Something small and round

[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.

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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 ), 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.

[Viking]

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.

[Fragony]

Irish are cute what else is new

[KukriKhan]

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.

[CountArach]

As to why so many people do not acknowledge the true God (mine, of course ), 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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.

[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?

[Viking]

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

Ever heard of atheism?

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?

[Idaho]

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

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

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?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ever heard of atheism?

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

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.

[Andres]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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".

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.

[Viking]

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'.

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.

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?

[Andres]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[rvg]

...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.

[Viking]

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.

[Reenk Roink]

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. You really must tip your hat to it.

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 () convicted () Scientology of fraud (if Scientology's tenets actually do state some test which was failed in court, then I take back my and two of the 's).

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? 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). Where is the irony?

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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

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:

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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?

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

*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!

Only in Ireland! Cutesy silly folk and...

...hang on.



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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.


But seriously. (Or not... )
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.

[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.

[Hax]

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.

God told me I'm right.

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.

[rvg]

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?

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

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.