Posted on 02/03/2003 10:35:11 AM PST by cantfindagoodscreenname
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:01 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Then post what God says about obelisks, right here.
Looks like we've found a couple on this thread.
Good point. There is another that is sure as heck not unique to RCC or EO. I've even heard preachers tell how it's a symbol of God's eternity. But that, to those who know, is BS. It is a pagan symbol that has been adopted by Christians.
I've actually wondered about the wedding ring before, and did some research into it. To answer your question: I do not, my minister does.
Then your religion is "contaminated," too.
But I have a simpler explanation. Answer some easy Bible questions for me. Open your Bible, and tell me what happened under the Mosaic Law when an observant Jew touched a leper, a menstruating woman, or a dead body.
Then open the Gospel of Matthew and tell me what happened when Jesus touched each of those things.
Then reflect on what happens when his Church -- the Body of Christ, remember -- appropriates things that God created (he called them "good," remember?) and pagans hijacked, and restores them to the worship of the True God. What gets contaminated, and what gets healed?
So, aren't you saying that "the Bible Alone" always ends up being "the Bible plus someone's tradition"? If that's the case, then don't you have to choose between two possibilities ... either Christianity itself is a fraud, or the real question you should ask is not, "who do I think is following the Bible" but "who has preserved the authentic Christian tradition from Apostolic times"?
The seven hills are: Palatine, Capitoline, Esquiline, Aventine, Viminal, Quirinal, and Celian.
The Vatican is not a hill at all - in Roman times it was known as the Campus Vaticanus, which means the Vatican plain - a marshy uninhabited area in Biblical times.
The slight elevation of the Vatican is due to the earthworks which went into fortifying it and reclaiming it from the marshland as Romans moved to the suburbs during the Empire.
The Papacy has only officially resided at the Vatican for 400 years. It has had an itinerant history. From the 400s to the 1400s the Popes resided at the Lateran, which was also located outside Rome proper - sometimes relocating to Milan and even Orvieto, hundreds of miles from Rome. Then the Popes lived at Avignon in France for almost a century.
The Popes then returned to the Lateran and only took up residence at the Vatican after the restoration of St. Peter's.
I believe it is. I have heard sermons to the same effect as the post you are making. One pointed to King David's use of Goliath's sword as an example of "God taking what is Satan's and using it for good". The purpose of that sermon was mainly to justify using Contemporary styles of music in worship. Not a huge issue to me, personally, but the premis can be misleading.
I would assume you would agree with me that it would not be appropriate to take a pagan temple, remove the inscription, and carve a new one that said that the image is Jesus... then continue offering whatever sacrifices were offered to the Idol, and practicing whatever rituals were performed, only now, instead of being done in the name of the pagan god, they are done in the name of Jesus.
If there were a church who were so blatantly idolatrous, how would you answer them if they used the same argument?
Harry Potter has been a very big issue in many Catholic schools, including my own children's. I have seen good arguments on both sides. But it is naive to pretend that it has not been an issue.
It's no more teaching our kids satan-worship than other fanciful tales such as the Wizard of Oz or the C.S. Lewis books.
As a Catholic, you should seriously examine the content of the Wizard of OZ and the Narnia stories. I'm not saying that they are evil, but I would think that every caring parent will want to examine the contents for themselves. L. Frank Baum's story is weird and each book gets weirder. There's a good chance that they are harmless, but I wouldn't just assume so.
Catholics don't do anything remotely like that, ridiculous claims in Jack Chick tracts notwithstanding.
However ... there's a book you ought to read, called "Daily Life in Ancient Israel," by Fr. Roland deVaux, O.P. Don't let the fact that deVaux is a Dominican priest throw you. The book is considered to be one of the classic archaeological and anthropological texts on its topic.
One of the things that may surprise you is just how externally similar ancient Israelite religion -- as specified in Exodus and Leviticus, not as later corrupted -- was to Canaanite paganism.
Maybe God doesn't approach this thing the way you do.
It's no more teaching our kids satan-worship than other fanciful tales such as the Wizard of Oz or the C.S. Lewis books.
Please read at least one book before you post an opinion!
Well, this thread was predictable. But it at least attracted the most versed Catholics (myself not included) to defend against the entirely predictable posts on this thread. Having said that:
The HP books are dangerous only in that they could possibly teach young children that escapism is the way to deal with life's problems. But that's the problem with all fantasy books from Mallory's L'Morte D'Arthur to Tolkien. In my youth I was partial to the Elric of Melnibone works of the greatly under-rated Michael Moorecock. HP books should be treated as good fantasy works--if your kids get too into them, then you worry.
I don't assume so. That's why I have read them all before forming opinions.
Now that was a baaaaaad movie if I ever saw any...
This should answer your question about what the Wizard of Oz is about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.