What do you think of the Beatification of JOHN PAUL II?

[Truronian]

Anybody could report it. Or are you saying that the Pope controls all the media sources?

There is nothing to be gained from running such a news story. Catholics would simply get annoyed by such a story, while non-Catholics wouldn't care.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Monophysites (and to an extent, Arians and Nestorians) would argue the Catholic Church has done otherwise.

Interesting. The commandment says "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other god before me", doesn't it? Has anyone used that as a way of arguing FOR multiple Gods (since it doesn't say you can't have more than one God, merely that God must be the head honcho), or at least that's what it implies to me. Unless I'm just being an idiot, or unless that's just the shoddy KJV translation...

 

[NickyJ]

Let us assume the miracle did occur. Can you prove it occured by the intercession of JP2 rather then the patron saint of _______?

She said she prayed to John Paul II, not someone else.

Monophysites (and to an extent, Arians and Nestorians) would argue the Catholic Church has done otherwise.

Maybe they would. So?

Joseph Ratzinger, our current Pope.

Oh.

There is nothing to be gained from running such a news story. Catholics would simply get annoyed by such a story, while non-Catholics wouldn't care.

You could say that there was nothing to be gained from running such a news story as the pedophilia problem. Did that stop them from reporting it?

Interesting. The commandment says "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other god before me", doesn't it? Has anyone used that as a way of arguing FOR multiple Gods (since it doesn't say you can't have more than one God, merely that God must be the head honcho), or at least that's what it implies to me. Unless I'm just being an idiot, or unless that's just the shoddy KJV translation...

Definitely not. There is one, and only one, God.

 

[schlaufuchs]

You could say that there was nothing to be gained from running such a news story as the pedophilia problem. Did that stop them from reporting it?

Everyone loves a good scandal. Now if JPII was canonized on the basis of that miracle and then it later turned out to be a hoax, then it might be reported.

Definitely not. There is one, and only one, God.

Nice hand wave, mind giving some reasoning?

 

[Zack]

There is one, and only one, God.

....Who is three people in one?

 

[Cutlass]

Well it is not the Church who decides on who Saints are since that is the work of God. The words saint simply means sanctified one, and only God is the one who sanctifies people not an organisation.

To a person of faith, they would say that the power to grant miracles comes from God. But the naming of saints, the calling of a person a saint, that is the Church, not God. God does not send the church a list of those to be sainted. The church makes up its own mind on the subject.

 

[Lillefix]

Definitely not. There is one, and only one, God.

The wording is still VERY ambiguous.

 

[Shekwan]

I dunno, he's dead six years now so beautification would probably be a bit pointless. I see they dug him up again anyways and they're bandying around a big picture of him in St. Peter's Square regardless.

Its fooling nobody.

 

[Truronian]

You could say that there was nothing to be gained from running such a news story as the pedophilia problem. Did that stop them from reporting it?

Paedophilia cover-up are concerning to non-Catholics (as well as Catholics), and as such make for good news stories.

Few people believe that the nun in question was miraculously healed, and as such few people will care about a news story debunking it. Journalists don't run stories that no-one wants to hear about.

 

[El_Machinae]

There were many gods at the time those scripture were codified. In fact, part of the Israelite history is believed to be the migration from polytheism to monotheism, and some of the text in the Bible reflects that.

The idea of a single, dominating, unique God is (I think) borrowed from later philosophy. The implication of such an idea is that the other gods were not actually gods. That idea, though, is a progression.

It could be that JHWH was a local god, and demanded fealty of the Israelites in preference to the other gods. Later tradition then modified that idea as the monotheism progressed.

 

[Cheetah]

But they wouldn't add gods to the Bible. That would be blasphemy, and in direct violation of the Ten Commandments, which is a rather big no-no.

Yes, of course. Which is why they're titled as saint (or Saint? Should it be capitalised?) instead of god, demigod or anything similar.

The purpose of the saints however, seems to be very identical to that of the number of gods in a pantheon. A saint for this, a saint for that, a god for this, a god for that. People prayed to each of these gods to help them in their respective fields, and if I'm not mistaken, Catholics may pray to saints or ask the saints to intercede with God on behalf of the human. Since the saints are specialised into many different fields, I think the analogy is very obvious.

There were many gods at the time those scripture were codified. In fact, part of the Israelite history is believed to be the migration from polytheism to monotheism, and some of the text in the Bible reflects that.

The idea of a single, dominating, unique God is (I think) borrowed from later philosophy. The implication of such an idea is that the other gods were not actually gods. That idea, though, is a progression.

It could be that JHWH was a local god, and demanded fealty of the Israelites in preference to the other gods. Later tradition then modified that idea as the monotheism progressed.

Very much how I've come to understand the development of monotheism.

The saints came later though, but they do fill the exact same purpose as the multitude of gods in a pantheon.

 

[Dachs]

Monophysites (and to an extent, Arians and Nestorians) would argue the Catholic Church has done otherwise.

Arians might, if they still existed; both miaphysites and Nestorians are trinitarian and only disagree as to the mechanics of the Trinity.

 

[Ajidica]

I thought the Monophysites/Nestorians would disagree with the Catholics position on the nature of Christ because they have the dual nature of christ.

 

[Dachs]

I thought the Monophysites/Nestorians would disagree with the Catholics position on the nature of Christ because they have the dual nature of christ.

Monophysites don't disagree that Christ was divine, they disagree as to how that divinity was manifested in the person(s) of Christ.

 

[NickyJ]

Everyone loves a good scandal. Now if JPII was canonized on the basis of that miracle and then it later turned out to be a hoax, then it might be reported.

If it were a hoax, it would have been reported earlier. After all, "everyone loves a good scandal."

Nice hand wave, mind giving some reasoning?

Having lower gods, means that you have more than one god. God is the only god. Having more would be blasphemy.

....Who is three people in one?

Huh? What do you mean?

The wording is still VERY ambiguous.

How so?

Paedophilia cover-up are concerning to non-Catholics (as well as Catholics), and as such make for good news stories.

Few people believe that the nun in question was miraculously healed, and as such few people will care about a news story debunking it. Journalists don't run stories that no-one wants to hear about.

How do you know that few people believe it? Are you Catholic? Anyway, the news would still love a good controversy.

There were many gods at the time those scripture were codified. In fact, part of the Israelite history is believed to be the migration from polytheism to monotheism, and some of the text in the Bible reflects that.

What is that text? And how did they come to believe that it was the "migration from polytheism to monotheism"?

The idea of a single, dominating, unique God is (I think) borrowed from later philosophy. The implication of such an idea is that the other gods were not actually gods. That idea, though, is a progression.

The Bible says that God is the only god. Having another god is blasphemy, so it couldn't have been that the Bible said that there were other gods, then decided that there was only one.

It could be that JHWH was a local god, and demanded fealty of the Israelites in preference to the other gods. Later tradition then modified that idea as the monotheism progressed.

Who is JHWH? If you are referring to Christianity's God, then no. Otherwise, the Bible would have said that God ruled over other gods.

Yes, of course. Which is why they're titled as saint (or Saint? Should it be capitalised?) instead of god, demigod or anything similar.

They are not considered gods. They are considered the tools of God. Being the tool of God is an important thing. Thus, they are recognized as saints. Consider "saint" to mean "tool of God".

The purpose of the saints however, seems to be very identical to that of the number of gods in a pantheon. A saint for this, a saint for that, a god for this, a god for that. People prayed to each of these gods to help them in their respective fields, and if I'm not mistaken, Catholics may pray to saints or ask the saints to intercede with God on behalf of the human. Since the saints are specialised into many different fields, I think the analogy is very obvious.

As I have said time and time again, saints are not used as gods. Catholics do not pray to saints, as that would be sinful. No, mostly we pray through the saints, and some even believe that we pray with the saints.

 

[Truronian]

How do you know that few people believe it? Are you Catholic? Anyway, the news would still love a good controversy.

The Catholics who believe it would be the 'few' I was referring to. There is very little controversial about claiming the nun in question was not healed by a prayer to John Paul II. The people that would see such a proclamation as controversial would more than likely boycott any publication that ran such a story.

So on the one side you'e got people who don't care about the story, and on the other you've got people who would boycott you for running the story. Therefore, you don't run the story.

 

[Cheetah]

They are not considered gods. They are considered the tools of God. Being the tool of God is an important thing. Thus, they are recognized as saints. Consider "saint" to mean "tool of God".

As I have said time and time again, saints are not used as gods. Catholics do not pray to saints, as that would be sinful. No, mostly we pray through the saints, and some even believe that we pray with the saints.

'Praying to' or 'praying through', they function in very much the same way.

Thus, there is a good argument to be made that Christianity - at least the Catholic part of it - is a polytheistic religion in a sense.

 

[Arakhor]

Can we not run our mouths off at a dead man who was respected by many people around the world? It seems just a little bit tasteless to me.

 

[Zack]

Huh? What do you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

That should have been extremely obvious.

 

[Maniacal]

Can we not run our mouths off at a dead man who was respected by many people around the world? It seems just a little bit tasteless to me.

Mussolini is still respected by many (if a minority) of people in Italy, does that mean we shouldn't discuss his failures? Even more so with Stalin.