Question Levitiucs 19:28 says that we should not get Tatoos. I've heard that what the Bible was getting at was that it was a costomery thing to do where they would tattoo pagan things on those ready to die or dead to prepare them for death or something like that, and this violated the first commandment about not having any false gods. Does that make sense to you?
AnswerI think it's good to look at the passage in context:
27“‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28“‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.
So, if people take seriously the admonision against tatoos, they would also have to believe that men should all have beards, and long hair at the sides of their heads (like Orthodox Jews). Most people, Protestant and Catholic alike, would agree that these rules were to set the Jewish people apart, as a seperate people, who lived differently from the rest of the culture. They are like the rules of Kosher foods, or circumcision. In Acts 15, the Church specifically dealt with these things and said they were not binding- especially not on non Jews who were becoming Christian! So those laws are not universal moral laws, but rather customs for a certain people in a certain period of history. Christians need to learn to distinguish between these.
(That's part of the debate about homosexuality and womens ordination- are they universally binding laws, or just customs for the time? Without someone to answer that question difinitively, that's how you end up with the wide range of beliefs among protestants, and churches like the Anglican one splitting over it!)
This site is where I let my faith wrestle with reason. If you have a question to submit, do it at vankampen.peter@gmail.com. Although I try to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, these answers are the opinion of a Catholic youth Coordinator, and should not be construed as the views of the Catholic Church.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
If Luther did believe that Jesus was physically present in the Sacrament of the Alter, then how come protestants today don't belive this?
Question If Luther did believe that Jesus was physically present in the Sacrament of the Alter, then how come protestants today don't belive this?
Answer Lutherans still believe in the true presence, and so do most Anglicans. The problem with Sola Scriptura is that everybody decides for themselves what they believe...so other protestants dissagreed with Luther. Zwingli was a famous protestant who lived at the same time as Luther, and this was one of their big debates. Even if you talk to Anglicans, though they are all part of the same church, they can't agree on what they believe (even though the Anglican book of common prayer says that transubstantiation is 'repugnant to holy writ").
The problem with protestants is that no one has any real authority to translate for anyone else. You should hear this guy on the radio called the 'Bible Answer Man'- people ask him questions and he answers as though he knowsd the answer, but often he speaks out against what other famous protestants teach.
The homosexuality quesition is so big that it's causing the Anglican church to break up- and the head of it, the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently lamented that he needed the authority to teach like the Pope has. But since he doesn't have it, all he can do is try to govern the varied opinions- he can never settle a debate.
Answer Lutherans still believe in the true presence, and so do most Anglicans. The problem with Sola Scriptura is that everybody decides for themselves what they believe...so other protestants dissagreed with Luther. Zwingli was a famous protestant who lived at the same time as Luther, and this was one of their big debates. Even if you talk to Anglicans, though they are all part of the same church, they can't agree on what they believe (even though the Anglican book of common prayer says that transubstantiation is 'repugnant to holy writ").
The problem with protestants is that no one has any real authority to translate for anyone else. You should hear this guy on the radio called the 'Bible Answer Man'- people ask him questions and he answers as though he knowsd the answer, but often he speaks out against what other famous protestants teach.
The homosexuality quesition is so big that it's causing the Anglican church to break up- and the head of it, the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently lamented that he needed the authority to teach like the Pope has. But since he doesn't have it, all he can do is try to govern the varied opinions- he can never settle a debate.
Harry Potter, good or bad?
Question; One more quick thing, harry potter, good or bad? I've heard that it should be shunned by the Church because it has magic and that's evil, but to me it seems like trying to live in a bubble of protection from the world is impractical. The more aware of what's around us, the better equiped we can be to fight it, right? And I don't even think it's that bad, as long as we realize that magic isn't real at all and that nothing can contradict God's power. what do you think? and for when I try to bring this argument to school, how do Protestants view this "dilemma"?
AnswerJesus prayed for us that we should be 'in the world, but not of the world'- so in a sense you're right that we shouldn't create a bubble around ourselves. I think one of the things that most discredits Christianity and our message is our unwillingness to intelligently dialogue with people of opposing views- and that the consequence of this is that we are considered irational, and shoved out of the marketplace of ideas.
The Church doesn't take a stand, per se, on things like Harry Potter, but there is a healthy debate in the Church. The most intelligent argument I have heard against it is that witches are actually real (and they are) and their power is not from God, but is of a supernatural nature, so it is thus from Satan. If someone wrote a kids book about drug dealers, but they were good drug dealers... of course, everyone would object. But if there are characters that are using power that essentially comes from Satan, but using it for good, we are all OK with it. This blurs the distinction between good and evil, and lends itself to relativistice thinking.
However, Catholic writers such as Tolkien also employed Wizards for good, and treated magic as though it were fantasticv and not real, which is what happens in the Potter series.
I think as Christians the more we object to this kind of stuff, the more ridiculous we look, and the more we effectively promote the stuff by stirring up controversy. I myself am listening to the series on CD as I drive back and forth from Wetaskiwin. (I also deliberately read both the Dan Brown books). I would not choose it as reading for my kids, as there is a lot of bettre stuff out there, but I don't think I would ban it either.
I think my opinion is pretty much in keeping with the Church- there is no definitive answer, and frankly it's not a big enough deal to care. By the time my kids are old enough to read, Harry Potter will just be a vague cultural memory. Something worse will have come along!
AnswerJesus prayed for us that we should be 'in the world, but not of the world'- so in a sense you're right that we shouldn't create a bubble around ourselves. I think one of the things that most discredits Christianity and our message is our unwillingness to intelligently dialogue with people of opposing views- and that the consequence of this is that we are considered irational, and shoved out of the marketplace of ideas.
The Church doesn't take a stand, per se, on things like Harry Potter, but there is a healthy debate in the Church. The most intelligent argument I have heard against it is that witches are actually real (and they are) and their power is not from God, but is of a supernatural nature, so it is thus from Satan. If someone wrote a kids book about drug dealers, but they were good drug dealers... of course, everyone would object. But if there are characters that are using power that essentially comes from Satan, but using it for good, we are all OK with it. This blurs the distinction between good and evil, and lends itself to relativistice thinking.
However, Catholic writers such as Tolkien also employed Wizards for good, and treated magic as though it were fantasticv and not real, which is what happens in the Potter series.
I think as Christians the more we object to this kind of stuff, the more ridiculous we look, and the more we effectively promote the stuff by stirring up controversy. I myself am listening to the series on CD as I drive back and forth from Wetaskiwin. (I also deliberately read both the Dan Brown books). I would not choose it as reading for my kids, as there is a lot of bettre stuff out there, but I don't think I would ban it either.
I think my opinion is pretty much in keeping with the Church- there is no definitive answer, and frankly it's not a big enough deal to care. By the time my kids are old enough to read, Harry Potter will just be a vague cultural memory. Something worse will have come along!
What if science contradicts scripture? What about evolution?
Question I was reading in your blog and you said that St. Augustine said that if science contradicts scripture then we need to re-interpret scripture. How can this be? What then is the Catholic Church's teaching on evolution? If everytime there is a new scientific discovery we have to re-interpret scripture, it seems to me like it won't be very long and scientific "proofs" (like in the 1960s how black people were scientifically proven to be dumber than white people because of their head shape) will contradict the entire bible, and then what?
Answer Evolution is the perfect example.
Evolution is science- not faith and morals. The Church- and indeed, even scripture- purport to be authorities on faith and morals, but not on science or history, or these other things which can be known without the dirrect inspiration of God. So if science were to 'prove' that evolution happened, then the Church would have no problem with that since it is very easy (in fact easier) to inrterpret the creation story in Genesis as poetry than as science or history.
Read Genesis 1, and you will quickly discover that it is written in a very poetic style, complete with repetion and timing, etc. A literal interpretation begs someimportant questions. If we were meant to believe that each day was a 24 hour time period, then how do we know this when there were no people to measure the time, and no sun to rise and set? If God told Moses that that is what happened, (which is what most literalists believe), well scripture also says that to God one day is like a thousand years, so who is to say that it was literally one day?
There are Christians, and even Catholics, who believe that the world is literally 6 thousand years old, and was created in 6 days. They have to account for things like dinosaurs and the extreme ages that people lived before thf flood, by what is generally considered to be 'pseudo science'- and claims that maybe dinosaurs were mostly killed off by the flood, but of course some God on tha ark (2 of each kind), but when the flood receded climate had changed so drastically that they couldn't survive, as the iceage was now started, so most dinosaus died out, but maybe the occaisional ones survived in Africa or Peru, where the Ice Age didn't effect the climate as much. Then some of Noahs decendents went to cold places, like England and America,
and became Cave Men, where as other people went to warm places where farming was possible, like Egypt and India and Babylon, and built great civilizations, so that these great civilizatioons and cave men lived on Earth at the same time. It is a facinating discussion, which I do not have time to delve into here. (Note the picture of the human riding a dinosaur, purportedly a 500 year old image from Peru)
Evolutionary scientists have a different bias. They want to explain the existence of everything, but cannot use anything imeasurable (science only deals with measurable things) so anything which is pure spirit, like God, is outside the realm of science. So they try to explain how everything got here but they absolutely cannot entertain the idea of God- so evolution is really the only theory that works.
So, literalists have to believe that everything in the bible is literal. Athiestic evolutionists have to account for the universe without the possibility of God. Catholics have the advantages of both schools of thought, without the dissadvantages. We are not required to believe that everything in the Bible was even meant top be taken literally, much less that it should be. the first 12 chapters of Genesis are generally considered to be possibly more myth than literal history. However, discerning what should be requires mature and honest inspection. If you read Lukes account of the story of Jesus, it is very obvious that it was meant to betaken literally, and as Catholics we obviously do take it literally. You can't lump the whole Bible into one genre of literature.
In short the Church does not have a teaching on evolution, excpet that it is a possible and highly respectable idea, because the Church is not and does not claim to be an authority on science. Incidentally, there were many who though a heliocentric (sun at the center) universe was contrary to scripture, and this is what caused some of the problems for Galileo. (The Pope he had a conflict with, though, just said he should present his views ballanced with the traditional view that Earth is at the center. Galileo refused, and effectively printed documents where the pope was being called a simpleton. The Pope was a worldly authority, so had him arrested. Galileo was never tortured, that's a myth.)
Science cannot possibly 'disprove' matters of faith and morals, simply because faith and morals are about things which are immeasurable, which science cannot deal with. So science and theology are 2 completely seperate disciplines, but they both lead us to truth. That is the Catholic standpoint- if it is the domain of science, listen to science, if it is the domain of faith and morals, listen to the Church. That way you get the fullness of truth!
Answer Evolution is the perfect example.
Evolution is science- not faith and morals. The Church- and indeed, even scripture- purport to be authorities on faith and morals, but not on science or history, or these other things which can be known without the dirrect inspiration of God. So if science were to 'prove' that evolution happened, then the Church would have no problem with that since it is very easy (in fact easier) to inrterpret the creation story in Genesis as poetry than as science or history.
Read Genesis 1, and you will quickly discover that it is written in a very poetic style, complete with repetion and timing, etc. A literal interpretation begs someimportant questions. If we were meant to believe that each day was a 24 hour time period, then how do we know this when there were no people to measure the time, and no sun to rise and set? If God told Moses that that is what happened, (which is what most literalists believe), well scripture also says that to God one day is like a thousand years, so who is to say that it was literally one day?
There are Christians, and even Catholics, who believe that the world is literally 6 thousand years old, and was created in 6 days. They have to account for things like dinosaurs and the extreme ages that people lived before thf flood, by what is generally considered to be 'pseudo science'- and claims that maybe dinosaurs were mostly killed off by the flood, but of course some God on tha ark (2 of each kind), but when the flood receded climate had changed so drastically that they couldn't survive, as the iceage was now started, so most dinosaus died out, but maybe the occaisional ones survived in Africa or Peru, where the Ice Age didn't effect the climate as much. Then some of Noahs decendents went to cold places, like England and America,
and became Cave Men, where as other people went to warm places where farming was possible, like Egypt and India and Babylon, and built great civilizations, so that these great civilizatioons and cave men lived on Earth at the same time. It is a facinating discussion, which I do not have time to delve into here. (Note the picture of the human riding a dinosaur, purportedly a 500 year old image from Peru)
Evolutionary scientists have a different bias. They want to explain the existence of everything, but cannot use anything imeasurable (science only deals with measurable things) so anything which is pure spirit, like God, is outside the realm of science. So they try to explain how everything got here but they absolutely cannot entertain the idea of God- so evolution is really the only theory that works.
So, literalists have to believe that everything in the bible is literal. Athiestic evolutionists have to account for the universe without the possibility of God. Catholics have the advantages of both schools of thought, without the dissadvantages. We are not required to believe that everything in the Bible was even meant top be taken literally, much less that it should be. the first 12 chapters of Genesis are generally considered to be possibly more myth than literal history. However, discerning what should be requires mature and honest inspection. If you read Lukes account of the story of Jesus, it is very obvious that it was meant to betaken literally, and as Catholics we obviously do take it literally. You can't lump the whole Bible into one genre of literature.
In short the Church does not have a teaching on evolution, excpet that it is a possible and highly respectable idea, because the Church is not and does not claim to be an authority on science. Incidentally, there were many who though a heliocentric (sun at the center) universe was contrary to scripture, and this is what caused some of the problems for Galileo. (The Pope he had a conflict with, though, just said he should present his views ballanced with the traditional view that Earth is at the center. Galileo refused, and effectively printed documents where the pope was being called a simpleton. The Pope was a worldly authority, so had him arrested. Galileo was never tortured, that's a myth.)
Science cannot possibly 'disprove' matters of faith and morals, simply because faith and morals are about things which are immeasurable, which science cannot deal with. So science and theology are 2 completely seperate disciplines, but they both lead us to truth. That is the Catholic standpoint- if it is the domain of science, listen to science, if it is the domain of faith and morals, listen to the Church. That way you get the fullness of truth!
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Zietgeist video- was the Jesus story just an evolved version of the ancient Egyptian Horus story?
Question- Hey Peter I know this is against everything we believe but I just wanna know what you think about it.
As I was watching this, I noticed a remarkable similarity between these videos and those that claim that 9-11 was an inside job. A conspiracy theory. Imagine my surprise when at the end of the video, it moved into the 9-11 conspiracy! (If you continue watching the video to the very end, you will actually find that it goes from facinating to laughable in a very short period.)
At first I found the whole thing fairly convincing- however, the more I watched, the more I realized how much they were deliberately fudging the facts, and misrepresenting them. Some of the errors were very obvious to me, and would be to anyone with even marginal Christian knowledge. What the creators of the documentary are depending on is that people will not actually know the truth, so their lies will easily get past people. (And frankly, they are probably right- most people would buy the whole package. But it does not take muchr esearch to discover the errors.)
For example- the documentary claims that Horus and others were' crucified'. I do not find that in the research I did, and moreover I was fairly convinced that the stories of Horus by far predate crucifixion- and it turns out I was right. Crucifixion goes back to about 500BC, and was used by the Persians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Macedonians and Romans. Not the Egyptians. Here are some other major problems:
The major precepts of Christ were invented at the council of Nicea in 325- Interestingly, the novel "The Davinci Code" makes a similar argument, but still maintains that Christ existed, and even has decendents! I would place the credibility of this video about on par with the Davinci Code- that is to say, they are both clever fictions.
The problem is that the gospels, as every scholar wuill agree, by far predate the council of Nicea- and they include the major points that Jesus was born of a virgin, baptized at 30, crucified, and rose again. So it is ridiculous to claim that the romans made that story up to control their population. There are hundreds of historical documents that predate Constantine and Nicea- in fact, Nicea was called in order to settle the debate as to whether Jesus was God- a debate that could not have existed if they hadn't 'invented' the person of jesus yet.
Jesus never existed.
First of all, the historic document from Josephus is not a settled forgery- it's authenticity is debated. The documentary overstates it's case, which to a thinking person undermines its case.
Secondly, take a look at the gospel of Luke and the book of acts for example. These are both carefully placed in their historic context- they do not speak like myths at all. In fact, the author (Luke) becomes a part of the story in the book of acts- in other words, the events that are happening are first person accounts!
Take Pauls testimony as well, which you can read first hand in Galatians. He claims that Jesus apeared to him, and that's what changed his life. These letters, and the gospels themselves, are in fact historic documents- it's ridiculous to claim otherwise, and no serious scholar would do that. Simply because evryone who recorded the information about Christ also happened to believe it does not mean it didn't happen! (In fact, it seems to increase the likelihood that it happened.)
Easter is when it is because of the coming of spring.
Jesus' life fulfilled the Old Testament. He is the 'lamb of God" because he takes the place of the passover lamb, and he dies when the passover lambs are sacrificed. Jews still celebrate the passover when Christians celebrate Easter. Shall we suggest that Jews are also part of the conspiracy- celebrating Passover when they do to lend credence to Christians?
Jesus was born Dec 25th
It's pretty well known that we don't actually know when Jesus was born, but that we celebrate it Dec 25th precisely because we adopted the Pagan feast of Light, when the days begin getting longer. As Christianity spread and took out paganism, Christians would refer to things already familiar in the culture and adopt them if they lent themselves well. So, we made the winter solstice our clebration of Christs birth. This is like in contemporary times when Christians will produce rap music- we are just trying to make the faith more palatable to contemporary culture. Scriptures don't tell us when Jesus was born- that was a later tradition.
3 Kings- The story of the three kings is a tradition. In scripture, there are 'wise men", not kings, who come to Jesus, and the number is not specific. It is possible, I suppose, that the later tradition that they are three kings could have derived from the constellation, but the innitial story is different.
South Cross- The idea that the setting sun lines up with the south cross constellation- this constellation is actually not even visible anywhere north of 25 degrees north latitude- in otherwords, while it would some times be visible from Egypt, it is never visible from Israel, or Europe.
Europeans did not discover and map it until the 'age of dicovery', when the portugeuse were exploting Africa, in the 15th century.
Noahs flood story is taken from the epic of gilgamesh
First of all, the epic of giglamesh is from Babylon, not Egypt. secondly, suppose there really was a world wide flood? Wiould you not expect other cultures to have myths about it?
However, for the record, Catholics are not required to believe in a literal workld wide flood. There are parts of the bible that apear to be alegorical, and other parts that are clearly historical. As I mentioned, the Gospel of Luke is clearly historical. The first 12 chapters of Genesis, from Creation to the tower of babel, are not written in a historical but more in a allegorical/poetic style. You may belive in them literally, but you don't have to. I personally don't.
Fundamentalist Christians believe the world is only 12000 years old.
Most fundamentalists actually think the world is 6000 years old, because if you add up all the ages of all the people in the OT, you can figure that out. But again, as Catholics, we don't have to believe that those first few chapters are literal history- they are not even written in such a way as to imply they were intended that way! Science seems to very clearly indicate an older world. St Augustine (who lived around the time of the council of Nicea, interestingly) said that if we discover that science states something contrary to scripture than we need to reinterpret scripture.
The way some protestants read the bible comes from the reformation- where Luther said that the Bible alone is the authority. Since then protestants have taken that assumption, and used scripture as a means of arguing, which has forced them into a very legalistic and literallistic interpretation of scripture, much like americans and their constitution. Catholics do not think that way, and don't have to.
As for the guy ridiculing what Christians think about dinosaurs- I find that they took the most ridiculous argument possible, and treat it like all Christians agree. But ask around- I bet you can't get a single Christians to say that dinosaur bones were put on earth to test our faith! (Or that they were manufactured by the devil to trick us, which may be the other potential ridiculous argument.)
The 12 apostles are a parallel with the 12 zodiak signs
Like I say, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. There is a type of theology called "typology" where you look for parallels between somethingb in the OT and how it was fulfilled by Christ- so Joseph was a 'type' of Christ- as was Adam, Moses, Abraham, Melchizedek, David... etc.
Jospeh had 12 borthers, who's families became the 12 tribes of Israel- this is purely history, and the fact that there are 12 zodiac signs are clearly a coincidence. You cannot read the OT and seriously think that the 12 tribes are allegory.
Jesus established a new covenant, and had 12 apostles to represent the 12 tribes. that's why there were 12.
Believe it or not, there's way more, but taht's just the stuff I pretty much knew right off the bat!
There are a lot of funny conspiracy type theories out there, and unfortunately in this age of digital communication anyone can make a documentary to represent 1/2 truths that support their theories and ignore the facts which contradict them I remember being fairly convinced that 9-11 was a conspiracy, then seeing other documentaries that debunk the conspiracy ones and feeling ripped off because the conspiracy ones were preying on my ignorance, and assuming that I would not do the necessary research!
There are other schools of thought along the same lines: 2012, the world is only 6000 years old, man on the moon was faked, great depression was orchestrated, the Davinci Code, Elvis is Alive, Paul McArtney died before the Beatles disbanded, JFK was taken out by the FBI.... etc, etc, etc. Once you realize how many there are, and that you can't get to the bottom of them all, I think the responsible thing to do is not to become paranoid, but take a look at what the serious scholars think, and go from there. Do not rest too much credence in these documentaries! The point is, the ones who attack Christianity are really inconsistent, and actually contradict each other too!
At the end of the day, we have a choice. Either Catholocism is true, or it is a deliberate lie, and all the popes and cardinals are for some reason deliberately proliferating the lie. I, obviously, find that harder to believe than that Christ is real!
As I was watching this, I noticed a remarkable similarity between these videos and those that claim that 9-11 was an inside job. A conspiracy theory. Imagine my surprise when at the end of the video, it moved into the 9-11 conspiracy! (If you continue watching the video to the very end, you will actually find that it goes from facinating to laughable in a very short period.)
At first I found the whole thing fairly convincing- however, the more I watched, the more I realized how much they were deliberately fudging the facts, and misrepresenting them. Some of the errors were very obvious to me, and would be to anyone with even marginal Christian knowledge. What the creators of the documentary are depending on is that people will not actually know the truth, so their lies will easily get past people. (And frankly, they are probably right- most people would buy the whole package. But it does not take muchr esearch to discover the errors.)
For example- the documentary claims that Horus and others were' crucified'. I do not find that in the research I did, and moreover I was fairly convinced that the stories of Horus by far predate crucifixion- and it turns out I was right. Crucifixion goes back to about 500BC, and was used by the Persians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Macedonians and Romans. Not the Egyptians. Here are some other major problems:
The major precepts of Christ were invented at the council of Nicea in 325- Interestingly, the novel "The Davinci Code" makes a similar argument, but still maintains that Christ existed, and even has decendents! I would place the credibility of this video about on par with the Davinci Code- that is to say, they are both clever fictions.
The problem is that the gospels, as every scholar wuill agree, by far predate the council of Nicea- and they include the major points that Jesus was born of a virgin, baptized at 30, crucified, and rose again. So it is ridiculous to claim that the romans made that story up to control their population. There are hundreds of historical documents that predate Constantine and Nicea- in fact, Nicea was called in order to settle the debate as to whether Jesus was God- a debate that could not have existed if they hadn't 'invented' the person of jesus yet.
Jesus never existed.
First of all, the historic document from Josephus is not a settled forgery- it's authenticity is debated. The documentary overstates it's case, which to a thinking person undermines its case.
Secondly, take a look at the gospel of Luke and the book of acts for example. These are both carefully placed in their historic context- they do not speak like myths at all. In fact, the author (Luke) becomes a part of the story in the book of acts- in other words, the events that are happening are first person accounts!
Take Pauls testimony as well, which you can read first hand in Galatians. He claims that Jesus apeared to him, and that's what changed his life. These letters, and the gospels themselves, are in fact historic documents- it's ridiculous to claim otherwise, and no serious scholar would do that. Simply because evryone who recorded the information about Christ also happened to believe it does not mean it didn't happen! (In fact, it seems to increase the likelihood that it happened.)
Easter is when it is because of the coming of spring.
Jesus' life fulfilled the Old Testament. He is the 'lamb of God" because he takes the place of the passover lamb, and he dies when the passover lambs are sacrificed. Jews still celebrate the passover when Christians celebrate Easter. Shall we suggest that Jews are also part of the conspiracy- celebrating Passover when they do to lend credence to Christians?
Jesus was born Dec 25th
It's pretty well known that we don't actually know when Jesus was born, but that we celebrate it Dec 25th precisely because we adopted the Pagan feast of Light, when the days begin getting longer. As Christianity spread and took out paganism, Christians would refer to things already familiar in the culture and adopt them if they lent themselves well. So, we made the winter solstice our clebration of Christs birth. This is like in contemporary times when Christians will produce rap music- we are just trying to make the faith more palatable to contemporary culture. Scriptures don't tell us when Jesus was born- that was a later tradition.
3 Kings- The story of the three kings is a tradition. In scripture, there are 'wise men", not kings, who come to Jesus, and the number is not specific. It is possible, I suppose, that the later tradition that they are three kings could have derived from the constellation, but the innitial story is different.
South Cross- The idea that the setting sun lines up with the south cross constellation- this constellation is actually not even visible anywhere north of 25 degrees north latitude- in otherwords, while it would some times be visible from Egypt, it is never visible from Israel, or Europe.
Europeans did not discover and map it until the 'age of dicovery', when the portugeuse were exploting Africa, in the 15th century.
Noahs flood story is taken from the epic of gilgamesh
First of all, the epic of giglamesh is from Babylon, not Egypt. secondly, suppose there really was a world wide flood? Wiould you not expect other cultures to have myths about it?
However, for the record, Catholics are not required to believe in a literal workld wide flood. There are parts of the bible that apear to be alegorical, and other parts that are clearly historical. As I mentioned, the Gospel of Luke is clearly historical. The first 12 chapters of Genesis, from Creation to the tower of babel, are not written in a historical but more in a allegorical/poetic style. You may belive in them literally, but you don't have to. I personally don't.
Fundamentalist Christians believe the world is only 12000 years old.
Most fundamentalists actually think the world is 6000 years old, because if you add up all the ages of all the people in the OT, you can figure that out. But again, as Catholics, we don't have to believe that those first few chapters are literal history- they are not even written in such a way as to imply they were intended that way! Science seems to very clearly indicate an older world. St Augustine (who lived around the time of the council of Nicea, interestingly) said that if we discover that science states something contrary to scripture than we need to reinterpret scripture.
The way some protestants read the bible comes from the reformation- where Luther said that the Bible alone is the authority. Since then protestants have taken that assumption, and used scripture as a means of arguing, which has forced them into a very legalistic and literallistic interpretation of scripture, much like americans and their constitution. Catholics do not think that way, and don't have to.
As for the guy ridiculing what Christians think about dinosaurs- I find that they took the most ridiculous argument possible, and treat it like all Christians agree. But ask around- I bet you can't get a single Christians to say that dinosaur bones were put on earth to test our faith! (Or that they were manufactured by the devil to trick us, which may be the other potential ridiculous argument.)
The 12 apostles are a parallel with the 12 zodiak signs
Like I say, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. There is a type of theology called "typology" where you look for parallels between somethingb in the OT and how it was fulfilled by Christ- so Joseph was a 'type' of Christ- as was Adam, Moses, Abraham, Melchizedek, David... etc.
Jospeh had 12 borthers, who's families became the 12 tribes of Israel- this is purely history, and the fact that there are 12 zodiac signs are clearly a coincidence. You cannot read the OT and seriously think that the 12 tribes are allegory.
Jesus established a new covenant, and had 12 apostles to represent the 12 tribes. that's why there were 12.
Believe it or not, there's way more, but taht's just the stuff I pretty much knew right off the bat!
There are a lot of funny conspiracy type theories out there, and unfortunately in this age of digital communication anyone can make a documentary to represent 1/2 truths that support their theories and ignore the facts which contradict them I remember being fairly convinced that 9-11 was a conspiracy, then seeing other documentaries that debunk the conspiracy ones and feeling ripped off because the conspiracy ones were preying on my ignorance, and assuming that I would not do the necessary research!
There are other schools of thought along the same lines: 2012, the world is only 6000 years old, man on the moon was faked, great depression was orchestrated, the Davinci Code, Elvis is Alive, Paul McArtney died before the Beatles disbanded, JFK was taken out by the FBI.... etc, etc, etc. Once you realize how many there are, and that you can't get to the bottom of them all, I think the responsible thing to do is not to become paranoid, but take a look at what the serious scholars think, and go from there. Do not rest too much credence in these documentaries! The point is, the ones who attack Christianity are really inconsistent, and actually contradict each other too!
At the end of the day, we have a choice. Either Catholocism is true, or it is a deliberate lie, and all the popes and cardinals are for some reason deliberately proliferating the lie. I, obviously, find that harder to believe than that Christ is real!
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
What does the Catholic Church teach about Tatoos?
QuestionTatoos have kind of been getting really popular at my school, and I don't know what to think. I know that somewhere in Leviticus it clearly states not to mark yourself with ink or engrave the dead in your skin, which makes sense from a Catholic mindset but not a Protestant one, due to their not seeing the connection between physical and spiritual. I also don't know for sure whether or not that passage was literal or just a metaphor for not forgetting that God made all, and takes all away, and that he should be our focus and not necessarily loved ones who've passed away. The biggest arguement I hear is, "Well if it's meaningful and I want to remember my grandma then why can't I?" Especially when most of these people are Protestants who don't get that connection between physical and spiritual. I don't want to be like the person in the one scripture who was supposed to alert the city of any invading armies and failed to do so, so the city was overthrown, but at the same time everyone should be free to do and act as they so choose right? What should I do when these kinds of conversations come up?
AnswerI'm pretty sure that Catholic don't take a stand either way on tatoos. Some funny moral things come from a group of protestants called 'puritans', who thought tatoos, playing cards, dancing, any alcohol whatsoever... that all these things were wrong. It's not founded in the Bible, and Jesus himself drank alcohol (obviously), King David danced (2 Sam 6:14), and some people even think St Paul haed a tatoo, because he said "Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus" (Gal 6:17). I seriously doubt that Paul had a tatoo, but there you go. Tatoos are not bad- alot of protestants think things are bad, but don't really know why. (Ever see the Simpsons where Homer and Bart go to Catholic Heaven? Gives you an idea!)
AnswerI'm pretty sure that Catholic don't take a stand either way on tatoos. Some funny moral things come from a group of protestants called 'puritans', who thought tatoos, playing cards, dancing, any alcohol whatsoever... that all these things were wrong. It's not founded in the Bible, and Jesus himself drank alcohol (obviously), King David danced (2 Sam 6:14), and some people even think St Paul haed a tatoo, because he said "Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus" (Gal 6:17). I seriously doubt that Paul had a tatoo, but there you go. Tatoos are not bad- alot of protestants think things are bad, but don't really know why. (Ever see the Simpsons where Homer and Bart go to Catholic Heaven? Gives you an idea!)
Does the Church have authority to release souls from purgatory?
Question Does the Church have authority to release souls from purgatory? How far does this authority extend?Doesn't the idea of indulgences and the Church being capable of just "sending souls to Heaven" contradict the idea of being made just rather than declared just?
Answer This is like the question of forgiving sins. When Jesus forgave someones' sins, the scribes asked how he could be doing that, since only God has authority to forgive sins. (Mark 2:6-12). Yet later he gives this authority to his apostles! (John 20:23). So something that only God could do properly, he has given authority to the Church to do.
This is also what is meant by the keys of the kingdom in Matt 16. When the king went away, he would give the keys to someone else (prime minister) in order to indicate that they were responsible and had the kings authority to make decisions. Jesus gave the keys to Peter, the first pope. So the Church only has that authority because Christ has given it to them.
But to be clear, the Church cannot arbitrarily declare that someone is in Heaven. For all we know, they may have gone to Hell. What the Church can do is offer the means to pay the debts we have incurred through our sins. (Though we are forguiven our sins, we still have to make up for the damage caused. If I sleep with someone other than my wife, and she and God forgive me, it will still take a long time to rebuild the relationship with Catherine, get rid of the images of the other girl, etc. And she may get pregnant, or I could get an std. So being forgiven does not remove the consequences of sin.)
Suppose you stole a Ferrari from some rich person, went on a joy ride, and smashed it. Afterwards you go back, and ask forgiveness- the person forgives you, but you still owe them the Ferrari! You will never be able to afford to pay it... so the rich person says "I tell you what. For the next 2 months, you come hear every day and work for me from 9-5, and we'll call it even." The wages you would have earned are not nearly equal to what you owe- but the rich person gives you the means of paying the debt.
So God gives us the means of paying the debt through indulgences, that would otherwise have taken a very long time. basically what it means is that we can use our suffering, work, prayer, donations, etc, and get way more value out of them then we actually deserve! We are still being transformed- it is still a process- but God is helping with the process.
Answer This is like the question of forgiving sins. When Jesus forgave someones' sins, the scribes asked how he could be doing that, since only God has authority to forgive sins. (Mark 2:6-12). Yet later he gives this authority to his apostles! (John 20:23). So something that only God could do properly, he has given authority to the Church to do.
This is also what is meant by the keys of the kingdom in Matt 16. When the king went away, he would give the keys to someone else (prime minister) in order to indicate that they were responsible and had the kings authority to make decisions. Jesus gave the keys to Peter, the first pope. So the Church only has that authority because Christ has given it to them.
But to be clear, the Church cannot arbitrarily declare that someone is in Heaven. For all we know, they may have gone to Hell. What the Church can do is offer the means to pay the debts we have incurred through our sins. (Though we are forguiven our sins, we still have to make up for the damage caused. If I sleep with someone other than my wife, and she and God forgive me, it will still take a long time to rebuild the relationship with Catherine, get rid of the images of the other girl, etc. And she may get pregnant, or I could get an std. So being forgiven does not remove the consequences of sin.)
Suppose you stole a Ferrari from some rich person, went on a joy ride, and smashed it. Afterwards you go back, and ask forgiveness- the person forgives you, but you still owe them the Ferrari! You will never be able to afford to pay it... so the rich person says "I tell you what. For the next 2 months, you come hear every day and work for me from 9-5, and we'll call it even." The wages you would have earned are not nearly equal to what you owe- but the rich person gives you the means of paying the debt.
So God gives us the means of paying the debt through indulgences, that would otherwise have taken a very long time. basically what it means is that we can use our suffering, work, prayer, donations, etc, and get way more value out of them then we actually deserve! We are still being transformed- it is still a process- but God is helping with the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)