim your revelation is the exclusively correct one?

---

Well, I think you would have to answer this by considering what people get out of belonging to a religion, and what need it satisfies. If belonging to a close knit community is part of that, then rejections of other religious beliefs would naturally follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yes, I just think that people are naturally inclined towards theism. Maybe it is an evolutionary feature, who knows?

---

I am not going to dispute nor agree with that; however you said '[...]all people do on some level believe in a higher power'. ~;)

Quote:

---

Of course, every religion has its own unique aspects. However, all the major religions save Christianity have a lot in common. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc are all heavily based on ritual, tradition, and clerical/social hierarchies. They have all the features of organised religion such as holy sites/relics, holy days, structured prayer patterns, various festivals, priesthoods etc. Christianity has none of these, they were only later introduced as pagan influences infiltrated the church, as the Book of Revelation said, the Whore of Babylon willl spread her fornication over all the earth (a process we can clearly see happening!)

---

Christianity continues judaism, does it not? If it is as pure as you claim it to be; it has a really odd starting point.

Quote:

---

As to why this makes Christianity right... well, as I said earlier, I believe we are all naturally inclined towards theism, and Chrisitanity is the purest expression of this. All the things mentioned above such as holy relics and ritualistic worship are substitutes which people use for a more direct relationship with the God they by nature acknowledge. However, the principles of Christianity with its outlook on mankind (total depravity) are too difficult to accept, and so these people can never turn to God. And in place of this, they try to get closer to him through rituals, traditions, and building up an ecclesiastical hierarcy, as if they can climb the ladder up to Heaven through it.

---

If all religions but Christianity are tending towards being more ritual, as you claim it, wouldn't then Christianity contradict with human theistic tendencies?

Also, how does human inclination justify a choice anyway; if humans are flawed? You mentioned the word 'fornication'; and since this is a human inclination; shouldn't then "the right religion" include this rather than outlaw it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I never really understood this argument. When a Christian claims to know 'the truth', it is not because they discovered it of their own merit. It's not because we see ourselves as spiritually more pure, or more moral, or more clever than anyone else. Instead, it's because of the regeneration which Christ worked in us. Everything is attributed to God, and nothing to ourselves.

---

How many "different types" of Christians are there?

Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jehova, etc, etc.

All of them attribute their truth to God and say that the other "truths" are mistaken.

With what authority does one type of Christians say that their version is the right one and the others are mistaken?

How humble is it to claim that you are the one who interpretes Gods' word right and the others are mistaken. If you do so, then you are claiming to know what God meant. That's not humble, that's arrogant. Only God knows what he meant, not humans. Sure, you can be convinced that you are right, but you have no right to tell others they are mistaken.

That's also why I don't understand the intolerance towards other religions.

After all, the only one who truly knows Gods' message is God himself, not humans who have to rely on text written by humans and interpretations given by humans. For all we, humble humans know, text and words are probably not sufficient to get Gods' message across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Christianity continues judaism, does it not? If it is as pure as you claim it to be; it has a really odd starting point.

---

In the OT, God is shown to have given the whole ceremonial law to the Israelites because of their rebellion against him with the golden calf etc. That is why Paul etc describe the law as a curse. In other parts of the NT (most notably Hebrews 7-11), the symbolic significance of all these ceremonial elements are shown to have been fulfilled with the coming of Christ, and they were always designed to point the Jewish people towards him. In other words, ceremonial laws are an abberation from the norm, which is a more direct relationship with God.

BTW, I regard Judaism as part of that Covenant with God which all Christians are a part of, and so in this respect I'm actually pretty tolerant *shock*, in that I regard Jews as being 'saved' as we say (being saved in the same way as all the OT saints were). It is just that God has his own special covenant with ethnic Israel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

If all religions but Christianity are tending towards being more ritual, as you claim it, wouldn't then Christianity contradict with human theistic tendencies?

Also, how does human inclination justify a choice anyway; if humans are flawed? You mentioned the word 'fornication'; and since this is a human inclination; shouldn't then "the right religion" include this rather than outlaw it?

---

I said our tendency to believe in God is natural, but not all our practices are. This is because although we believe in God, we can't accept that it is our own sin that seperates us from him, and so we come up with our own gods and build idols etc in place of the real one. In this sense, Christianity is the natural form of human theistic tendencies, and all organised religion is a diversion from that.

Of course, human inclination is not what makes Christianity right. However, our belief in God is something natural, in that the first humans would have held to it. On the other hand, our sin and fornication etc was something that came later leading to the fall of mankind etc. Hence why we are right to believe in God, but wrong in the way so many people corrupt these beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

How many "different types" of Christians are there?

Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jehova, etc, etc.

All of them attribute their truth to God and say that the other "truths" are mistaken.

With what authority does one type of Christians say that their version is the right one and the others are mistaken?

---

Catholicism, the Orthodox Churches, and many denominations of Protestantism are simply not purely Christian churches. Christian worship and beliefs changed dramatically with the legalisation of Christianity in the Roman Empire, and during this period pagan elements merged with the Christian aspects to form a whole new belief system. The Protestant Reformation was largely about returning to the true Christian roots and the belief system of the New Testament. Of course, they extent to which this was achieved varies from denomination to denomination, but generally speaking, Protestant beliefs tend to be closer to the purely Christian originals.

A second reason why these churches diverge is that being large institutionalised churches, they had to have a belief system that could appeal to their followers, whether or not they are actually Christians in that they have been made regenerate through Christ. And so we get all these doctrines that are designed to appeal to the hearts of men, even if they clearly contradict what the early Christians believed. One example is the Orthodox Churches... in order to keep their traditional understanding of our free will, they deny that Christ died for anyone's sins!

As for the authority to say what is right... all I know is what God has taught me. I can't take the credit for it and so I have nothing to boast about, but at the same time I trust in the Lord to guide me. If you think this sort of confidence is un-Christian, just look at the NT. Even atheists seem to like Jesus as a guy, but he was really stubborn when it came to his belief system. As for more concrete proof of why the beliefs I hold to should be seen as correct (at least regarding Christian in-fighting), 'The Death of Death in the Death of Christ' by John Owen has never been refuted some four centuries aften it was written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

How humble is it to claim that you are the one who interpretes Gods' word right and the others are mistaken. If you do so, then you are claiming to know what God meant. That's not humble, that's arrogant. Only God knows what he meant, not humans. Sure, you can be convinced that you are right, but you have no right to tell others they are mistaken.

That's also why I don't understand the intolerance towards other religions.

After all, the only one who truly knows Gods' message is God himself, not humans who have to rely on text written by humans and interpretations given by humans. For all we, humble humans know, text and words are probably not sufficient to get Gods' message across.

---

It is not a case of me interpreting anything, it is about God telling me what I need to know. You say all I have is words from other humans, but that's from an atheist point of view - you don't factor in the whole spiritual regeneration/born again thing we have in Christianity.

And so I should be humble of myself, but confident in what I believe, knowing it came from God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

...You say all I have is words from other humans, but that's from an atheist point of view - you don't factor in the whole spiritual regeneration/born again thing we have in Christianity.

---

Nah. All you have are words from other humans. Nothing more. The luthers and the calvins with all their nonsensical perversions of Christianity, that's just about all that your view contains. So, it didn't come from God, it came from a calvinist minister, who in tun got them from his predecessor, etc, etc. It's just a regurgitation of centuries old nonsense that gets passed around as a brand new revelation from God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I said our tendency to believe in God is natural, but not all our practices are. This is because although we believe in God, we can't accept that it is our own sin that seperates us from him, and so we come up with our own gods and build idols etc in place of the real one. In this sense, Christianity is the natural form of human theistic tendencies, and all organised religion is a diversion from that.

---

But that sence is not an argument, it is a belief.

I'll come up with a theory about the 'natural form'. It appears to me, as someone who admittedly haven't studied religion too much, that there was a major shift in the religions once civilizations first arose; and perhaps also a second time when literacy became [more] common. This because religion in cities will have to fulfill other roles than religion in smaller societies; and because when you have texts to refer to, religion will become much more concrete, as opposed to a lose bunch of customs and tales.

If there was any truth at all in what I wrote, it could perhaps explain what you view as "diversion" as simply religion morphing into roles it traditionally has had. Perhaps one of the strengths of religion is that it can create internalt unity; but without traditions to cling to, this is harder to achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Scientology has just been convicted of fraud in the French courts because as it is deemed a cult, it has to prove its claims - and apparently, Xenu didn't turn up at the hearing (poor show). However, the Catholic Church, deemed a religion, doesn't have to do the same.

---

Agreed, the Catholic Church's power and influence is simply majestic. :2thumbsup: You really must tip your hat to it. :bow:

Besides, "proof" when talked about in a legal or empirical context is so weak and useless anyway, especially when talking about the metaphysical (of course I don't really know the particulars of Scientology - is Xenu perceptible by humans according to the tenets of Scientology itself?) and so on so I can't comment on the reasons why some court (:rolleyes:) convicted (:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:) Scientology of fraud (if Scientology's tenets actually do state some test which was failed in court, then I take back my :rolleyes: and two of the :laugh4:'s).

Quote:

---

The Knock event however, is disdained by the Church. They think Joe Coleman is bringing the whole religion thing into disrepute. Which is immensely ironic for an organisation that has just had St Theresa's thigh bone trundling round the UK to serious crowds.

---

Why is it ironic Banquo? :inquisitive: To the Catholic Church, this man and his visions are not authentic while the bone of the saint in their eyes and the benefits it emanates are (note I don't know about this incident so I'm just making some wild assumptions of what I know about the Catholic Church and it's position on the remains of their saints - correct me if I'm wrong). :shrug: Where is the irony?

Quote:

---

Yet in my experience, it is just these "mystical" attachments that give the Roman Catholic faith a great deal of attractive power. Ritual is enormously important to human beings and sun or ancestor worship are ancient tradition.

---

:yes: :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

All religions depend on suspension of disbelief to begin with.

---

Well believing anything depends on a suspension of disbelief of course. :smiley:

Quote:

---

If one tries to be more consistent and claim that all traditions have validity, one gets into terrible trouble with conflicting "plans" and divine natures. (For example, God cannot be both a personal, loving friend and a bloodthirsty fan of blood eagles). Either that or you end up as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

---

Agreed here, the universal validity of all religions runs into way too many problems. An exclusivist approach is best, perhaps granting that other religious traditions may have aspects that are true or were previously valid.

Quote:

---

I'm not really interested in the usual "well it's all rubbish anyway" responses. If you believe that, of course it's simple. What I would like to try and understand is how our personal philosophies draw the line between cult and truth, faith and lunacy; and how they might be reconciled in the face of reason.

---

As Rhyfelwer has stated, it may be just a matter of "my religion is right and other religions aren't".

Furthermore, some people would scoff at having "reason" be elevated to a position where it can arbitrate between these matters. ~;) Why the hell aren't people skeptical about say sensory perception like they are about so many other things! :shame:

And here we arrive at the crux of what I believe you are getting at:

Quote:

---

what confuses me is that if one makes that step, how it is possible to then claim your revelation is the exclusively correct one? In this example, the Catholic hierarchy condones one sort of visionary yet bridles at another. But more widely, Christians don't accept any revelation from the Norse pantheon and so on.

---

and

Quote:

---

My argument is why there is the distinction? How can Mother Church argue with a straight face that one piece of magic is superior/more acceptable than another? Therein lies the dilemma of all faith - with no independent benchmark of assessment, all claims are surely valid, even unto these crowds chasing their own leprechauns in the sun.

Padre Pio is a classic example. For a long time, this evident self-harmer was rightly scorned by the Church and various popes. Then, as his cult took hold, they reconsidered. On what basis? The marketing franchise (wouldn't be the first time)? He's now a saint. What rational process allows this kind of re-assessment?

---

My own conjecture on your first question? It comes from a kind of deep psychological substrate, based on upbringing of course (there may be some innate thing that makes us go to the supernatural - but as for the particular religious tradition one espouses I think it is fairly uncontroversial to state that ones upbringing is what essentially embeds the thing in the mind).

It seems that you, as a (presumed) outsider in this matter, require some kind of "independent benchmark of assessment" but the believer will not. We'll deal with the situation of indirect reports of such "magic" instead of actual direct encounters (as one can easily see why someone would be convinced of something he actually perceived such as Mr. Joe Coleman himself).

Take this scenario: There is a Catholic, who hears two reports of a miracle. One is from a church authority and the other is from some Norse priest. Is it really hard to see why he would likely believe the first report and reject the second report? To him, he already believes his religion to be true, and he knows that the tenets of his religion allow for miracles and visions and so on. Also, given the doctrines of the church, any kind of belief in a polytheistic pantheon such as that of the Norse gods is irreconcilable. So he would dismiss out of hand the Norse priests report as a delusion (or perhaps he believes the priest was a victim of some trickery by a demon or evil spirit).

Leaving my disdain for "reason" to get the spot of ultimate arbiter for a bit, the "rational process" is there for this Catholic my dear Banquo, it is just based on principles the man already holds.

To quote a somewhat famous Catholic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aquinas

As the other sciences [he uses the term very broadly here - not just confined to natural science] do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences, so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are articles of faith [I actually disagree about this but that's another topic], but from them it goes to prove something.

---

By the way on the Padre Pio case, the rational process can simply (and cynically) be said to be the popularity of the figure. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Nah. All you have are words from other humans. Nothing more. The luthers and the calvins with all their nonsensical perversions of Christianity, that's just about all that your view contains. So, it didn't come from God, it came from a calvinist minister, who in tun got them from his predecessor, etc, etc. It's just a regurgitation of centuries old nonsense that gets passed around as a brand new revelation from God.

---

I thought you were a practicing Catholic? Do you not believe in regeneration through Christ etc?

Or it is just that I couldn't possibly have had such an experience since I'm not in communion with the Church of Rome? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

But that sence is not an argument, it is a belief.

I'll come up with a theory about the 'natural form'. It appears to me, as someone who admittedly haven't studied religion too much, that there was a major shift in the religions once civilizations first arose; and perhaps also a second time when literacy became [more] common. This because religion in cities will have to fulfill other roles than religion in smaller societies; and because when you have texts to refer to, religion will become much more concrete, as opposed to a lose bunch of customs and tales.

If there was any truth at all in what I wrote, it could perhaps explain what you view as "diversion" as simply religion morphing into roles it traditionally has had. Perhaps one of the strengths of religion is that it can create internalt unity; but without traditions to cling to, this is harder to achieve.

---

You are right, I am not trying to make a solid argument here. It's more a case of trying to find some abstract ideas which we can generally agree upon or try to make some sense of, to use as a framework for the other stuff we were discussing.

There's probably a lot of truth in your above example as well. I guess to discuss such a topic as the origins and development of faith and institutionalised religion would require a big discussion, and it would take ages to really make a serious system out of it.

*points and laffs at the silly paddies*

Haha! Superstitious folk who see apparitions of Mary in caves and build shrines around it that serve as a place of pilgrimage for ages thereafter! :laugh4:

Only in Ireland! Cutesy silly folk and...

...hang on. :shame:



All apparitions start this way. Then if enough people belive it for a lengthy enough period of time, it is adopted by those supreme opportunists, the Catholic clergy. From winter solistice to virgin births, from apparitions to human sacrifice for sin, the entire doctrine of Catholicism originated outside of the Catholic hierchy.

One could say Catholicism is the unifier. That it is the institution that channels superstition into a managable social product, to unife the populace. Like languages or socially accepted behaviour, so in religious matters too there has to be a common standard if a society is to function as a whole.

Arguably, this has become less important in modern societies, where the disappearance of this necessity led to increasing secularism. Except in the staunchly individual US, where the church functions as social glue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Scientology has just been convicted of fraud in the French courts because as it is deemed a cult, it has to prove its claims - and apparently, Xenu didn't turn up at the hearing (poor show). However, the Catholic Church, deemed a religion, doesn't have to do the same.

---

They'll be next. :knight:


But seriously. (Or not... :sneaky:)
There's fraud and there's malfunctioning. Both Scientology and Catholicism are of course complete hogwas...erm, systems of unproven beliefs. But there is the question of intent.

Compare alternative medicine. There is a difference between a fraudster selling a 15.000 Euro cure for cancer on the internet to desperate people, and a person using Tibetan aural therapy in her backroom to heal people.

There is a difference between telling people they'll gain a fortune if they only do as the Tarot card says, and telling people they'll make a fortune if only they invest in a real estate project in the Comores that yields a guaranteed 15% interest.

Am I the only one who thought this was going to be a fetish thread?

Don't worry Irishmen. We still see the Vrigin in tortilla chips, trees, sandwhiches....well anything really.

Quote:

---

I think we are all naturally inclined to believe in God, however this sense is repressed as people come to learn scientific/whatever arguments against theism.

---

Well, y'know perhaps because people like some form of hope, and perhaps a form of non-existent hope. But y'know, if it works for you, I'm not gonna bother you about it.

Quote:

---

God told me I'm right. :wink:

---

The same logic could be used for "the fairies told me I'm right". The only difference is the fact that you have more believers on your side than I have on my side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Or it is just that I couldn't possibly have had such an experience since I'm not in communion with the Church of Rome? :rolleyes:

---

Precisely. If you pervert the nature of God to the point where he's more on par with the devil and subsequently claim to receive revelations from that kind of "god", then I would seriously question the true source of those revelations. God doesn't play lottery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The state of Ireland has once again demonstrated her attachment to the 11th century and sought refuge from the beastliness of modernity in our time honoured manner: visions. In most other countries, this fellow would be given psychiatric help, probably within the constraints of a court order. Here, he is a celebrity.

People were shouting to friends that they saw "something small and round" in the sky. One woman said she saw the sun take the form of the sacred Host. :idea2: :book:

However, my point is to deride the hysteria, so much as the spotlight this places on religious faith in general. Scientology has just been convicted of fraud in the French courts because as it is deemed a cult, it has to prove its claims - and apparently, Xenu didn't turn up at the hearing (poor show). However, the Catholic Church, deemed a religion, doesn't have to do the same.

The Knock event however, is disdained by the Church. They think Joe Coleman is bringing the whole religion thing into disrepute. Which is immensely ironic for an organisation that has just had St Theresa's thigh bone trundling round the UK to serious crowds.

Yet in my experience, it is just these "mystical" attachments that give the Roman Catholic faith a great deal of attractive power. Ritual is enormously important to human beings and sun or ancestor worship are ancient tradition.

All religions depend on suspension of disbelief to begin with. That I can cope with - what confuses me is that if one makes that step, how it is possible to then claim your revelation is the exclusively correct one? In this example, the Catholic hierarchy condones one sort of visionary yet bridles at another. But more widely, Christians don't accept any revelation from the Norse pantheon and so on. If one tries to be more consistent and claim that all traditions have validity, one gets into terrible trouble with conflicting "plans" and divine natures. (For example, God cannot be both a personal, loving friend and a bloodthirsty fan of blood eagles). Either that or you end up as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I'm not really interested in the usual "well it's all rubbish anyway" responses. If you believe that, of course it's simple. What I would like to try and understand is how our personal philosophies draw the line between cult and truth, faith and lunacy; and how they might be reconciled in the face of reason. It's also not an opportunity to relentlessly bash the Roman Catholic Church (of which I am a nominal member) as they are just a prominent example of the general inconsistency that makes faith so hard to maintain.

However, I'm quite content for anyone to laugh at my country, because it obviously needs mocking for considerably longer than some of us had assumed. :embarassed:

---

Ritual is a huge subject, a big project is starting in Bangor regarding the medieval Sarum Right and the experience it induces, should be interesting to see what it produces.

Anyway....

Visions are usually subjected to a number of critea, but pricipally three questions are asked:

1. Is the person genuine in their own belief that they have recieved a vision.

2. Is the vision from an internal or external source, i.e. have they taken drugs/got very drunk/had some bad cheese.

3. Is the source divine or infernal.

The answers to these questions are pricipally subjective, but then so was the marking of all my academic work. What I am getting at is this; though mystical experience is essentially irrational we can still apply reason to the question of whether or not we wish to accept it's validity.

as far as an aversion to ritual goes: I believe they are good thing when properly constructed an directed. Human beings are what they are, attempting to fundamentally change that nature is pointless. To a greater or lesser degree you have to work within it, otherwise you restrict any potential contact with the divine to a select view who are arguably bordering on the insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Precisely. If you pervert the nature of God to the point where he's more on par with the devil and subsequently claim to receive revelations from that kind of "god", then I would seriously question the true source of those revelations. God doesn't play lottery.

---

Conversely, one should not presume that only those outwardly in communion with Rome are members of the Body of the Church. To presume that the Roman Rite definitively conveys Grace and none other can is eqally arrogant.

This is why, as Banquo said, you end up the the Archbishop of Canterbury; a man who refuses to speak on behalf of the Lord he both Loves and obeys. It's why I'm quite a big fan, even though I don't agree with him on everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

It is not a case of me interpreting anything, it is about God telling me what I need to know. You say all I have is words from other humans, but that's from an atheist point of view - you don't factor in the whole spiritual regeneration/born again thing we have in Christianity.

---

Did Christ wrote the things you believe in or was it written by humans?

I think it's the latter.

Considering the many "types" of Christians, what was written down, is not clear enough, as it leaves room for interpretation.

Each "type" of Christian follows the interpretation of the group he belongs to. Each one of those groups are interpreting what was written down by imperfect human beings, who might have given their own interpretation while writing it down.

I respect your belief and no humble Christian should challenge it.

In fact, I think that what you believe is what you should believe; I won't argue about that. I'm tolerant.

What I do dislike, is the fact that a lot of Christians say that their version is the only correct one, which, to me, contradicts with the "humble before God" part.

We, as humans, can only interprete and try to understand, but we cannot say that our version is true and all others are wrong, because that would be putting words in Gods' mouth.

Thinking that you know what Gods' message was and all those who disagree are mistaken, is typical human. Just like vanity and pride, which are sins.

Maybe you are right, but it's possible the other believers are right as well. Or maybe you're all wrong. Only God knows and, humble as you are, that is something you should recognise and accept :shrug:

Most Christians are not humble enough when it comes to Gods' message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Conversely, one should not presume that only those outwardly in communion with Rome are members of the Body of the Church. To presume that the Roman Rite definitively conveys Grace and none other can is eqally arrogant....

---

Oh, I do not, not at all. Orthodoxes and Anglicans (prior to their Church's implosion) were definitely on the right track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Did Christ wrote the things you believe in or was it written by humans?

I think it's the latter.

Considering the many "types" of Christians, what was written down, is not clear enough, as it leaves room for interpretation.

Each "type" of Christian follows the interpretation of the group he belongs to. Each one of those groups are interpreting what was written down by imperfect human beings, who might have given their own interpretation while writing it down.

I respect your belief and no humble Christian should challenge it.

In fact, I think that what you believe is what you should believe; I won't argue about that. I'm tolerant.

What I do dislike, is the fact that a lot of Christians say that their version is the only correct one, which, to me, contradicts with the "humble before God" part.

We, as humans, can only interprete and try to understand, but we cannot say that our version is true and all others are wrong, because that would be putting words in Gods' mouth.

Thinking that you know what Gods' message was and all those who disagree are mistaken, is typical human. Just like vanity and pride, which are sins.

Maybe you are right, but it's possible the other believers are right as well. Or maybe you're all wrong. Only God knows and, humble as you are, that is something you should recognise and accept :shrug:

---

Augustine said something about this, possinbly in "The City of God", roughly translated as:

It should not be said that God is ineffable, because then something is said [about God] so that it is better not to say He is ineffable, however something must be said and so this contradiction should be passed over in silence.

A Christian has not only a right, but a responsibility, to argue his or her beliefs, but at the same time to be open to alternative arguements. You are correct that to presume to know the truth is arrogant. However, to know part of the truth and to not present it to your brothers and sisters is much, much, worse because it is selfish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Oh, I do not, not at all. Orthodoxes and Anglicans (prior to their Church's implosion) were definitely on the right track.

---

We haven't imploded yet, we just need to sort out the Americans. Excomunication doesn't really work with us. Things will probably calm down once the current American "primate" is replaced.

Also, most Lutherans and Methodists are OK, the latter are broadly theologically compatable with Anglicans, and the former maintain the Universal Love of God; Luthor was notable for not spelling out exactly who that was reconciled with Sola Gracia.

that just leaves Calvin and his children, who are much more extreme than he was. I looked up the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" in the Library here once. The principle is merely that no part of human experience is free from the consequences of the Fall, i.e. man is in no part wholly pure. He is not, however, according to Calvin without redeeming features. The problem comes from the doctrinally irrelevant invective and rhetorical flourishes he used to make his points.

Apparently, his defence was that plain language would not convince the masses, so he dressed up his points in persuasive language. That alone demonstrates the intellectual bankuptcy of the man, who protested against fancy formulaic rituals and then used the same principles in his own sermons.

Well, yeah, the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" is absolutely depraved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Well, yeah, the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" is absolutely depraved.

---

No, have another look at what I wrote. In its original form it was purely an acknowledgement of human fallability and our entirely subjective and individual viewpoints. That is a doctrine entirely compatable and agreeable to traditional catholic belief. HOWEVER, the way it was propogated led to its perversion.

Well, I'm of course referring to its calvinist incarnation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

The same logic could be used for "the fairies told me I'm right". The only difference is the fact that you have more believers on your side than I have on my side.

---

I don't mean to present that as an argument, it was just a response to those asking how I could be so confident in what I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Did Christ wrote the things you believe in or was it written by humans?

I think it's the latter.

Considering the many "types" of Christians, what was written down, is not clear enough, as it leaves room for interpretation.

Each "type" of Christian follows the interpretation of the group he belongs to. Each one of those groups are interpreting what was written down by imperfect human beings, who might have given their own interpretation while writing it down.

I respect your belief and no humble Christian should challenge it.

In fact, I think that what you believe is what you should believe; I won't argue about that. I'm tolerant.

---

Each of these groups of Christians believes that their own beliefs are right. I believe that what I believe is rooted firmly in the scripture. Catholics believe the Pope is infallible. The Orthodox believe they are the only true continuation of the early church.

Just because we have doctrinal differences doesn't mean we don't believe each other to be Christians, although it does become an issue with the more major differences. But yeah, obviously we each have our own understanding of things which we belive to be correct. Just like Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists do. The only difference is that some systems are more exclusive than others, however I dont' think this is a fair justification for dismissing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

What I do dislike, is the fact that a lot of Christians say that their version is the only correct one, which, to me, contradicts with the "humble before God" part.

We, as humans, can only interprete and try to understand, but we cannot say that our version is true and all others are wrong, because that would be putting words in Gods' mouth.

Thinking that you know what Gods' message was and all those who disagree are mistaken, is typical human. Just like vanity and pride, which are sins.

Maybe you are right, but it's possible the other believers are right as well. Or maybe you're all wrong. Only God knows and, humble as you are, that is something you should recognise and accept :shrug:

Most Christians are not humble enough when it comes to Gods' message.

---

To argue that God does not reveal any sort of truth to anyone is intolerant. To argue that there is no absolute truth which any person can claim to know is intolerant.

Everyone is intolerant, if intolerant means not accepting other people's beliefs as right. I would say I'm tolerant since I let people go about their business with their other beliefs, but that doesn't mean I should have to accept them as being right. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

that just leaves Calvin and his children, who are much more extreme than he was. I looked up the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" in the Library here once. The principle is merely that no part of human experience is free from the consequences of the Fall, i.e. man is in no part wholly pure. He is not, however, according to Calvin without redeeming features. The problem comes from the doctrinally irrelevant invective and rhetorical flourishes he used to make his points.

Apparently, his defence was that plain language would not convince the masses, so he dressed up his points in persuasive language. That alone demonstrates the intellectual bankuptcy of the man, who protested against fancy formulaic rituals and then used the same principles in his own sermons.

---

I don't think that this is true given the pretty black-and-white view Calvin had on the nature of man. While most people today generally think of good and evil as being sort of opposite forces, with a neutral bit in the middle; Calvin argues that sin is anything short of perfect righteousness, as the scripture appears to do so as well. And so to fall short of the glory of God, is to be sin.

As for our redeeming features which he mentions, I remember one passage where he argues how even "the Turks" have certain good attributes amongst their people, noting that some of their rulers were generous, others were great conquerors etc. However, he goes on to argue that these are in no way an integral part of their nature, but instead gifts given to them from God. He then goes on to say how God will hold his blessings against them in the day of judgement. In this respect, he seems to be echoing Jesus sentiments of how those towns which are blessed with hearing the gospel and do not repent will have it held against them at judgement day, and he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gamorrah than it will for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I don't think that this is true given the pretty black-and-white view Calvin had on the nature of man. While most people today generally think of good and evil as being sort of opposite forces, with a neutral bit in the middle; Calvin argues that sin is anything short of perfect righteousness, as the scripture appears to do so as well. And so to fall short of the glory of God, is to be sin.

---

There is a fundamental difference between being less than perfect, and being utterly wretched. Calvin argued more for the former than the latter. His invective is what clouds the issue, and it was irrelevant to his point.

Also, to Sin, and "to be Sin" are completely different. One is to offend against God by turning away from him; the other is to be the turning away oneself, to be inherently evil. Since all proceeds by the consent of the Father man could only be inherently evil if that was the Will of God.

That would mean that God had actively willed something to be evil; which would make him evil. This, I expect, Iis the crux of rvg's comment. If God is evil he is not God, he is the Devil.

Quote:

---

As for our redeeming features which he mentions, I remember one passage where he argues how even "the Turks" have certain good attributes amongst their people, noting that some of their rulers were generous, others were great conquerors etc. However, he goes on to argue that these are in no way an integral part of their nature, but instead gifts given to them from God. He then goes on to say how God will hold his blessings against them in the day of judgement. In this respect, he seems to be echoing Jesus sentiments of how those towns which are blessed with hearing the gospel and do not repent will have it held against them at judgement day, and he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gamorrah than it will for them.

---

This assumes that "their true nature" is not a gift from God. I refer you to the Creed:

I Believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

If man's inherent nature were evil then he would not be a child of God, unless God's children are inherently evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If God is evil he is not God, he is the Devil.

---

Exactly.

Speaking most likely as the only person living in the same county as this hoax the consensus today in the Pub were I had my few beers was incredulity.

This fellow is charging 60 euro a pop apparently to tell you things you want to hear as some kind of fortune teller. The majority of the people are turning up to this vision lark are coming for the craic to be honest.

Here is the local papers take on it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Am I the only one who thought this was going to be a fetish thread?

Don't worry Irishmen. We still see the Vrigin in tortilla chips, trees, sandwhiches....well anything really.

---

And he does mean anything. Some Texans even see the Virgin in bird droppings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Speaking most likely as the only person living in the same county as this hoax the consensus today in the Pub were I had my few beers was incredulity.

This fellow is charging 60 euro a pop apparently to tell you things you want to hear as some kind of fortune teller. The majority of the people are turning up to this vision lark are coming for the craic to be honest.

Here is the local papers take on it

---

Sheesh. That just beggars belief. 60 Euro a pop?

What a two-a-penny amateur. :no:


He should study the business model of Fatima, in Portugal. Or that of the Las Vegas of the Middle Ages, Santiago in Spain.
And the most succesful of all: Lourdes, South of France. The second largest tourist destination in France, and a multi billion euro business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There is a fundamental difference between being less than perfect, and being utterly wretched. Calvin argued more for the former than the latter. His invective is what clouds the issue, and it was irrelevant to his point.

Also, to Sin, and "to be Sin" are completely different. One is to offend against God by turning away from him; the other is to be the turning away oneself, to be inherently evil. Since all proceeds by the consent of the Father man could only be inherently evil if that was the Will of God.

That would mean that God had actively willed something to be evil; which would make him evil. This, I expect, Iis the crux of rvg's comment. If God is evil he is not God, he is the Devil.

---

There is a difference between a sin and being sin, hence why some people say hate the sin and not the sinner. But Calvin clearly argues that we are sin. I'm too run down right now to look it up, but he argues with one passage where Paul calls various iniquities that he lists as being the "fruits of sin".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This assumes that "their true nature" is not a gift from God. I refer you to the Creed:

I Believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

If man's inherent nature were evil then he would not be a child of God, unless God's children are inherently evil.

---

God made Adam with free will, and it was only after he chose sin we arrive at where we are now. Everyone that sins is a slave to sin etc. So God's actual creation can't be said to be evil.

The only real difference between Calvinism and Arminianism etc is that in Calvinism, we are able to use our own free will to lose our free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

There is a difference between a sin and being sin, hence why some people say hate the sin and not the sinner. But Calvin clearly argues that we are sin. I'm too run down right now to look it up, but he argues with one passage where Paul calls various iniquities that he lists as being the "fruits of sin".

---

Institutes of the Christian Religion

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. I have no intention, however, to discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted, but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin, (Gal. 5: 19;) while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Institutes of the Christian Religion

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. I have no intention, however, to discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted, but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin, (Gal. 5: 19;) while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due.

---

Wow, I just tried it and I never realised you could google it like that. I can't believe I used to sit and churn through the big book before. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

There is a difference between a sin and being sin, hence why some people say hate the sin and not the sinner. But Calvin clearly argues that we are sin. I'm too run down right now to look it up, but he argues with one passage where Paul calls various iniquities that he lists as being the "fruits of sin".

God made Adam with free will, and it was only after he chose sin we arrive at where we are now. Everyone that sins is a slave to sin etc. So God's actual creation can't be said to be evil.

The only real difference between Calvinism and Arminianism etc is that in Calvinism, we are able to use our own free will to lose our free will.

---

You seem confused, are we damned by ourselves or by Adam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Institutes of the Christian Religion
[SPOIL]But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. I have no intention, however, to discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted, but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin, (Gal. 5: 19;) while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due.[/SPOIL]

---

To me this seems to indicate than Man is not inherently corrupt, but that he has been infected by corruption. Therefore, Man has Sin within him, but Man is not himself Sin.

So, I don't think Calvin actually agrees with you, Rhy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Wow, I just tried it and I never realised you could google it like that. I can't believe I used to sit and churn through the big book before. :sweatdrop:

---

Googled:

Code:

---

Calvin Paul "fruits of sin"

---

Piece of cake. With Google, the uninformed, ill-read, but technically savvy can fake it on a interweb forum! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

To me this seems to indicate than Man is not inherently corrupt, but that he has been infected by corruption. Therefore, Man has Sin within him, but Man is not himself Sin.

---

The title of that chapter is:

Through the Fall and Revolt of Man, The Whole Human Race Made Accursed and Degenerate. Of Original Sin

so I would tend to agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You seem confused, are we damned by ourselves or by Adam?

To me this seems to indicate than Man is not inherently corrupt, but that he has been infected by corruption. Therefore, Man has Sin within him, but Man is not himself Sin.

So, I don't think Calvin actually agrees with you, Rhy.

---

Regarding who is responsible for our sin, Calvin argues that Adam is not only the actual ancestor of mankind today, but also the 'federal head', in that he is representative of all of humanity, eg:

"Why feel any anxiety about the transmission of the soul, when we know that the qualities which Adam lost he received for us not less than for himself, that they were not gifts to a single man, but attributes of the whole human race? There is nothing absurd, therefore, in the view, that when he was divested, his nature was left naked and destitute that he having been defiled by sin, the pollution extends to all his seed."

This is particularly significant if you look at Genesis allegorically. Certianly though, there is no doubt that Calvin argues that original sin is passed to us through Adam.

Also, according to Calvin, to be in any way impure is to be sinful. Anything short of perfect righteousness is sin. There's no middle ground as many see it today, and I think this is where our confusion over total depravity/partial corruptness is coming from. Say for example, some person, who is not a Christian, gives money to charity. Pelagius or the Pope would say, "yeah, that was a good, righteous work of this man". Calvin would point out how he did not do it to honour God, and so it was sinful, and worthy of condemnation.

So when he argues how we are tainted, that doesn't just mean a sort of neutral agent burdened by sin - our imperfection is what makes us sin. Also, the fact that Jesus is said to be "made sin for us" on the cross is significant (a point Calvin makes a major deal about). It shows that the wrath of God is not against individual acts of sin, but against the sinful nature that produces them. Hence when Jesus comments on the law, he says how to think lustfully is adultery, to hate someone is murder etc. All this is designed to point us to the fact that sin is not just an act, but an inherent part of our nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Regarding who is responsible for our sin, Calvin argues that Adam is not only the actual ancestor of mankind today, but also the 'federal head', in that he is representative of all of humanity, eg:

"Why feel any anxiety about the transmission of the soul, when we know that the qualities which Adam lost he received for us not less than for himself, that they were not gifts to a single man, but attributes of the whole human race? There is nothing absurd, therefore, in the view, that when he was divested, his nature was left naked and destitute that he having been defiled by sin, the pollution extends to all his seed."

This is particularly significant if you look at Genesis allegorically. Certianly though, there is no doubt that Calvin argues that original sin is passed to us through Adam.

---

Calvin's formulation here has it's roots in the legal granting of and divesting of rights and titles. He is applying he lgal knowledge to Man's relationship with God. The concept is entirely medieval and conventional. Adam is the purjured (oath-breaking) vassal, Christ is the betrayed King who nonetheless forgives his people.

The concept is Post-Patristic, not Scriptural.

Further, Adam is not said to lose any qualities, save his imortality. An alegorical reading of Genesis supports the belief in Free Will, in fact. When Adam eats the fruit he comes to understand the nature of right and wrong (becoming like God), although he knows he has done wrong he nonetheless tries to hide his Sin from God (who sees all). In order to Sin one requires both the guilty act and thought. Prior to eating the fruit Adam was not capable of a guilty thought.

ergo, he was incapable of Sin.

When we turn to the Gospels what we find is a message that despite transgressions God still wishes to be reunited with ALL his children, regardless of race or nationality. What Christ offers is the chance to turn back to God without the requirement to be perfectly obedient. This allows hummanity to reverse Adam's Original Sin, his choice to turn from God. Christ is therefore the enabler, he offers his hand to any who will take it, and leads his people through the Door that is himself and thence to Salvation.

Christ alone, therefore, is the only guide who can lead the way back to God and the only gatekeeper who can unbar the door.

Quote:

---

Also, according to Calvin, to be in any way impure is to be sinful. Anything short of perfect righteousness is sin. There's no middle ground as many see it today, and I think this is where our confusion over total depravity/partial corruptness is coming from. Say for example, some person, who is not a Christian, gives money to charity. Pelagius or the Pope would say, "yeah, that was a good, righteous work of this man". Calvin would point out how he did not do it to honour God, and so it was sinful, and worthy of condemnation.

---

No, you are confused. You assume that the "middle ground" is neutrality, it is not. If pure water is Righteousness and Sin is oil, then man is Water tainted with oil. He is still distinctly water, but the water is tainted. However, the water is not as totally rupegnant as pure oil, either.

Man is not a simple creature, he has a compound nature.

In the same way, the Pope is not Pelegius, because the Pope does not argue that good deeds get you into heaven, they just get you out of purgatory.

Quote:

---

So when he argues how we are tainted, that doesn't just mean a sort of neutral agent burdened by sin - our imperfection is what makes us sin. Also, the fact that Jesus is said to be "made sin for us" on the cross is significant (a point Calvin makes a major deal about). It shows that the wrath of God is not against individual acts of sin, but against the sinful nature that produces them. Hence when Jesus comments on the law, he says how to think lustfully is adultery, to hate someone is murder etc. All this is designed to point us to the fact that sin is not just an act, but an inherent part of our nature.

---

This point hinges on Paul, whose authority hinges on Augustine (whom Calvin accepted), who declared the scripture flawed (Confessions).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Calvin's formulation here has it's roots in the legal granting of and divesting of rights and titles. He is applying he lgal knowledge to Man's relationship with God. The concept is entirely medieval and conventional. Adam is the purjured (oath-breaking) vassal, Christ is the betrayed King who nonetheless forgives his people.

The concept is Post-Patristic, not Scriptural.

---

I've heard this idea before that Calvin was just a product of his time with the legalism etc, but regardless of the extent of the similarities you could draw between his society and his interpretation of the Bible, his ideas that you mentioned do seem to be there. Adam does break his covenant with God, and it is also humanity that breaks their later covenants throughout the OT, whether Noahide, Abrahamic etc. Also, Christ is a king betrayed by his people, who goes on to forgive them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Further, Adam is not said to lose any qualities, save his imortality. An alegorical reading of Genesis supports the belief in Free Will, in fact. When Adam eats the fruit he comes to understand the nature of right and wrong (becoming like God), although he knows he has done wrong he nonetheless tries to hide his Sin from God (who sees all). In order to Sin one requires both the guilty act and thought. Prior to eating the fruit Adam was not capable of a guilty thought.

ergo, he was incapable of Sin.

---

I don't argue that Adam did not have free will, but I do believe his actions lost if for the rest of us. In committing that first sin, he was separated from God, and whoever sins is a slave to sin etc. To argue for free will in the Pelagian sense, you would have to deny that this original sin is passed down to Adam's descendents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

When we turn to the Gospels what we find is a message that despite transgressions God still wishes to be reunited with ALL his children, regardless of race or nationality. What Christ offers is the chance to turn back to God without the requirement to be perfectly obedient. This allows hummanity to reverse Adam's Original Sin, his choice to turn from God. Christ is therefore the enabler, he offers his hand to any who will take it, and leads his people through the Door that is himself and thence to Salvation.

Christ alone, therefore, is the only guide who can lead the way back to God and the only gatekeeper who can unbar the door.

---

I agree fully with the last bit. The controversy is over how we come to Christ in the first place. Whether we can choose to do it, or whether he grants even our faith to us as part of the 'package' he gained at Calvary. Also, if God worked to be united with all of humanity, why does Jesus in one place say that he came do to the will of his Father that sent him, and then later that he prays only for those that his Father has given him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, you are confused. You assume that the "middle ground" is neutrality, it is not. If pure water is Righteousness and Sin is oil, then man is Water tainted with oil. He is still distinctly water, but the water is tainted. However, the water is not as totally rupegnant as pure oil, either.

Man is not a simple creature, he has a compound nature.

In the same way, the Pope is not Pelegius, because the Pope does not argue that good deeds get you into heaven, they just get you out of purgatory.

---

I know what you are saying, but how can you be sure that the sin is not part of our nature? Why the water and oil analogy, and not mixing black and white paint or something? Considering when arguing this point, we were talking about what Calvin believed, surely when he says "corruption" he implies that sinfullness not only is added on top of our soul through original sin, but becomes an actual part of it? You seem to be suggesting that our 'natural' souls are conflicted with our imputed sinfulness, however the only such conflicts mentioned in the scripture are between our regenerated souls and the flesh. Furthermore, imagery such as removing a heart of stone for a heart of flesh seems to suggest there was nothing good/pure there to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This point hinges on Paul, whose authority hinges on Augustine (whom Calvin accepted), who declared the scripture flawed (Confessions).

---

We're debating what exactly Calvin believes on the matter of total depravity, so you have to go along with giving the scripture some authority here.