Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, thousands of saints have come and gone. Many of them become patron saints because of the experiences in their own lives. These experiences are often bizarre and frequently gruesome. This list looks at ten of the more unusual cases.
St Dymphna’s story is truly sad, but one that parallels many popular folk legends. Dymphna was a virgin daughter of a pagan king. She secretly baptized into Christianity. After her mother died, her father became insane with grief, and declared that he would only marry another woman as beautiful as his wife. Eventually he noticed that Dymphna his own daughter, shared his wife’s beauty. He determined to marry her, but the girl fled from him in horror, accompanied by a trusted priest. They sought sanctuary elsewhere but were found by her father’s men. The priest was promptly killed, and her father once again proposed to her. She refused to marry him, and he himself struck off her head. Dymphna is depicted as a beautiful, virginal, young girl. She is often holding a holy bible and white flowers. She is the patroness of incest victims and the mentally disturbed.
Simon Zelotes (or Simon the Zealot) was one of the twelve disciples. He had previously been a violent man but was converted by Jesus. Not much is known of his life after Jesus’ death, but he is believed to have travelled widely preaching the gospel. Legend has it that he was martyred in Mesopotamia by being hung upside down and sawed to death – longitudinally. He is often depicted holding the saw that was the instrument of his martyrdom.
St Apollonia was an old deaconess who fell victim to the persecutions of Christians in Alexandria. As Christians fled the city, Apollonia was seized by a mob. They beat her and knocked all her teeth out. They then lit a huge fire to burn her if she did not renounce Christianity. Begging for time as though she would comply with their demands, instead she jumped into the flames herself and died without renouncing her faith. She is the patroness of dentists, and is depicted holding pincers containing her tooth or with a gold tooth on a necklace.
St Margaret of Antioch was a popular saint in the middle ages. Legend states that she was the daughter of a pagan priest, but decided to convert to Christianity. This angered her father as well as a suitor whose advances she rejected. They had her reported to the authorities as a Christian, and she was jailed. In jail she met the devil in the form of a dragon, who proceeded to swallow her whole. The cross she carried however, irritated the dragon’s belly and she was able to tear her way out using the cross and emerge whole from the dragon. Several attempts were then made to execute her by drowning and fire, all of which failed, leading many who witnessed her tortures to be converted. She was finally beheaded. She is often depicted emerging from the dragon’s belly, cross in hand. Appropriately, she is the patroness of childbirth.
Saint Bartholomew is one of the Apostles of Christ. After Christ’s death he travelled the world as far as India, evangelizing and preaching the gospel. He fell afoul with the pagans in Armenia where he was martyred. Legend states that he was flayed alive (removing the skin from the body while keeping it as intact as possible), and then crucified upside down on a cross. He is the saint invoked by those who deal with skins and leather. He is depicted in art as a man holding his flayed skin.
St Christopher belonged to a tribe in North Africa known as the Marmaritae. That area of the world was then largely unknown and considered inhabited by all sorts of strange creatures, including dog-headed men. Some conflicting legends surround Christopher. In one he is a dog-head captured by the Romans and forced to serve them. He becomes a Christian convert and thus a unique figure amongst his kind. Another legend has St Christopher carrying an infant across a river, only to find him growing unbelievably heavy as they progress. The child then reveals himself to be the Christ child and his heaviness due to the weight of the world on his shoulders. Still other legends exist about St Christopher actually being granted the face of a dog by God, to ward off unwanted female attention. He is often depicted as a richly robed dog-headed man – a cynocephalus.
St Roch was born of nobility but soon renounced his life of wealth and privilege to work amongst plague victims. He travelled the country effecting many healings of plague victims. When he too contracted the plague, he retreated to a secret hut in the woods. He was there befriended by a dog, who brought him sustenance and licked the sores on his leg until he was healed. When he eventually returned to civilization, many who had previously known him were dead. He was imprisoned, and with his dog continued to minister to suffering prisoners until his death. He is the patron saint of dogs and is invoked against diseased body parts. He is depicted lifting one hem of his robe to reveal his leg sores, while his faithful dog licks them.

As a beautiful woman St Agatha attracted the attentions of a powerful judge named Quintianus. When she refused his advances he had her sent to a brothel. She prayed and after 30 days remained still untouched. Quintianus then ordered that she be chained, whipped, stretched on a rack and burnt. During these tortures her breasts were cut off. Legend states that St Peter miraculously healed her wound that night. The enraged Quintianus then had her rolled on hot coals and glass until she finally expired. She is the patron saint of breast cancer sufferers. She is depicted carrying her breasts on a plate. On her saint day ( 5 February) in Sicily, little marzipan confections resembling breasts are still eaten today.
St Denis had an exceptional youth, testifying and converting pagans to Christianity. He eventually became bishop of Paris. His many conversions however, ultimately enraged the pagan priests, who decided to execute him by beheading. Legend states that after his head was chopped off, he picked it up and walked several miles with it tucked under his arm, preaching all the way. He is represented as a headless body holding its decapitated head in its hands.
St Lucy as a young girl decided to devote her life to Christ and refused to marry the groom selected by her mother. Though her mother eventually accepted her decision, her jilted suitor was not so generous, and reported her as a Christian to the authorities. Trying unsuccessfully to force her into prostitution, the soldiers found her body strangely heavy and immovable. Thus as punishment, she was tortured by having her eyes gouged out, and then killed. Legend states that God restored her sight before she died. She is represented in iconography as a young martyr holding her eyes on a plate, and is the patron saint of eye problems and blindness.





















March 29th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Man it must of sucked to be an early christian. Thank God I’m no saint:P
March 29th, 2009 at 1:54 am
all those deaths are awful! i’d rather not be a saint!
March 29th, 2009 at 2:02 am
I suppose the irony is in the fact that the “Christian” Church eventually came to embrace such a propensity for gruesome deaths. This is why I don’t mind Creationists; there’s certainly far worse on the scale of religious fanaticism.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:18 am
@Matt: you’re right, but you have to mind that we are living in the 21st century. The christians were cruel and fanatic in a time where everyone was cruel or fanatic
March 29th, 2009 at 2:23 am
am i the only one hear who lol’d @#3
March 29th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Thanks to John Paul 11 the catholic church is suddenly a bit top heavy with saints. I read that he made more saints in his twenty odd years as pope than there were saints before he came along. So, the question is, what are all these new ones the patron saintsof? Maybe they have a modern flavour, like St Chavney, the patron saint of wii consoles. Can’t help thinking ol’ JP2 might have devalued the whole saints thing, causing galloping saint inflation. If it is indeed possible to devalue such nonsense. And don’t even get me started on the cherabim, seraphim, archangels, uberangels, quadrangels etc.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:28 am
With regards to comment number three, surely Mother Theresa had the most tragic death of all, dying on the same day as Princess Di. Nobody noticed.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:33 am
whoopee: you are right about JPII – unfortunately it worked in the reverse and he made so many that no one knows who they are and it diluted the quality of the early ones. His pontificate was a disaster. Thankfully Pope Benedict is taking things very very slowly. Remember though – not every saint is a patron. According to the Catholic Church, every person in heaven is a saint – being declared so by the Pope just means that everyone around the world can revere the person. Most of the saints are unknown for that reason
Oh – and regarding your mention of Mother Theresa (who I am not a particularly big fan of) – I believe she wanted obscurity in her death – and she certainly got that!
March 29th, 2009 at 2:39 am
whoopee: mother theresa died about a week after princess diana and a lot of people DID notice, the world lost two of its greatest humanitarians so close together
and ouch, sucks to be a saint
March 29th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Some other stuff i read about Mother Theresa, which I’m sure you know.. the documentary in 1969 that propelled her to stardom had Malcolm Muggeridge (the very pious ex-BBC stalwart) convinced that she had godly powers because the lighting in her place of work (hospital) should have been too dim to create a viable picture for the television yet it turned out perfectly well lit. The truth was that the cameraman was trying out a new type of film that dealt better with dimly lit areas. Muggeridge ignored this and went on about her on all sorts of religious shows on telly. And now she’s a saint. Thanks to Kodak.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Don’t mean to come across as anti-mother-theresa. She did some good work. It’s just funny how these legends are created.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:08 am
interesting list!!
March 29th, 2009 at 4:38 am
Really Interesting List. Being A Atheist I can’t Understand How People Can Beleave This Stuff. Number 10’s The Patron Saint Of Incest Victims.. Lucky Her.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:48 am
There is only one tragedy in life- not to become saint!
March 29th, 2009 at 5:15 am
So incredibly happy I didn’t live back then!
March 29th, 2009 at 5:18 am
I’m an agnostic with a vague C of E/Methodist upbringing but I find the lives of saints absolutely fascinating. Good list.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:22 am
Becoming a saint of some fairy tale… please, these people’s lives were needlessly wasted. Stupid pagans killing Christians, stupid Christians being Christians. Stupid people looking for reasons to kill.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:47 am
i don’t tell anything
March 29th, 2009 at 6:02 am
going to a catholic high school (im not catholic) i learned about a lot of these in church history. that was my worst class too….great list!
March 29th, 2009 at 6:04 am
@whoopee
Patron saint of wii console. I LOL’ed so hard at that….
March 29th, 2009 at 6:19 am
the fact that all this crap is still accepted by Catholic Church is a clear example of its sillyness.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:21 am
#5 “granted the face of a dog by God, to ward off unwanted female attention”.
I think this may have happened to me!
March 29th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Saints are just people in heaven. Not everyone is going to be a patron of something. To pray means to ask humbly. Prayers to saints are meant to ask them to intercede with the Big Man on our behalf.
We tell the stories of their lives and deaths because they are inspirational. To the Catholics the saints are our heros. They are people we should emulate in their efforts to do what is good and what is right. What is so important about martyrs in particular is that you could kill them before you could force them to do something that was plainly wrong. Most were directly tortured in some way to get them to denounce their faith.
Traditionally, all children baptized Catholic share at least one name with a saint. That is why some people from other cultures have a ‘christian’ name and their given name. It takes a very long time for people to be cannonized as saints so the backlog was huge when Pope John Paul II started going pressing to clear it up. Part of the effects of that is that a lot of new names from new cultures have become available for baptisms. Also, a lot of countries now have their first saints. The USA got it’s first couple too.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:36 am
Interesting list. Funny though how history and art tends to recall them more for the ick-factor of their gruesome deaths than for what good they did to deserve elevation to sainthood. If I got flayed alive or violently de-boobed I dunno if I’d want people commemorating it by eating marzipan mammaries.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Regarding #8, ST. Apollonia: why is she a saint if she committed suicide? Don’t suicides go to hell?
March 29th, 2009 at 7:09 am
strange…. no mention of Saint Agatha, usually depicted showing off her breasts…. in a plate
March 29th, 2009 at 7:15 am
loved this list. It makes me cringe to read about being skinned alive and sawed in half. Not to mention that poor lady in number 3. If we could only be so strong to hold onto our faith in the face of this magnitude of torture.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Nice list Dana! Not enough mention of Saints these days and their sacrifices. Like St Roch, a dog once licked my weeping sores. Unlike St Roch, my sores became infected…
March 29th, 2009 at 7:26 am
St Margaret of Antioch – the patron saint of childbirth. So all mothers are dragon incarnations of the devil? Sounds like the Catholic Church to me alright….
March 29th, 2009 at 7:27 am
chutia – St Agatha is there, and sure enough she is holding her breasts (chopped off) on a plate.
There seems to be a pattern here – one with her eyes (gauged out) on a plate, one with her teeth (knocked out) on a necklace, one with his balls (ripped off)on a stick, one with his heart (cut out) on a pole, one with her buttock cheeks (sliced off) on a silver salver, one with his penis (cut off) on a coctail stick and one with his head under his arm. It’s all a bit samey if you ask me
March 29th, 2009 at 7:27 am
24. Spange – “history and art tends to recall them more for the ick-factor”
In regards to art, they are depicted that way because many Christian religious paintings served a narrative purpose. A vast majority of Christians and recently converted were illiterate back then, so the stories were translated into images and symbols of defining Christian moments that made them worthy of sainthood. Northern Renaissance religious works relied so much on symbolism that (with understanding of the various symbols) the life, deeds and general personality of the depicted saint can be derived from a single painting. The acts of torture or organs on a plate…well, I don’t think people back then had the luxury of squeamishness that we cling to now.
As far as WHY they celebrate skin flaying or marzipan boobies…well, you’d have to ask a Christian because I don’t know!
March 29th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Very interesting list. I am not Catholic so never fully understood how someone became a saint. Are any of those recently named saints, patron saints? What are they patron saints of and how are they remembered in stories? Alot of these say legend says… were these real people or passed down stories to each generation? I too have always been fascinated with saints. As a child I always thought they were something like a ghost that helped in times of trouble.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Chutia you poor child. See Number 3.
As I have said before, “Every time a stupid comment is made on ListVerse, a retarded angel/Saint gets its wings…”
March 29th, 2009 at 7:50 am
#1 is definetaly creepy.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:01 am
why the hate for mother teresa?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Very well-researched list and fascinating material. What is Simon Zealots the patron saint of?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:07 am
31: Gabi. Good point re: the depiction in art. I always take the placing of organs on a plate to suggest an offering – essentially a (possibly willing) sacrifice. The very unpleasantness of that in itself conveys a message and I think it’s that message that prods any tendency to squeamishness. I don’t think we should tell people it’s the right thing to do to give up life for faith. I’m sure that most people don’t see it that way now, but I imagine that such imagery was (as you point out) much more influential on the psyche of people living several centuries ago.
32: JwJwBean. I was just looking these people up to check the dates on them and whilst initially skimming the info I read that Margaret of Antioch was declared apocryphal in the 5th century – that said hers is one of the least likely sounding legends. I always thought they were mostly real people but that time and retelling has probably taken their stories a little way from the truth.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:10 am
spange – if faith isnt something to give up your life for then what it? (not trying to argue, just curious)
March 29th, 2009 at 8:15 am
interesting list…silly catholics…
March 29th, 2009 at 8:15 am
why.. plates? lol
March 29th, 2009 at 8:19 am
This was pretty interesting. I enjoyed reading it.
I’m not a Christian, but I kind of like the concept behind the patron saints. I can’t really explain it. I just like it, the same way I like namedays
March 29th, 2009 at 8:20 am
St. George, patron of England, killed a dragon… ¿dragon?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:26 am
# 10 St. Dymphna – very sad he must have been really possessed by his wife – sad ending
Thanks Dana.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:31 am
#38 Heyyooo: That is a good question. I don’t have wholehearted faith in anything at this time. So I don’t know if I would give my life up for it. I guess that believing in something with faith and being told your faith will be proven and rewarded in death, then it isn’t so hard to give your life for it.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:31 am
#41 IrigD: What are namedays? I am curious.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Having attended parochial (that is, Catholic) schools from K – 12, I had much exposure to the saints. In grammar school, when I was 8, 9, 10 my favorite book in the tiny school library was “The Lives of the Saints” fully illustrated. I’ll bet I can still recite some sections by heart.
I was simply astonished that anyone would gladly go through what these people went through for the sake of not denying their faith for a single day! I was still at an age where I was both proud and aghast, but pride won the day every time.
Yet only two years later, at 12, my teacher nun ripped all pride of faith from me, indeed, ripped my faith from me. Now I can look back at the stories in Lives of the Saints with a different eye. They may not all be true, but that hardly matters. What matters is that they are stories to give strength in time of trial to everyone, not just Catholics, and not just about faith.
Looked at correctly, these stories should be able to guide us through any kind of life crises; just change the words as required and the story is the same.
Just a thought.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
jwjwbean – its interesting because there are the obvious things people would give up there lives for spouses, children, country (at least I hope) but there are obviously other things that people give up their lives for. Going along with what you said I wonder if an atheist would die for his beliefs.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:42 am
segue
how did the nun rip your faith from you?
Did you walk in on her diddling with herself?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:47 am
I think some things should be cleared up. For example, St. Christopher is no longer an actual saint because they are not sure (the Church) if he actually existed:
http://www.catholic.org/saints/faq.php#St.%20Christopher
“Before the formal canonization process began in the fifteenth century, many saints were proclaimed by popular approval. This was a much faster process but unfortunately many of the saints so named were based on legends, pagan mythology, or even other religions — for example, the story of the Buddha traveled west to Europe and he was “converted” into a Catholic saint! In 1969, the Church took a long look at all the saints on its calendar to see if there was historical evidence that that saint existed and lived a life of holiness. In taking that long look, the Church discovered that there was little proof that many “saints”, including some very popular ones, ever lived. Christopher was one of the names that was determined to have a basis mostly in legend. Therefore Christopher (and others) were dropped from the universal calendar.
Some saints were considered so legendary that their cult was completely repressed (including St. Ursula). Christopher’s cult was not suppressed but it is confined to local calendars (those for a diocese, country, or so forth).”
March 29th, 2009 at 8:50 am
It’s unfortunate… even my patron saint’s existence is debated
” It is not therefore meant to cast even the shadow of a doubt around the existence of the saint. But the conclusion reached when these texts have been carefully studied is that, if the principal facts forming the outline are to be accepted as true, the multitude of details by which these facts are almost obscured, most of the wonderful narratives with which they are embellished, and the long discourses that are put into the mouth of St. Catherine, are to be rejected as inventions, pure and simple.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)
March 29th, 2009 at 9:06 am
38:heyyooo. In the scope of my life, I don’t think there is anything worth willingly dying for – I’d probably risk my life for a few things, ie people, but no causes, certainly not faith. I understand to an extent why people might feel like they could or should sacrifice themselves for a cause, but I just don’t think it’s the right way. I suppose that’s all idealistic thinking – that we shouldn’t fight things out we should talk – and the reality almost demands that conflicts provide sacrifices, willing or otherwise, to a cause. That doesn’t make it less wrong though.
All of which is a terrible digression from the gory paintings and bizarre confections. The difference here is that I rather suspect many of the people listed above had little choice in whether they died at the hands of their oppressors.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:32 am
AG: actually they have it slightly wrong – being dropped from the universal calendar only meant that you didn’t have a universal feast day; St Christopher, St Philomena, and the others are still considered to be saints and can still be prayed to – they are just not mentioned in Mass on the same day through the Church anymore
heyyooo: I think it isn’t so much hate of Mother Theresa – it is just that she is held up in such high regard by the world that people tend to be a little more critical than usual. Mind you – we have had some comments on previous lists that really were hating on her – for that I have no explanation – some people are just mean I guess
March 29th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Spange: you are right – these people mostly had no choice – I guess the choice that they DID have was whether to have dignity in their dying – which is what makes them saints
March 29th, 2009 at 9:54 am
This was an interesting list. I don’t believe in any of this saint and martyr stuff, however. It’s amazing what people would do for a their faith….or a klondike bar.
24. Spange: “violently de-boobed” had me spitting out my corn flakes! Thanks for that!
March 29th, 2009 at 9:58 am
47. heyyooo – Why wouldn’t an atheist die for his beliefs?
Lack of a belief in a god doesn’t mean a lack of all beliefs.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:11 am
32. JwJwBean:
The way canonization works is a bit difficult to explain. From what I remember and I haven’t bothered to relook it up there are several steps to it.
The first and simplest way to be considered a saint is to be a martyr. To be a martyr you have to die while being persecuted for your faith. Some one has got to be making an active effort to get you to deny your religion at the time or it just plain doesn’t count.
The second way is much harder. A saint has three miracles attributed to their prayers during their lifetime. There can be no scientific explanation for those miracles. Then, there has to be three miracles attributed to the blessed’s intervention after they have died. Again there can be no scientific explanation.
The investigations into the lives of the people suspected of joining the Church Triumphant in heaven take a really really long time. Typically it takes more than a hundred years to before some one is canonized. Part of the reason for that is because it makes it easier to be certain if you investigate past the point where people are actively campaigning on the behalf of the person.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:11 am
scrumpy – i was just posing a question. it just seems interesting to die for the belief in nothing. Atheists believe there is no god, so essentially they are dying for a belief in nothing. It would seem difficult to die for the belief of nothing. But i suppose if your belief is nothing, the life is nothing and therefore the prospect of dying is not that important.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:12 am
st. christopher is still extremely popular, because he is the patron saint of travelers. many people keep one of his medals in their car, or on their person when flying (even some non-catholics who see it as a good luck charm anyway). for the same reason he’s always been very popular with sailors. athletes like him too. and he has 2 tom wait songs that mention him!
how could i know all this and not know that he was initially depicted as a dog-headed reformed cannibal over ten feet tall? (at least according to wiki).
when i was 8, i was preparing for my first communion (a catholic sacrament where one participates in the “body and blood” of christ eucharist ceremony for the first time) and we had to pick a saint in religious ed class to “guide” us, i picked saint lucy/lucia (i liked lucia better because of it’s closer tie to the latin term for light, from which it was derived)!
weirdly, a few years later i was diagnosed with a rare eye disease Thygeson’s superficial punctate keratitis, it basically cleared up the the time i was 15, but it made me wonder why i’d been so drawn to the patron of sight (and blindness) a bit earlier. (in truth, i was probably because i’d gotten glasses at 8, but still, if you believe you think of these connections.) i am not a practicing catholic today, i’m an atheist, but still respect those who feel faith betters their lives.
http://webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu/dept/DIAGTRT/Thygeson/Thygeson.htm
-this site describes thygeson’s irritation as “minor” but i can tell you that when it was in a flare up i had almost unbearable photosensitivity and it felt like there was sharp sand in both my eyes that hurt even more when i sifted my gaze or blinked (and i was 11 when it started).
and the people who mentioned that a saint had to hold or otherwise show their personal symbol for the illiterate faithful to identify them are totally correct.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:18 am
57. heyyooo-
“But i suppose if your belief is nothing, the life is nothing and therefore the prospect of dying is not that important.”
or if you don’t believe in god(s) or an afterlife that makes this life EVERYTHING, all we get, not nothing.
and that means you might give your life to save the life of someone you loved, to allow your young child to grow up, for example. just because someone doesn’t believe in god doesn’t mean they fail to care about anything or anyone, what an ignorant thing to say.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Very interesting list. I do think sometimes too much is made of saints, that their status may be raised a lil too high, but the things some of them suffered boggles the mind!
What’s interesting though, is that of the Christians who have died or been killed for their faith in the entire 2000 year history of the church, 70% have been killed within the last 100 years. Makes you wonder what’s going on that we don’t hear about.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:24 am
re my 51: “OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi” what gives lol, I didn’t write that!
March 29th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I’m just curious as to why there are atheists flaming on a clearly Christian list? You wouldn’t go on a gay dating site to flame gays so why do it here? I’m not against athiests in the slightest, live and let live I say, and I appreciate the non-believers who’ve commented to debate and question, as a Theology student I like to look at both sides of an argument. But why come on to flame? You’re doing no one a favour and hate to break it to ya, but your flame wont suddenly make someone instant realise the error of their ‘dirty Christian ways’ and rally to your cause.
Truth is no one knows whats out there, neither me nor you, so dont act like you do, you just come off as idiotic, which im sure wasnt your top priority, right?
Live and let live…
March 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Well, I never understood the whole business of Christian saints. Seems to go against that whole first and second commandment thing, but what do I know? My religious beliefs are not thing here, the important thing here is that whole Sainte Agatha business. Rather barbaric. Rather barbaric way of commemorating her, as well. But I suppose it’s important to make the breast of a bad situation.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:53 am
59. lo – “and that means you might give your life to save the life of someone you loved, to allow your young child to grow up, for example. just because someone doesn’t believe in god doesn’t mean they fail to care about anything or anyone, what an ignorant thing to say.”
I think he was talking about dying “for your faith” or lack thereof. Meaning you would be willing to die to defend your belief in no religion/gods. Not that an atheist, or most other people for that matter, wouldn’t be willing to die for loved ones.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
64. Kim-
i know what was being discussed, i read all the comments, which is my habit.
because 57. heyyooo obviously misinterpreted the initial response to his query:
55. scrumpy -
“47. heyyooo – Why wouldn’t an atheist die for his beliefs?
Lack of a belief in a god doesn’t mean a lack of all beliefs.”
-as meaning that an atheist would indeed die to protect a denial in god. and someone might forcibly resist conversion to religion to the point they would die, who knows, someone might feel that remaining true to their own lack of belief and freedom to have it was worth their death (now, the chances of an atheist who rejects the notion of an afterlife willingly exiting this life to prove a point is probably less than someone laying down their life in a sure belief they’re heading straight to bliss in the arms of god, but it’s not impossible).
the larger point which heyyooo missed was that atheist can have values and hold beliefs other than a belief in god. a belief in not harming others, a belief in honesty, a belief in respect for all beliefs, these are just possible examples.
so for heyyooo to make the leap from:
“Atheists believe there is no god, so essentially they are dying for a belief in nothing. It would seem difficult to die for the belief of nothing.”
to “But i suppose if your belief is nothing, the life is nothing and therefore the prospect of dying is not that important.”
is both insulting and reveals his (or her) ignorance.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Spange (61): that is weird – your comment was duplicated so I deleted the one with the missing sentence and left that one. I have no idea how that happened – I promise
March 29th, 2009 at 11:18 am
lo and others – one thing we all know for sure – everyone here has a set of morals and live by them (and would die for them in some cases). So let us all at least agree that while we are different in the beliefs – we are similar in at least having some
Friendly comments win many more friends (not surprisingly!)
March 29th, 2009 at 11:32 am
jfrater,
i thought my comments were fairly nice, but i feel i was justified in pointing out that one comment showed someone’s ignorance of what it means to be an atheist. i was trying to correct that state of ignorance by providing them with some information, so perhaps they won’t (accidentally?) insult a whole group of people like that in the future. it’s not a crime to be genuinely ignorant -we all are about some subjects! but choosing to willfully remain ignorant is worthy of scorn.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:35 am
54: oouchan.
Sorry you lost some cornflakes, a terrible thing to be sure!
66: jfrater. It’s cool, the intertubes have strange and mysterious ways
There’s much worse things that could have been appended to my post.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:50 am
lo: indeed – I have found you to be a very pleasant and honest commenter
March 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am
well, that just made my day jamie
March 29th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
and i meant to type “well thank you,…”
March 29th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
48. whoopee: You are crude, rude, and it’s none of your business.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Excellent list Jamie. Perfect for a Sunday.
I have always believed the Saints were in fact real people. Their stories have been embellished or, more properly, described within the mind-set of the time. People actually did once believe in Dragons and multi-headed beasts. I am sure that their *true* stories too are worthy of veneration or respect.
Segue: I am also curious as to what happened to destroy your belief system. Only if it is not too personal or painful to relate of course.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
whoa – people being sawn in two, skin ripped off, busts loped off, eyes gouged out – no wonder this list made the LV! I never even noticed the tits on a plate until I read it through. By the time I got to No1, I was ready for it! What are these things on the plate – eyes! Of course! Sop ironic all this stuff, so ironic. Fancy having all your teeth smashed out of your mouth only to become the patron of Dentists
Geez. No wonder this stuff used to put the willies up me.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
63.justrd That was funny!!
March 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
8. J. Frater:
Pope John Paul II’s pontificate was a disaster? I and millions other beg to differ. He is one of the greatest Popes ever.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
lo – agreed that last sentence was not articulated well at al and I am sorry for the confusion. I know and understand that a person can have beliefs outside of religious beliefs, such as political, moral, etc. My point was would an atheist be willing to die for their belief or for their faith in no god. My point is since an atheist believes there is no god, there is nothing after death no consequences after death making death not a huge deal, obviously aside from family, friends that are “left behind” for a lack of a better term.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
lo – agreed that last sentence was not articulated well at al and I am sorry for the confusion. I know and understand that a person can have beliefs outside of religious beliefs, such as political, moral, etc. My point was would an atheist be willing to die for their belief or for their faith in no god. My point is since an atheist believes there is no god, there is nothing after death no consequences after death making death not a huge deal, obviously aside from family, friends that are “left behind” for a lack of a better term.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
74. Mom424:…Segue: I am also curious as to what happened to destroy your belief system.
****
Mom, since you asked so nicely; I was in 7th grade, about 12 years old, and we were having our “religion class”. My teacher, Sister Eileen Therese, was talking about the need for Catholic baptism for entry to heaven.
I raised my hand, “Sister, what about people who never have access to a Catholic? People in deep jungles in Africa or New Guinea?”
Sister E.T. just looked down her nose at me and said, “Everyone gets a chance.”
I stood up,”No! No, they don’t. Some tribes never see a civilized man.”
“In that case, in any case where someone is not baptized Catholic, they go to hell.”
“Babies who die before they are born?”
“yes”
I asked her several ways, how could a loving God condemn to hell absolutely innocent souls because of circumstances over which they had no control.
In every instance, her answer was that yes, God did, indeed, condemn those innocent souls to hell.
That was it for me.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
80. segue
I completely agree with you. thats one of the hardest things for me to accept about christianity. Ghandi, Moses, Noah, all these people are going to hell.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
i dont know a whole lot about christianity but I KNOW that is not what the Bible teaches, I am sorry that happened to you segue, but you were VERY misinformed.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
John: unfortunately he committed more scandalous acts than any pope in history and he presided over the greatest scandal to ever hit the church – the sexual abuse scandal. Benedict within his first year began to fix things that JPII simply couldn’t. I am sure JPII was a holy man – but he was a terrible Pope and certainly doesn’t deserve the title “The Great” which previously was given to only a few Popes whose influence we still feel today – such as Pope Saint Gregory I and Pope Saint Leo I.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
segue: That nun was wrong. The true teaching of the Catholic Church is:
1. Any person who does not have access to the Church can be saved by their desire (which all people are born with) for baptism – this imparts baptism which is essential for salvation (it is called Baptism of Desire – Baptismus Flaminis, and is a dogma). This also applies to people who are wrongly baptized. Wikipedia explains it really well here.
2. Babies and children up to the age of reason (around 7 usually) who die without baptism go to Limbus Infantum – (the limbo of the infants) in which they remain forever in a state of perfect natural happiness. They don’t go to heaven but they don’t suffer. There is still room for theological speculation on where exactly Limbo is (there are two Limbos btw, the Limbo of the infants and the Limbo of the Fathers – the bosom of Abraham – where holy people who died before Jesus came went – namely, the saints of the Old Testament). In the creed it says that Jesus descended into hell – this is a reference to him going to the Limbo of the Fathers and sending all of the patriarchs to heaven. Some theologians say that limbo is on the most outer edge of hell – others disagree. What you believe is up to you according to the Church as it has not made any dogmatic statements on the issue.
Ultimately – the Catholic Church says that those who are sinful and do not repent go to hell – everyone else ends up in either Limbo or (ultimately) heaven – though some pass through purgatory on their way
And so ends today’s theology lesson
March 29th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Oh – and point 2 in my last comment also solves the problem that RandomPrecision raised: Saints Moses and Noah (along with all the other just people who were dead) went to heaven when Jesus descended into “hell” to free them.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I thought the concept of a “limbo” was already rejected by the Catholic Church?
March 29th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Segue: My mother also had her crisis of faith at the hands of a nun. She received a beating at the hands of said nun for a theft she didn’t commit. Her excommunication upon marrying my father was just the icing on the cake. These occurrences did have a positive outcome; my mother made sure that her children were exposed to all religions and we are very tolerant of others’ beliefs as a result. I believe that your crisis likely too had some positive influence – you have answers now to questions you wouldn’t have needed to ask had you been satisfied with that nun.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Interesting list… Even though (surprisingly) I actually knew about all but one of these, I didn’t know the more gruesome details of a few of their deaths.
My aunt is a very devout Catholic and has a quite large image of St. Lucy on her bedroom wall and every time I go to Mexico and sleep over at her house, I never want to sleep in that room. Even though I know it stands for something good, it still freaks me out a little to see her holding her own eyes on a plate. The fact that it is a very beautifully made and detailed image of her only adds to the eeriness of it.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Mom424: nope – some modern theologians like to toy with the idea of it not existing but the Church has neither confirmed nor denied officially in the form of dogma. For now it remains speculative (though it carries the force of the majority of theological thinking for the last 2,000 years). At some point the Church may speak definitively and finally (like it has done on women priests for example) but that normally doesn’t happen unless the debate begins to rage out of control.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent article on it which you can read here. Unfortunately the press tends to publish statements by officials of the Church (including the Pope) as if they were all dogmatic – but while the Pope himself could deny limbo, it does not mean he is right. The only dogmatic decrees on limbo so far pertain to limbo of the fathers and they are to confirm its existence.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
86. Meg
Yes and no. There are levels of beliefs. Limbo is one of the lesser ones. Basically there are a lot of superstions that masquerade as beliefs, but really they are just fun traditions. Limbo, purgatory, and hell are all something you can still be catholic and not believe in. The top level stuff are the sacraments, followed by the Nicean Creed, then comes a bunch of catholic weirdness that is fun, but optional.
May I suggest that that be a list actually? What is fundamental to the different religions of the world and required to call yourself a member of each faith? The compare and contrast part is pretty cool to do.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
About the Mother Teresa hating: Critics have questioned if advising destitute woman not to try to prevent pregnancy but to have faith that God “will provide,” was more cruel than charitable. The argument was that these children were starving and not able to get medical care, why then bring more into the world when they couldn’t care for the ones they already had?
Also there were questions as to why the Missionaries of Charity had 50 million (dollars I think) in donations that was being held in a bank and not getting to the agencies. (I don’t know if this is true or not.)
Further there were reports of cruel treatment to the sick and dying children from staff and volunteers; reuse of needles; and tying mentally challenged adults and children to their beds. (Again, I don’t know if this is true or not.)
She also caused a lot of controversy for describing abortion as “the greatest destroyer of peace today.”
There is a book called “The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice” by Christopher Hitchens that is very critical of her.
Before I get torn apart, I’m not saying any of this is true or not true, I’m just informing people who wondered why all the hating of Mother Teresa.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
jfrater (84): In your last point, you stated that those who sin and do not repent go to hell. I completely agree with that, but I’ve always had a bit of a question about that.. So, let’s say I sinned. And so I start thinking: “Oh, wow. I sinned… I’m going to hell. Wait a second, I don’t want to go to hell!… I have an idea! This is what I’ll do: I’ll repent. That way, I don’t go to hell! Bingo!” But in that situation, I’d be repenting for the wrong reason. I’d be repenting because of selfishness, I’d be repenting only because I don’t want to go to hell. And caring only about yourself is, in itself, a sin. So, how am I supposed to know when I’m repenting for real and when I’m repenting out of pure selfishness?
Such a complicated issue…
March 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
CYN
is there a particular reason you keep deleting my comments?
March 29th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
badlist: hey – there are no comments being deleted at all now – we have had a meeting about it and you are free to speak your mind
telosphilos: Purgatory and Hell are both dogmatic – you have to believe those to be Catholic. Limbo is not dogmatic so you don’t have to.
Rosa: the Catholic Church teaches that God forgives any person who earnestly is sorry for their sin (whether you are earnest is between you and Him). But because of justice, God will forgive a person even if they are only sorry because they fear hell – this is called “imperfect contrition” or “attrition”. If a person is sorry because of the love of God, it is called “perfect contrition” and it absolves you from sin even before you confess. Wikipedia explains it quite succinctly:
March 29th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
79. heyyooo-
i’m glad you didn’t mean to be insulting, thank you. but i still have to differ with this part (emphasis mine):
“My point is since an atheist believes there is no god, there is nothing after death no consequences after death making death not a huge deal, obviously aside from family, friends that are “left behind” for a lack of a better term.”
when looked at from the perspective that there is neither a punishment to fear nor a reward to gain upon death for those who don’t believe in an after-life i guess the whole “fear of hellfire” thing goes out the window. so if that was what was making death frightening and worth postponing then death would certainly be more appealing without it.
but you must also remember that those who don’t believe the individual personality (the soul many would call it) survives death see death as a total extinguishment of “me,” so it can’t hurt or anything, no one is left to feel it (the final moments could be agony, but then it winks into nothingness).
and the other-side of that coin is that if you are enjoying anything at all about being alive, having a sense of self, an awareness of existence -and you believe this is the only chance you’ll ever have to do so, the only time you will ever exist- you wouldn’t really be careless about ending it all. at least i wouldn’t. i’d venture to say that death is a much bigger deal for those you see it as a total negation of personal existence than it is for those you see it as a “bridge” to a reunion with god and/or loved ones, or eternal knowledge and freedom, or whatever.
i’m not saying i personally believe in total annihilation of the “personal soul” at the moment of death, but i certainly know people who do. and i’ve spent time considering if deciding it was true would alter the way i live my life.
just some more food for thought.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
lo – thanks for responding and I enjoy the different view point. I guess what I am thinking of is as you said some people. not you personally, believe that when a person dies they are done, its over. If this is the case then there is no higher purpose but to be, and if that is the case what distinguishes us from a plant, an animal, walnut, or cd case?
In regards to your third paragraph “the other side of that coin”, I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that your main point is this is the only ride you got so you better ride it the best or the longest because there is nothing after. What I would say is then what is your purpose for being on that ride, I think there has to be something more then just being here to be, like I said what distinguishes us, ultimately aside from intelligence, phsyical attributes, etc from anything else.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
What a beautiful and touching list.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I am really enjoying the nice debate between lo and heyyoo. I am not atheist, but not really a believer in anything either. Not really agnostic as I am more on the fence about any higher power. I call myself undecided. It is very interesting to see the two different points of view.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
JwJwBean: I agree – it is nice to see the good old polite debates we used to have
March 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
St. Denis looks like he’s outside Notre Dame
March 29th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Once again, a great list and interesting discussion. I have had the same argument with fundamentalist Protestants about the fate of people who don’t accept Jesus if they have never heard of him – I just can’t believe that hell is in store for kind, loving people with open hearts just because they don’t “know” Jesus. Who’s to say that Jesus doesn’t know them?? The movie Millions by Danny Boyle got me very interested in the lives of saints, even though I am not Catholic.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
heyyooo-
well, when it comes down to it, i have no proof that i have more or less of a soul or spirit than a walnut, walnut tree, fish, fungus or pet dog. i can’t truly communicate with with those creatures, nor can i know what it’s like to be them. just as i also can’t truly know what it’s like to be another human being. i can make guesses based on my own experiences, that’s it, that’s all any of us can really do.
is it “more wrong” to eat chicken than corn? i don’t really know -i believe i can’t really know- i just know that not having chlorophyl of my own i can’t “eat light” like the plants, so i eat the corn and the chicken.
where do we each draw the line? most no one (including me!) would “grow” humans as food. some would eat all other animals; some would eat “game” and livestock, but not “pets” or primates; some would eat only fish; some would eat eggs and dairy; or just dairy; or none of the animals or their products.
did you know there are people who break down the plants too? some will eat all the plants; some will not eat roots (harvesting them kills the plants); some will eat only fruits, nuts and seeds -no roots, stems, leaves; some will eat fruits, but not the seeds within them that could be new plants; and some will eat only fruits (and not the seeds) that have dropped on their own, without being plucked (this last group tends to give it up or starve, but people do try it).
-sounds a little crazy, but we each must pick our own line, our religion usually gives us guidelines. if it doesn’t, or we choose not to have one, we must each make a decision -can we “live with” whatever we must kill to live at all?
and i think “just being here” taking the ride, is a purpose. everything i experience is my own experience that no one else will exactly have. every beautiful thing i see or feel, time i fall in love, read or write something meaningful, help another person, swim in the ocean, plant a garden, and pull exotic invasive weeds and help native plants and animals come back is a purpose for me. every time i teach someone something, learn it myself, or try something new.
and all the other stuff is the flats and dips in the ride to remind you you’re in motion, so make the peaks thrilling. why would you need anything more?
wow, i just basically wrote my philosophy of living on a list. like always, people are free to skip it, if it bores them.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Good list to read while traveling for work.
Jfrater, why did the ‘Show me a random list’ link at the bottom of lists get taken away? I am somewhat new here, and honestly have read just about every list(I think) but showing me a random one is nice while at work.
Personally I don’t mind reviewing a list I have seen already because sometimes(most of the time) it reminds me I wanted to research whatever it is on that list because it interested me.
Just wondering.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
jfrater: that still leaves Ghandi in hell…
March 29th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Aubloom: I will return it – I removed it when I was redesigning
RandomPrecision: The Catholic Church teaches exclusive salvation – ie, outside the Church there is no salvation. Baptism makes one a member (including the Baptism of desire mentioned above). The Church would say that one should hope that Gandhi was baptized prior to his death as it is the only way for him to attain heaven. A lot of religions are similar in the belief that membership of their religion is an absolute requirement for heaven. The reason Moses, etc. are considered to be in heaven as they were the chosen people before Jesus and so could be saved by their covenant with God. The Church says that that covenant has ended now and the only way up is through them.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Well I actually just realized it is still around, just on the right and not at the bottom of the lists(where I liked it for conveinence)
No biggy was just commenting haha. keep up the good work!
March 29th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I have a problem with saints and the concept of holding someone in such high esteem as if they are better then us. Mother Theresa is a perfect example of this; she is both beautified and vilified at the same time. We have to remember that while she might have done some great things she also did some awful things. It is important to remember that she was human, as are all of we. We do great things but also horrendous things. When we beautify someone into sainthood it is almost like saying they made no mistakes in their life. But everyone makes mistakes and does the wrong thing every once in awhile. However these mistakes cannot and do not cancel out all the good things they have done. We should hold them to the same standards that we hold ourselves. Recognize the good things they have done but not ignore the bad things as well. As was mentioned earlier live and let live.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
jfrater: i just always thought it was interesting the way it automatically rules out everything else. what if when we die we get to heaven and Osiris is up there and really pissed at us?
March 29th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I just found this gem:
…the Prefect condemned Lawrence to a slow, cruel death. The Saint was tied on top of an iron grill over a slow fire that roasted his flesh little by little, but Lawrence was burning with so much love of God that he almost did not feel the flames. In fact, God gave him so much strength and joy that he even joked. “Turn me over,” he said to the judge. “I’m done on this side!” And just before he died, he said, “It’s cooked enough now.” Then he prayed that the city of Rome might be converted to Jesus and that the Catholic Faith might spread all over the world. After that, he went to receive the martyr’s reward. Saint Lawrence’s feast day is August 10th.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I guess Lawrence didn´t like Top Brown Only…
March 29th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
lo-
wow that was very deep and enlightening and I commend you for being so honest and truthful. I had no idea that people lived to even those exact specifications, sounds like a new list all on its own : ).
I totally agree that the experiences in life are a part of the make up of who we are and the decisions we make almost determine a part of who we are. I think that having new and different and challenging experiences. I really try to embrace this by always being up to new things, such as ballroom dancing or some kind of art class, or whatever comes my way because I think/believe that experiences give us new and important perspectives that help deepen our understanding of people and the world around us, sort of like a credo to the saying “dont knock it until you try it”.
With all that said, I wonder if experiences, moments, etc are just a part of who we are and how we develop. Ultimately we make the decisions and therefore determine out outcome. But it sounded like you were (again correct me if im wrong) saying that we cant really know certain things therefore you determine what you believe. To me that sounds like we as individuals are the author of truth. We decide what is true for us and others are free to decide what is true for them.
To me, truth is universal and to have individual truth is really no truth at all. Maybe this is the case, but that sounds so selfish and individual, in essence we as individuals are god.
I think that there are universal truths that are established but since we are human and not perfect then we blurr these universal truths. For example I believe taking a life is wrong ( i hope that everyone agrees with me). However if someone comes into my house and tries to touch my younger sister, I will probably end up taking this persons life. BUT that person tried to wrong my sister and so he violated a different universal truth. I understand that wasnt too articulate but I hope you get what I was trying to say.
Maybe I am and stubborn but I dont think that I am just here to make decisions all on my own and decide what is right and wrong. I think there is a right/true way that is truth.
Lo, let me just say it has been fun to talk about this with you. I think it helps people understand their own beliefs when they have to articulate what they believe as well to here a different perspective to a persons belief.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
RandomPrecision: if that is the case, there are going to be some very pissed off Catholics
March 29th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
WTF; the picture for #10 looks almost exactly like my girlfriend! what could that mean?? this is so mentally disturbing.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
heyyooo-
it’s been great to talk to you as well, i had no idea this would develop into such an open and personal conversation.
i think your analysis of my ideas:
“But it sounded like you were (again correct me if i’m wrong) saying that we can’t really know certain things therefore you determine what you believe. To me that sounds like we as individuals are the author of truth. We decide what is true for us and others are free to decide what is true for them.”
is very accurate. and i also agree that this could allow people to give themselves permission to be very selfish and have no remorse. and i agree that that would be bad for people and the planet as a whole, and not even make the individual feel fulfilled in the long run.
i guess i temper it with a belief that somethings are universally “right or wrong.” i believe it’s wrong to willfully harm another without a damn good reason. i believe it’s wrong to be dishonest, and to be cruel.
i believe it’s wrong to take lives you don’t need to sustain your own -so i think in self defense or defense of someone else who was physically helpless you could kill a person without being “evil,” but i think it should still be taken very gravely.
but due to my feelings on the uncertainty of the “hierarchy of Lives” i also think you shouldn’t wantonly kill plants and animals if not to sustain your life -but this gets complicated, i ate shrimp (prawns) for dinner. did you know that shrimp has pretty much the highest ratio of “by-catch” for any commercial seafood? for every pound of shrimp pulled from the sea at least 7 pounds of other sea-life that can’t be sold for profit dies in the nets and on the boats, add more waste and die-off from net to table and my dish of shrimp and rice probably had 10 pounds of “wantonly” killed creatures who died for my dinner hanging over it. and when you figure in the pollution generated by farmed prawns they’re no better. and i’ve ripped out fields off non-native honeysuckle so native plants that feed the native animals could come back, but i killed all the honeysuckle. none of it is simple to assign value to.
so i guess it just ends up showing us that living ethically is very complicated, with or without a religion. and for people that find the structure of religion helps them through this crazy complexity i would never try to take that away from them. all i ask is that they allow my to also find the way that works best for me, even if it doesn’t include their faith or their god. it’s become a refrain on this thread, so i’ll sing it, “live and let live.”
March 29th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
segue- i loved that book. there were several editions!
March 29th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
-allow me to- (not “my to”)
March 29th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
St.Roch’s dog seems to have done all the miraculous work, and his master gets the sainthood!
March 29th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
The picture of Christopher reminds me of Anubis a bit.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
this is a really cool list.
but as the lady holding her breast an the other the eyes an the guy who held his head..those are inticingly weird haha
March 29th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
It’s sad that people were killed in such horrible ways for no reason whatsoever but…
There’s no such thing as a “Saint.” Not really. You can pray to these people all you want but nothing will come of it. Unfortunately, these people are like all of those who died for their religious beliefs or lack thereof; tragic casualties of circumstance, time, and environment. Nothing more.
To imply that they still have some sort of interaction with the world of the living is conjecture at best and wishful thinking at worst.
And the fact that the Catholic church still emphasizes prayer to and veneration of “Saints” makes it a very, very creepy death cult.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Sad stories
March 30th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Meh… the problem with Catholic Canonization (and infant baptism, among other rituals) it’s done without the consent of the one being beatified, canonized, or what not :p
March 30th, 2009 at 12:06 am
JFrater: The true teaching of the Catholic Church is: Any person who does not have access to the Church can be saved by their desire
This is my issue with Christianity & Islam. Why is it that they claim 100% rights to GOD? Why can’t there be other paths to God apart from the holy church & the equally holy mosque. I don’t find this “THIS PATH ONLY” clause in eastern religion – Hinduism or Buddhism.
A question on the criteria for saints. Is it true that all saints have to be MARTYRS? If so, how can the blessed mother Teresa (i have deep admiration for her) and Pope John Paul II be called martyrs? They lived in a society that respected or even worshiped them. A meaningless minority calling them out isn’t good to declare them as MARTYRS.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:10 am
View from outside Christianity: I did mention Baptism of Desire above – that is what you are referring to. However, they are not “saved” by that desire – they are “baptised” by it – and in turn are able to be saved. The Church does not say people are “saved” – only God knows that after the person is dead
March 30th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Jfrater: Dont you find it rather funny how this whole Christianity and religious talk always leads to arguments?
I personally also find it… disturbing that we ask….nay….demand logical reasoning for everything in life, except religion. What makes “faith” such a magical word that we cant question it? Religion’s ‘faith’ only claim to superiority is the age of their teachings. If I claimed magic, unicorns, and wizards were my religion, Id be ridiculed, even is it has no less proof than God.
About mother teresa, I read an article on Yahoo news about how she had a journal she kept and asked to have it burned on her death bed, to a trusted bishop. The bishop however thought it was her being humble, and decided to read it, and show the world how she viewed things in her own words. He feared that if she became a saint, we would have lost a valuable religious relic. He kept what he read secret, even from the pope himself until there was talk about her sainthood.
According to the article the bishop was astounded to find that Teresa had stopped believing in God in the last 7 yrs of her life, although still preaching it. That she realized how more practical it would be to distribute medicine, and condoms, but didnt want people to catch on to her newfound atheism. She said she had seen way too much cruelty in the world to believe an all holy God could allow all of this.
Again this is an article I read about a yr ago, and I am just regurgitating out of memory, and I am NOT saying this is absolutely true, however it was published by yahoo which is decently respected. Just a thought.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Also, please dont try to argue religion with me. I find it fascinating from a historical standpoint and have read quite a few of the good books (bible, quran, book of mormon, and so on). However I have learned from experience not to argue religion, since it is utterly pointless.
More generally, I dont like arguing with ANYONE whose standpoint on anything is non-negotiable, regardless of any evidence put before them. Why even have “proof” and “evidence” and quote this and quote that, and point out history if there is no way you would ever change your mind?
This makes a “debate” extremely annoying if you cant even open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong or in reality, you aren’t having a conversation, you are having 2 monologues.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:18 am
We just had a bit of downtime – sorry about that. All should be fine now.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Very nice list… I’ve always found strange how catholics, as Christians, are supposed to be monotheistic but still sometimes get so involved in the worship of the Saints that they seem to be polytheistic instead. In spite of having left my religious days behind me, these stories belong in folklore and are much too interesting to be forgotten, Saint Lucy’s being my steady favourite; after all, dear Saint Lucy brings me nice presents every year!
March 30th, 2009 at 6:24 am
I don’t know why, but the stories of the saints have always fascinated me, despite the fact that I am not Catholic… perhaps it’s their boundless faith and devotion, as well as their courage and nobility in the face of suffering. It’s just always amazed me that people could go through these sometimes horrific tortures (though not all saints died ugly deaths, unless I’m mistaken) and keep faith with their beliefs until the end.
Of course, these stories also illustrate how unimaginably cruel and vicious human beings can be towards one another. There’s something almost luridly fascinating about these stories of burnings, beheadings, flayed skin and so on… as though the tortures needed to be bigger and more outrageous in order to keep the attention of the faithful.
I’ve also always loved the iconic, kitschy-but-strangely-beautiful style of illustration one sees in most pictures of the saints that are used on cards and such… jfrater, do you know what this style is called, or if it even has a name?
March 30th, 2009 at 6:39 am
St Lucia is the only saint we celebrate in sweden.. we have lucia pageants and all the kids dress up and make a lucia train and sings for the sick and elderly… or we just get very drunk and stay up all night..
March 30th, 2009 at 7:21 am
This is a great list and I am intrigued by some of the details mentioned of these 10 saints lives. it is only sad to think that people back then and still uo to present day are being killed for religious and ethnic or cultural backgrounds. It is through the course of history that mankind
is its own enemy and we seem to never be able to overcome it.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:48 am
for those that were asking about “the bushman in africa”…the christian perspective states that all men are given the ability to see the works of God in the created order. by the presence of the handiwork of God, they are now without excuse with reference to knowing that there is something greater out there.
“19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:19-20
so, from the Biblical perspective, there are no “kind, loving people with open hearts”.
“”There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.” Romans 3:11-12
this is the whole point of Christ. left to ourselves, we are incapable of truly loving each other and loving God at all. but through Christ, grace is granted and peace with God is attained.
“1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, wehave peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.” Romans 5:1-2
March 30th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Dischuker – Well said!
March 30th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Thank you, DiscHuker. While others may end up ridiculing you for posting that, I for one, am glad you did! Well done (and with applicable references even).
March 30th, 2009 at 8:51 am
I dont feel like reading all of that above me…but would any atheist here actually die for their belief in no God? If someone put a gun to your head and say “Believe in God or die”…if so, props, never met an atheist who cared that much.
“Bushmen in Africa”…the priests I have spokne with explain it as such: that people who cannot obtain the ability to know God, will be judged far less than those who know. Therefore the priest, archbishop, patriarch will be judged far greater than those who never had the chance to here the word of God.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:56 am
135. stangarang, it’s all been covered, in the stuff you don’t feel like reading, above you.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:25 am
stangarang: lo beat me to it, but I just wanted to say it was very well covered in the comments above. I think you should read the conversations between lo and heyyoo for yourself for the answer as any paraphrasing would not do it justice.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
135. stangarang
At least read the exchange between lo and heyyooo. lo did a wonderful job saying her piece. That directly discusses what you ask about. And as far as atheists…there is no emphasis of god or no god to the day-to-day life of real atheists so your situation wouldn’t be applicable. That belief you place in god, I’ve focused on other things, so yes, I suppose if there were a situation where my beliefs were on the line, I may sacrifice my life for it. While I haven’t read much yet of ‘death for anti-god beliefs’, there is a strong movement to define atheist persecution as a hate crime (just as religious motives can be filed under hate crimes). The religious are persecuted, the unreligious are persecuted…all for the same cause: bigotry.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:54 am
So glad I’m a Christian now and not a Christian then. Those people were so strong and courageous.
The things people thought to do to other people back then…Stomach churning.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:42 am
hmmmm i shall get over my laziness i guess.hah
March 30th, 2009 at 10:47 am
View from outside Christianity:
You said: “This is my issue with Christianity & Islam. Why is it that they claim 100% rights to GOD? Why can’t there be other paths to God apart from the holy church & the equally holy mosque. I don’t find this “THIS PATH ONLY” clause in eastern religion – Hinduism or Buddhism.”
Isn’t this a relativistic viewpoint? If you start equating all religions, then you take away what makes them unique. Why would anyone follow a certain religion if they did not believe it was the “correct” and only way? I believe Unitarian Universilists believe that the majority of religions are a path to God, but given the extreme differences and claims of uniqueness, this is in and of itself an illogical position.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Maybe you should add to St Lucy that she is actually one of the few saints that the Scandinavians (religious or not) still celebrate. Every 13th of December, all over the country there are people who is elected Lucia (her name in Swedish). Then they walk around with a crown of lit candles and a white gowns and sing songs. Lucia is accompanied by many other girls in white gowns but they do not have crown. Only a lit candle in their hands. The boys dress up as ginger bread men, gnomes and the saint of Stephen (another one of those few saints).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Stephen
On the top of my mind, these are the only saints we celebrate actually.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I know, I know, it’s been said, but I can’t help it!
For all you boneheads who still think that Catholics “worship” Saints: Please, for the love of God, try understanding what worship is and what praying really means. Do some homework!
This argument from our Protestant brothers and sisters has become so-o-o-o old!(and still untrue!)
March 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
#9: Christ you know I love you; Did you see I waved?
March 30th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Another reason to not be Catholic! The Catholic church is the biggest company in the world. Maybe they should spend more money on helping the poor instead of building huge churches and the Vatican. There is only one God, so worship Him. Praying to anyone else is useless. The pope is just like you and me, a SINNER and does not have the final say in anything. Let the priest marry so that they hopefully stop molesting little children. Study the Bible and follow it, not the Pope who is playing God. I can go on and on but I won’t.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
jr!!
Did you know that more cases of molestation are performed by TEACHERS and parents than priests! CASTRATE them all!! AND guess what?! MORE service is given to the poor from the church than ANY government!! OOOOH!! and GUESS WHAT!! NOBODY worships th POPE or any saint, we have one GOD and ONE mediator, JESUS CHRIST!! OMG!! I’m CATHOLIC, the 1st and TRUE chrch that Christ himself established!! HOLY HANNAH, Get it straight you doorknob!!
March 30th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
ooooh!!! i forgot!!WHO assembled your BIBLE BEFORE it was misinterpreted by Martin Luther??!! Oh yeah!!! and where in the Bible does it say Sola Scriptura?!
March 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
OH WAIT!!! What did the Christians do Before the BIBLE?!? Holy Hannah again!! They relied on the TRADITION of the CHURCH!!! ugh
March 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Cubone…molestation is still wrong no matter who does it. It is just as evil if a priest does it, just as bad a parent as they both know better. It is true that churches give more to the poor. Having said that, when I pass one of the churches here in Arizona, I stop and wonder why they spent the money on such a display. For the record, I don’t believe in god. Lots of reasons why I don’t but that is not the case here.
I did attend church when I was young. The building had a roof and 1 wall. It was completely open to the elements. The pews were made of stone and it was located was in Indiana. Wonderful place. This church really took care of its people and didn’t care for material things like the modern churches and the Vatican. The priest was the coolest actually. He ate at his church goers homes for his meals. He slept in a barn on my neighbors land. All money he got went to those in need.
It’s really sad how now, churches are spending so much money on themselves.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
oouchan . . .
thank you for being a little more reasonable than some others.
You are absolutely correct. Molestation is among the most heinous (sp?) acts imaginable by ANYONE . . . preying on someone vulnerable is beyond sick. Having said that, I get tired of priest molestation statements simply because of that very point; we are ALL human, we ALL sin.
The idea of churches (Cathedrals, Bascilica’s) being so ornately designed (right or wrong) is that what we believe to be precious (gold, silver, fine cloth) means nothing to us without God, so as an outward sign of NOT being attached to materials is to use them in an expression of devotion as oppossed to keeping them for ourselves. (again right or wrong).
March 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
150. Cubone…I am glad you clarified that. I agree with you 100% that it is the most heinous of crimes. I also am sick of people just pointing out priests when parents who do that are even worse. I have a daughter and I am doing everything I can think of to protect her. I also warned her to look out for signs of this in her friends as well. As long as we educate our children and others, then we can hopefully save them from this fate.
IMO…pedophiles should be flayed alive among other nasty things I can think of but I won’t name.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
here,here oouchan . . .
I’m father of 4.
I’ll round ‘em up, you flay ‘em!
March 30th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
cubone: sola scriptura isn’t in the bible? i won’t even get into the whole argument but if you wanna talk about things not in the bible that catholics believe…
pergatory
age of accountability
veneration of saints
venial sins
baptismal regeneration
deification of mary and on and on and on
March 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
DiscHuker
Thanks.
You made my point. NOT everything a Christian believes is in the Bible. For example: no where is the TRINITY mentioned, but is understood by all Christians that that’s what God is.
Also Mary is NOT a diety. NO Christian would claim that.
Again, you made my point. If someone is so misinformed on Catholic teaching, maybe comments should be kept to themselves.
As far as PURGATORY:http://www.mark-shea.com/purgatory.html
that’s a good one.
. . . and on and on and on . . .
March 30th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
(Excellent discussion by the way!)
March 30th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
what is “sola scriptura”?
March 30th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
“SCRIPTURE ALONE”
March 30th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Fun art history fact: Michelangelo depicted St. Bartholomew in his huge fresco finishing off the Sistine Chapel, a depiction of the Last Judgment. Art historians very recently discovered that the flayed skin he holds is actually Michelangelo himself – the faces are eerily similar. Michelangelo was tortured in his faith all his long life.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
lo: it was one of the key principles of the reformation, obviously not liked by cubone.
there were 5 solas; sola scriptura, sola fide(faith alone), sola gratia(grace alone), solus christus(Christ alone) and soli deo gloria(to God alone be the glory)
the idea behind sola scriptura is that the Bible alone is the ONLY source of authority for the follower of Christ. tradition only holds influence, not authority. this would also exclude other texts, persons of importance and “new revelations”.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
cubone: so then you support sola scriptura? i’m confused by your seemingly opposite posts.
March 30th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Why do we have Saints?
Is it because God is too busy to listen to all those prayers?
I was raised a Christian but have always struggled with the apparent hypocrisy of the Christian Churches.
Surely if you believe in One Supreme Being, then that One God is the be all and end all, and every prayer should be directed to God and God alone.
He doesn’t need deputies, or indeed spokespersons and fundraisers.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
This list reminds me of how similar saints are to Greek gods.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Steelman: Can’t disagree more with your point of view.
Each religion is unique – their faith, their practices, their customs are all unique. You are born into a family practicing a religion. You either choose to go ahead with it or chose an alternative (like Bobby Jindal) that you believe is the path that leads you to GOD.
More importantly, it is required to understand that just because you chose a path, that isn’t the best path for everyone else or the “ONLY” path available. At best, one might believe that the path he takes, is the only path for him.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
view: but many of the religions that the world says “should just get along” are exclusive. by the doctrines that make them distinctive, they cannot agree.
islam says Jesus was a good teacher, but not more.
christianity says Jesus was God and not less.
at least one of these is WRONG, no matter what faith you grew up with.
and just to look at the way you phrased your next to last sentence, “it is required”? by whom? what gives that person to set their standards on the other religions and to tell them what is required and what isn’t?
March 30th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
I’ll start right off the bat by saying I only read about the first 2/3’s of the comments (I usually read them all before commenting but I’m anxious to start a book, sorry).
I recently read two books of he new testament (John and Matthew) – I’ll also admit here that I’ve lied in previous posts about reading the bible, I hadn’t besides Genesis and Joshua and a few other books in the old testament.
So, first of all, Richard Dawkins brought to my attention before I’d read them (Matthew and John) that Jesus was talking to and about Jews and certainly not any “Gentiles.” It seemed to be completely true while I read, and in agreement with the old testament books I read. He considered himself a messiah to Jewish people only- gentiles weren’t even on Jesus’ radar. They weren’t “God’s people” kind of like blacks used to just be property in the U.S. – weren’t even considered “men” to begin with.
And lastly- I probably should have said this first because its more opinion- I had an unexpected reaction to Jesus’ teachings. Being an atheist who’d only read parts of the old testament, I imagined I would just roll my eyes at how immoral it was. Instead I was disgusted with modern Christians and their hypocrisy because Jesus’ teachings were SO righteous (giving exception to the fact that he meant it to apply only to Jews). I’m in no way religious, in fact I doubt that anything about “Jesus” is true except perhaps the essence of his ideas and his actual execution.
In Matthew and John, Jesus is f*ing Gandhi and Buddha twisted into superhuman moral perfection and he expects his followers to try their best to be like him. I don’t see, in ANY way, how Christians can even claim to approach Jesus’ ideals. To me they seem equally as deficient in Jesus’ expectations as any person or group of people with the one exception that they believe he is god or the son of god or both or whatever. I always hear that he is an example and you just “try.” It’s a crock. Jesus says not to worry about cloths or money (its as easy for a rich person to get into heaven as it is to fit a donkey through the head of the needle) or your home or ANYTHING. Bare necessities, God and Godliness. If someone hits you just turn your other cheek to them and take it. The vast majority of people aren’t even CLOSE to his expectations. Their effort, “trying to be more Jesusly,” is so minimal its reduced to simply trying to be a decent person. Like EVERYONE! Well most people want to be decent. How can Christians possibly claim to follow the words of Jesus when they fall so utterly, ABYSMALLY short of his advice. Few in the world can claim they really “try” to follow his teachings.
I’m sorry about the rant. I got carried away and off topic – just haven’t posted in a while.
And I really wanted to see what people have to say about my realization that Jesus was SO, for lack of a better word, good. Better than Christianity.
Sorry again about the longwinded.. ness
March 30th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Kaz: Generally I agree with you – your point is most true for those Christians who beat you ’bout the face and neck with their faith. Those that proclaim the loudest eh? I have though, met people who have honestly tried their best to actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Not everyone is just paying lip service. btw – not my RC priest Uncle. hahaha
Oh and personally I don’t believe in Religion. Rationally not in God either. But I have my moments.
March 31st, 2009 at 3:44 am
DiscHuker: People have the freedom to believe. Muslims & Christians differing in their belief on the “Godliness” of Jesus doesn’t mean one of them has to be wrong.
For eg: In India – there is a person by the name PUTAPARTHI SAI BABA. A lot of people believe he is an incarnation of God. Quite a lot believe he is a prophet. And some believe that he is no more than a social worker (someone like Mother Teresa). So, it is a matter of belief of individuals as to consider him as God-incarnate, prophet of social worker.
The beauty of civilization lies in the fact that people accept the fact that other’s beliefs need not match with theirs. So, for christians – how does it matter if Muslims consider Jesus as prophet, it only matters that they believe that Jesus is the son of God.
Bottomline – people should only worry about their beliefs & practicing their religion rather than imposing it on others.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:45 am
HEY. How come nobody answered my question about the style of art in the kitschy pictures of saints (such as in #4, #7, and #10)? Probably Jamie didn’t see it–but apparently no one else did.
I was wondering if anyone knows if that particular style of religious illustration has a NAME. I’m talking about these images of the saints (and Christ) that one sees on cards in Catholic Shops and such… the cards given away at funerals, for example… I have a friend who collects these kinds of iconography, and she and I both want to know if there’s a NAME for it.
Cripes. You people force me to go off and do research.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:17 am
kazorek:
I just wanted to make some comments and correct a couple things.
“I recently read two books of he new testament (John and Matthew) – I’ll also admit here that I’ve lied in previous posts about reading the bible, I hadn’t besides Genesis and Joshua and a few other books in the old testament.”
Nice.
Kazorek, don’t lie. It makes you look bad. Nobody believes you afterwards. If you MUST, obfuscate. Or embellish. But never lie or exaggerate.
“So, first of all, Richard Dawkins brought to my attention before I’d read them (Matthew and John) that Jesus was talking to and about Jews and certainly not any “Gentiles.””
I like Richard Dawkins. I admire him. I agree with him largely. But in this instance he goes a bit too far.
There is nothing to base this assertion on, that Jesus was addressing SOLELY the Jews when he spoke. Certainly, yes, in a theological sense you could say that his focus WAS on other Jews—he took no Gentiles that we know of into his confidence, and there were no Gentiles amongst his apostles (at least, not the originals—we don’t know who these men then proceeded to pass the wisdom onto). But this is not evidence that Jesus thought nothing OF the Gentiles or that his teachings were not meant for them as well.
I suggest to you a book called “Yeshua Buddha” by a learned theological scholar from Colgate named Jay Williams. The focus of the book is on the Buddhist nature of Christ, but it also parenthetically deals with the issue you’ve raised.
“It seemed to be completely true while I read, and in agreement with the old testament books I read.”
But you’ve admitted you’ve read very few of the old testament books. To which ones are you referring then?
There can be no doubt that later Christian writers edited and “slanted” Christ’s teachings and the stories ABOUT him to fulfill prophecy as well as magnify his PLACE in said prophecy. Or… perhaps I shouldn’t say there can be NO doubt–but rather there’s little doubt. However, an examination of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas tells us, perhaps, that we can pare down some of the things Jesus is reported to have said, to a central core (which happens to appear in the Gospel of Thomas). This core is part of the basis for the notion that Jesus’ message was “Buddha-like” in nature, and leaves off much of the ancient prophetic trappings about Jesus’ place as “messiah.”
“He considered himself a messiah to Jewish people only- gentiles weren’t even on Jesus’ radar.”
Again, this assertion can’t REALLY be supported. Sorry, but wrong. Furthermore, it can be argued quite readily, I think, that Jesus did NOT, in fact, “consider himself a messiah” to ANYBODY. The “messiah,” in Hebrew tradition, was taken at Christ’s time to be a specific sort of leader who would take the Jewish people into freedom and triumph. Jesus clearly discounted the political side of this notion and would have nothing to do with it. If anything, he REINTERPRETED the meaning of what the “messiah” was, but again, there is no evidence to say that he meant this ONLY to apply to the Jews.
“Instead I was disgusted with modern Christians and their hypocrisy because Jesus’ teachings were SO righteous (giving exception to the fact that he meant it to apply only to Jews). I’m in no way religious, in fact I doubt that anything about “Jesus” is true except perhaps the essence of his ideas and his actual execution.”
Well I’d agree TOTALLY with you about the hypocrisy of the large majority of modern Christians. In fact of most Christians throughout history. To my thinking they not only are hypocrites, but they misread Jesus’ words and intentions.
By the way, I’ve addressed this idea about the historical “truth” of Jesus before. You at least acknowledge the “essence of his ideas” and his “execution.” Surely we can say that he existed, that he said many of the things he was reported to say (particularly those things that gibe with the Gospel of Thomas and other apocryphal writings, indicating the core “text” of Jesus’ words) and was certainly in the places he was said to be in the Bible. Tradition has it that he was a healer and a teacher, and I think it would be absurd to doubt that these things were also true. Probably most of the stories in which he is a “character” in the Gospels actually happened–and we simply must judge from there how much “truth” is in them.
To me, the “truth” of Christ is the same as the “truth” of Buddha. I’m less concerned (in fact I’m concerned hardly at all) with their historical veracity in PRECISE terms (though I acknowledge that both existed and that much said about them is true) and much more concerned with the “truth” that they both taught… the poetic, metaphysical, metaphoric “truth” that they presented to us.
“In Matthew and John, Jesus is f*ing Gandhi and Buddha twisted into superhuman moral perfection”
I think this overstates the case.
“and he expects his followers to try their best to be like him.”
Ah… no. Again, that’s a modern fallacy made by both Christians AND atheists. What he SAYS is that he is “the way” (akin to “the way” of Eastern philosophy… the Tao, in other words) and says, in essence, that it is possible to “become” him–if you do as he did… this is the Buddhist aspect which you apparently noticed. But he, like the Buddha, isn’t saying, “he, try to do as I do. Act like me best as you can.” He is, in fact, saying, that if you want to reach “the Kingdom of Heaven” (or, we might say, Nirvana) then you must BECOME as he is, you must shed the worldly and material and follow him and do as he has done. This is different from just “trying to be LIKE him.” The Buddhist doesn’t get to Nirvana by doing good deeds and being kind and just and whatnot—though that’s a good step. Jesus is also clearly talking about the renouncement of the material (as the Buddha does), of the discarding of the ego and of desires.
In this, you’re correct—modern Christians haven’t a clue, or more likely, refuse to follow this instruction of Christ’s. But then most people who claim to be Buddhists don’t manage it either–both are tough teachings and instead people have found ways around them.
“I always hear that he is an example and you just “try.” It’s a crock.”
Again, yeah, I agree with you on that. There is no “try.” You do. But here, look at me… even me, a spiritual mishmash of Buddhism and semi-gnostic Christian teachings and apocryphal noodlings—I haven’t renounced desire or the ego. It’s freakin’ hard.
But god, what a world, if we were to just DO IT!
“Few in the world can claim they really “try” to follow his teachings.”
Absolutely correct.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:17 am
view: actually one of them, in reality, is wrong. Jesus was either the son of God; perfect, sinless and worthy of all devotion and worship or he was just another “messiah figure” who lied through his teeth; imperfect, sinful and worthy of nothing.
there are things you can dismiss about someone and still hold to their main ideas. martin luther king jr. was not always faithful to his wife. that doesn’t mean that his ideas on racial peace were wrong. but you cannot dismiss someone’s claims to be God. they are claiming for themselves absolute superiority. either they are God or they are not.
if Jesus really was God then we have to listen to him when he says “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). this rules out all other ways to God.
if Jesus really wasn’t God, then no one should ever listen to anything a Christian has to say about the spiritual realm. in fact, the apostle Paul says that if the believer only has hope for this life “we (christians) should be pitied more than all men” (1 Corinthians 15:9)
March 31st, 2009 at 6:34 am
DiscHuker:
As you know, I do not agree with you on this.
“actually one of them, in reality, is wrong. Jesus was either the son of God; perfect, sinless and worthy of all devotion and worship or he was just another “messiah figure” who lied through his teeth; imperfect, sinful and worthy of nothing.”
Why the either-or? Why MUST it be this dichotomy? I’m sorry, Disc, but is your faith THAT shakeable that you can’t see beyond a rigid duality of TRUTH or LIE?
Did the Buddha “lie” when he taught that the destruction of desire can lead to nirvana? Did Jesus therefore “lie” if he said the same thing in different words, but instead has been TAKEN to be, LITERALLY, god? If He said that we can BECOME god, as HE became god by finding the way, by BEING the way, is that a “lie?”
I don’t KNOW what Jesus was. I am content not to know; I would rather focus on his teachings and the mythological truth ABOUT him and surrounding him.
YOU believe that instead, I must accept Him as god or I won’t find the Kingdom… and that it’s thus impossible for me to be “as” he is—rather I must simply submit myself to him.
Okay, that’s YOUR belief. But it isn’t the ONLY one, and I think it’s a mistake to make pronouncements about “either-or.”
Believe what you wish personally. But it’s this attempt to transfer or export the kind of rigidity you recommend that has given Christianity such a bad name in modern times.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:09 am
randall: sorry if my meaning is being lost. because you know me you know where i stand on the issue, but i was not trying to argue for any particular position.
but in reality, Jesus was either God or he wasn’t, right. this isn’t some sort of imposed duality. if i claim to be 7 feet tall, either i am or i am not.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:10 am
First, before I get good and started, let me point out that the following is my opinion, based on what I have understood from my reading and personal interpretation of the bible. And it’s written for my fellow Christians. Those of you who are atheist, agnostic, Muslim, etc, this is not necessarily for, about, or directed to you. There is no offense intended to you, you are free to believe what you want. While I may wish you would come around (or, in some cases, back around) to sharing my belief, I refuse to hit you over the head with it. Your religion is between your God and yourself. I am not trying to convert anyone here, just having a theological discussion with some of my fellow LVers.
First, as to the praying to saints to intercede for us with God – I find that the idea of praying for someone else to intercede between Christians and Christ to be laughable at best. From what I have read and understood, there is but one way to the Father, and that is through the Son. Read John 10:1 – 18. To paraphrase, those who do not enter the ranks of believers through the gate, but by other means, is a thief. Christ is that gate.
I also believe that we aren’t to try to communicate with the dead, because that is a form of sorcery, and sorcery is forbidden. Though I can see how scripturally, the argument could be made that those who have died before are not truly dead, since Jesus himself told the Sadducees regarding resurrection that God is the God of the living and not the God of the dead, and used patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) as examples, since these men had clearly died, but lived on in the afterlife.
Second (and trust me, I’m not Catholic bashing here) I remember reading (though I can not remember book, chapter and verse at the moment, though I will look it up and provide it if pressed to do so) that we have but one Father, and he is in Heaven, and we are to call no earthly man Father, so what’s up with calling priests “Father”?
Third, the large churches. I guess this is the point where I have to come completely clean. I am one of those “home church nuts”
. When I see a gargantuan church building on a street corner, the first thought that comes to my mind is “Wow, this church must be doing really well! There can’t possibly be anybody with any unfulfilled need for quite some distance around this church. No one is hungry, all the children of the area have nice warm winter coats, and no one is sitting around in the dark, having to make the choice between food and electricity. It’s really good that this congregation has taken care of the needs of all their brethren, had enough left over to then go take care of all the non-believers, and also had enough left over to build this monument to themselves!” Really, that’s how I feel. The early church that started immediately after the crucifixion and the resurrection met in each other’s homes, and would sell extra property to raise cash to take care of each other when the need arose. I don’t know when the large, dedicated meeting places came into being, and I don’t know why it was deemed necessary. When the patriarchs built a place to worship, they piled un-cut stones to make an altar for sacrifice. Why un-cut? Because stones that had been cut my human hands were defiled, God wanted them to use the stones as He had made them.
Then the Jews made the temple (then is deceptive, think 1000’s years later) to house the Ark of the Covenant (the resting place of God) and offer sacrifices. And they built it to God’s specifications.
When Christ came and was sacrificed, he fulfilled the law given to Moses, and, because He was resurrected, He endures as a living sacrifice, so we no longer have to make animal, grain, or monetary sacrifices. There is no need of an altar to sacrifice on. Then we were given the Holy Spirit, and out bodies became the resting place of God, temples in fact. Taking the example of the early church (who met in each other’s homes), and the idea that we become the temple, a large meeting place becomes a waste of resources that could be used to further God’s message, and to take care of His people.
(At this point, let me re-iterate, this is more for the people who believe that the people who don’t, but you are free to change your mind, if you’d like
)
Now that I’ve written this long response, and likely broken several rules of the commenting FAQ, I will quit writing, though I could go on for literally DAYS on the subject.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:11 am
Sorry, didn’t mean for the whole thing to be italic. My end italic didn’t take, apparently!
March 31st, 2009 at 7:51 am
DiscHuker:
“but in reality, Jesus was either God or he wasn’t, right.”
Uh, no. That was my point.
The only way that statement makes sense is if you assume a dichotomy to exist—a separation between “god” and what is “not god.” This seems natural and sensible… but suppose it isn’t?
Suppose we are ALL “god” in a sense. Suppose our consciousness is what makes god up. Or suppose our consciousness is a part of his greater consciousness. Suppose there *is no* separateness.
“this isn’t some sort of imposed duality. if i claim to be 7 feet tall, either i am or i am not.”
That’s different.
But suppose I say, “I am a man, 6′1″ tall, 230 lbs, 43 years old, caucasion…” (all of which is factual) but then I also say “I am stardust, a conglomeration of elements born in the furnace of stars long dead, that exploded and were then reborn in me and in everything else that exists on the earth and in what IS the earth itself… so in fact I and all other human beings are the same, and in turn we are the same as all other life, and in turn we are the same as the earth–part of the earth… we’ll even return to the earth as dust one day, so the separateness is an illusion…”
Suppose I say that? That too is factual. I am a man, but I am also a piece of the earth. And in turn, therefore, a piece of the universe. And to put it another way—I am made up of atoms which in turn are made up of particles, which are, perhaps, strings of vibrating energy which are essentially the same throughout the cosmos—and in fact may even be what “god” is, or a part of god… and I am, therefore, not separate from anything I can see or hear or discern *throughout the entire cosmos* and perhaps even *beyond.*
I am all those things, as are you. As are we all.
Where is the definition, then? The rigid separateness?
I AM, yes, what I am, in those particular measurements you mentioned above. But that doesn’t preclude all the other things I am.
We may ALL be Jesus, or God, or a part of one or both.
Jesus may have been a man who awoke to this consciousness in himself, and realized that in this sense he WAS god, as we all can be god.
Or he may have been more. As we all may be more.
I don’t require a separateness. I can see duality and sameness all at once.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:42 am
randall: and that is fine. but if you say that my truth is not the truth and your truth is the truth then we have an exclusive belief systems, albeit with different parameters.
this was my original point. for someone outside of these systems of belief to just tell them to “get along” is being irresponsible with the distinctive beliefs of each group.
what makes a christian a christian is their belief that Jesus of Nazareth was actually God, the creator and maintainer of all things. any other view on Christ makes one of any number of other religions. to tell that person that they need to agree with another religion who doesn’t believe the same thing about the most fundamental of doctrines in their system is foolish.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:47 am
129, 168. Randall:
Calm down, sir. All answers come in due time and I’m a busy girl so due time was a bit longer than usual! I double checked for art style and there is none that I could find. It’s a commercial product with a heavy Renaissance influence. As far as the name of the product…Saint Prayer Cards.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:00 am
Randall:
What an interesting and thought-provoking comment… While I am a RC, I have always had questions and doubts regarding some of the teachings of my religion (including the exclusive nature “My way or hell!”)…
One quick questions though the the whole Jew/Gentile thing… If JC was born a Jew, why can we not assume that he was talking specifically to that group of people? The Church was formed when a group of people decided to follow his teachings because they believed him to be the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament… Those that did not believe him remained part of the Judaic tradition. No? What am I missing?
Anyway, thanks for the “fod for thought”…
March 31st, 2009 at 9:07 am
DiscHuker (176):
Yes, I agree that what makes a Christian a Christian is his belief in the divinity of JC but why does that necessarily mean that we have to condemn all people who basically follow the teachings/message of Christ without believing in his divinity? It just doesnt make sense to me…
*** Oh and post 178 should be “food for thought…”
March 31st, 2009 at 9:16 am
gtt: good question. this sort of view is exactly why Christianity cannot be synthesized with other religions. you cannot truly follow his teachings/message unless you believe he is God, that Jesus and the Father are one, that by the power of the Spirit of God he rose from the dead and promises to do the same for those who believe in Him.
it is condemnation in a sense but the purpose of the Church is to proclaim the good news that we who are dead in sin can be brought to life. we who stand condemned before a perfectly holy God can be not only forgiven but seen as perfectly righteous because of Christ. we who have been sold into slavery can be redeemed/bought back by the cross.
if you are standing in the street and have no idea that a truck is about to hit you, if i tell you the truck is coming but you don’t believe me, is it more loving to let you get smashed or to continue to warn you even if you don’t like to hear it?
March 31st, 2009 at 9:33 am
“…but if you say that my truth is not the truth and your truth is the truth then we have an exclusive belief systems, albeit with different parameters.”
*I* say no such thing. I don’t claim to know “the truth.” I think no one should, but I don’t hold THAT to be a “truth” in the sense you mean either. However, if you are going to claim “truth” as yours and yours alone (or rather, your religion’s, or your particular sect’s interpretation) then that’s where I will say, yes, that you are wrong. It’s foolish to claim “truth” as being the demesne of one single doctrine, religion, outlook or belief system.
“this was my original point. for someone outside of these systems of belief to just tell them to “get along” is being irresponsible with the distinctive beliefs of each group.”
Well, perhaps.
But then again, are you advocating the idea that those within (or without) a belief system should NOT “get along”?
What, after all, would Jesus advocate, in that situation?
“what makes a christian a christian is their belief that Jesus of Nazareth was actually God, the creator and maintainer of all things.”
But again—HOW do you mean that? Of course *I* know that you mean it literally–that Jesus was not a man at all, but god, and a god that is a separate and distinct entity and intelligence (separate and distinct from us, that is). This is the traditional view of what we today think of as “mainstream” Christian belief.
BUT… has there ever REALLY been such a thing? For a time perhaps, yes. But in the beginning, no. Until the church stamped out the various heresies, competing beliefs and doctrines and philosophies—there was no monolithic definition of what was “Christian.” And even then we could not maintain it, and first the East broke from the West and then Protestants broke from the mother church. And they themselves fragmented into dozens of different sects, churches, faiths, etc.
In short… your definition of what is “Christian” is wanting, I think.
“to tell that person that they need to agree with another religion who doesn’t believe the same thing about the most fundamental of doctrines in their system is foolish.”
The point, perhaps, is that the DISAGREEMENT itself is foolish and wasteful. Wasteful of time, energy, lives and blood.
You want your demarcations and definitions. I say that THEY are what’s most foolish, because all they do is serve as an excuse for rancor, hatred, violence and injustice. Perhaps not so much anymore–Christians all more or less get along for the most part–but this was not always so. And certainly Christians and other religions do not get along, to this day.
But the foolish thing is, at heart all religions have truth in them. And with all that we’re supposed to believe about ourselves and each other–we waste our time trying to find or define or force division.
THAT’S foolish.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:37 am
Disc:
Let me rephrase that last paragraph:
But at heart all religions have truth in them. And the foolish thing is, all that we’re supposed to believe about ourselves and each other–we waste our time trying to find or define or force division.
THAT’S foolish.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:31 am
Randall, regarding the style of art of the Holy Cards; I could find nothing describing the style of the art.
I, too, have quite a collection of these cards, some dating back to my first holy communion day.
They are beautiful, I’ll give you that, and all seem to be of one style, if not one hand. They are very old, the first example (a woodcut of St. Christopher) was made in the mid 1400’s.
The cards as we know them are also very ancient. They have been reproduced as is since their inception.
I wish I could be helpful.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:52 am
@ 180 DiscHucker
“the purpose of the Church is to proclaim the good news that we who are dead in sin can be brought to life. we who stand condemned before a perfectly holy God can be not only forgiven but seen as perfectly righteous because of Christ. we who have been sold into slavery can be redeemed/bought back by the cross.”
-Good point.
To others (not that I don’t care who you are, I just don’t care to list all of you):
Jesus was, in fact speaking to the Jews. A lot of what he said and did would not matter to the Gentiles, who were not under the Law given to Moses. Jesus was the Messiah promised to Abraham long, long ago. When the prophecies about Him said that He would lead them to freedom, the people of the day obviously thought it meant physical freedom from the Romans who were occupying their land at the time. However, this was not the case. The freedom Christ was to offer the Jews was freedom from condemnation under the Law.
Jesus also warned the Jewish people that when they failed to believe, the gift of salvation that they refused to accept would be given to the Gentiles, that the true branch of Israel would be cut from the tree and that the Gentiles would be grafted on in their place (which, having never been Jewish, is great news for me). It was not until after Jesus had ascended that the disciples were told that they were free from the restrictions in the law regarding food, etc, and that they should go preach to the Gentiles. And it wasn’t just food laws they were free from, either. Jews of the day were taught that Gentiles were spiritually unclean, and to eat with them, or even hang out with them, would cause the Jews to become unclean and unworthy of God.
To the idea that we are to be like Christ, that much is true. The mythology and ideology that goes along with that is a bunch of baloney, perpetrated by both Christians and non-Christians alike. People look at the Christian faith and believe (as many have been taught) that Christians are supposed to be perfect people. Jesus never said that. As a matter of fact, he said the opposite. When the Pharisees asked him why he ate with and hung out with tax collectors and other sinners, he told them that (paraphrase) the physician does not come to heal the healthy, but those that are sick.
When you get right down to it, at the time when Jesus was here in the flesh, the Jews had the Law of Moses. A law that governed everything from how to handle diseases, murder, theivery, sexual deviancey (sp?), etc – even down to what was acceptable or not to eat, and how to patch clothing. And of the flip side of that, there was a system of sacrifices to be made in order to attone for sinning against the law.
The major problem with the law was that it was nigh on impossible to keep. You could sin by commiting some act against the law, or sin by ommiting some attribute of the law. This is why Jesus even had to be made flesh in the first place. Because no man can possibly keep every aspect of the law all the time, or make sacrifice for whatever transgression he may not know he commited, even “good” men would be condemned to hell by the law.
What Christ accomplished on the cross, through death, burial, and resurrection, was victory over the law, and its ultimate price – death. The world needed a perfect, sinless sacrifice for salvation. None of us are capable of that, Christian or otherwise.
The only thing in the Christian religion that saves Christians is belief in the diety of Christ. There is no price to pay (He paid it), there is not a ritual to perform, no works to gain salvation. The idea that a Christian has to be perfect is total misinformation, because if a person could be perfect, then the Law would have sufficed. As Christians, we ARE, in fact, to strive to be as Christ-like as we can, but God knows we WILL fall short – way short. The only thing we can do when we fall is to pick ourselves up, dust off, ask for forgiveness, and move on. The biggest mistake Christians have made over the centuries is to promote the myth that our lives are perfect and that we never sin. We are to work for the Lord after we have received salvation (Faith without works is dead, even the demons believe, and tremble in fear), but that’s not what saves us.
As to the multiple splits and factions of the Christian church – while there are things in the bible that are not open to translation, there are many things that are. For example, some will believe that they are not to eat pork (it’s in the Law), and others feel otherwise. According to the book of Timothy, neither is correct, neither is incorrect, and also, neither is to FORCE the other around to his way of thinking. It’s these differences in interpretation that have caused the splits in the church. That doesn’t make it right, but not being right doesn’t make it not so, either.
Imagine, if you would, if the different denominations would get over their petty differences and work together toward a common goal (which should be the advancement of the Kingdom of God, and not the increase of denominational numbers or church building funds). Baptists are awesome at planning things, the Pentecostals are whirlwinds when it comes to getting things done. If these two groups could get past their differences, and really get down to what matters (preaching the Gospel), imagine what they could accomplish.
As a Christian, I believe that the only path to God is through Christ. I believe that there are universal truths in the world (this being one of them). I also understand that I can not force anyone to believe me, or follow my God. I can, however, explain my position and hope that it changes minds and softens hearts. Getting angry at a non-believer for being so will do nothing more than push them away. All I can offer is what I believe to be truth, and a kind, loving attitude. (Though I am expected to get angry at a brother who unashamedly sins.)
Once again, I’ve gone on and written lot more than I should. Thanks for reading it, anyway.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:59 am
Oh, and about the “My way or hell” thing, I honestly believe it’s “Christ or hell”, not “Catholic or hell”, not “Baptist or hell”, not “Church of Christ or hell”… you get the idea. I know how I choose to worship, and I realize that I don’t have all the answers, either, and that my way is not for everybody. This does not bother me. And I am unappologetic for it.
Now, I am done. Until I comment again, anyway!
March 31st, 2009 at 11:51 am
segue:
re comment 48/73
Sorry i didn’t mean to be rude or crude.
I lost any faith i might have had one day when i was about thirteen years old. Up until that point i had been hauled to church every sunday all my life, and every christmas morning too (which always kind of put a damper on christmas.
We were parked outide the church, i can’t remember why, and a very old priest (catholic) came along and opened the church, and his expression and his whole demeanour was that of a cranky, depressed old man. I remember thinking – this man has given his life to the church, and now is near death. If he truly had any faith himself he must surely have been upbeat about the thought of entering heaven when he died. This was clearly not the case. Then I started looking at the other priests in the church, and sure enough they all seemed unutterably depressed. It became obvious very quickly that none of these men had any faith themselves. At some point they had all realised they had bought into a nonsense belief system, seen through it, yet remained trapped within their identity as priests, which i suppose provided them with a home, a job and some status. But it was obvious they were just going through the motions. From that point on, i stopped even going through those motions. My parents seemed to twig onto this too at about the same time, and suddenly – halleluliah, we didn’t have to go to church anymore. I don’t know – sunday mornings to myself from then on – maybe there is a God after all.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Whoopee:
I am also often faced with seeing those who, by their own admission, ought to show the signs of joy that are supposed to manifest in one serving God, but don’t.
I find this bothersome as well. I was in a church at one time where the pastor was all the time down on everything. He got cancer (and lived through it, and even fathered another child after the chemo was done), but chose to dwell on the cancer, not the miraculous cure (it was non-hodgkin’s lymphoma, with a lump the size of an orange in his jaw before it was biopsied and discovered, usually fatal at that stage). Every little thing was a cause for alarm, and doom and gloom (nevermind how non-consequential these other things were in the long run). It was enough to make you want to shake him and scream “Where’s the joy, damnit!?”
I also find it bothersome that you don’t see a whole lot of joy on the whole in most churches. Look at the music. The music is supposed to be worshipful, and full of joy, but my favorite joke about the Methodist church (which is mine to tell, and I may, because I WAS Methodist) is “Please rise, as we sing all 371 verses of the slowest, most depressing song ever written.” Where’s the joy in that?
Christians are supposed to be joyful in the fact that there is a way out of the finality of death, and we have attained it. I saw that missing, and that I was unable to do anything about it where I was, so, instead of giving up on my faith, I left the church I was in and started a home church with a like-minded neighbor.
This is not to say that I am a constantly grinning, beaming ray of happy sunshine, buy it’s my faith that brings me through a lot of crap when I just don’t think I can take any more.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:10 pm
186. whoopee: Sorry i didn’t mean to be rude or crude.
****
I’m sure you didn’t, and reading you story, I can understand your curiosity.
There are just a few subjects I think are off limits as topics of personal discussion, and religion is one of them. Politics is another.
Drives my brother batty.
March 31st, 2009 at 1:15 pm
7. whoopee – March 29th, 2009 at 2:28 am
With regards to comment number three, surely Mother Theresa had the most tragic death of all, dying on the same day as Princess Di. Nobody noticed.
Mother Teresa wouldn’t have cared. She didn’t go in for celebrity stuff. Anyway, I noticed. And so did you!
March 31st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
in response to 146…the catholic church is not the church that jesus himself started. it is a church with changed ways from the eastern orthodox who still are considered by the world as the same Christian religion that was started before the Great Schism. I am sure you know all the details about that though, so you should realize that the Catholic church unfortunately changed some things that need not be changed. Sorry to disrupt the other arguments : )
March 31st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
80. segue
81. RandomPrecision
I’m Catholic (nonpracticing at the moment) and I NEVER accepted that. I’m sorry, segue, that your teacher skunked you like that. RandomPrecision, yeah, that doesn’t make much sense. It seems as if that would be a human construct, designed to make people behave in ways that make them easy to control.
I don’t accept much of any organized religion; I tend to cobble a bit from here and a bit from there, and go with my own feelings on God and all that. Some things about Catholicism I still embrace, but I butt heads over stuff like Hell and birth control.
Loved this list, though. Nice artwork!
March 31st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
80 seque.
Just saw that because of Mabel right here…I’m not Catholic, but I know for a fact that Catholics don’t believe that. So I don’t know where she was coming from. Anyone ever hear about Ghandi speaking about different religions? He said if he picked another, it would’ve been Orthodox. Makes me happy that genius knows what’s up. : )
March 31st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
***Gandhi, obviously. Andd as for 146 again:
“If you are Roman Catholic, your church shared the same rich apostolic and doctrinal heritage as the Orthodox Church for the first thousand years of its history, since during the first millennium they were one and the same Church. Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (which include Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), by tampering with the Original Creed of the Church, and considering himself to be infallible. Thus your church is 1,000 years old.
If you are Orthodox Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true “one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” This is the greatest legacy that we can pass on to the young people of the new millennium. “
March 31st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Atheists don’t seem to get the fact that atheism is just as much a religion as Christanity,Hinduism,or any other faith.And millions have met cruel deaths through the religion of atheism and it’s followers such as Stalin and Mao Tse Dung.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:58 pm
See what you started, Dana? LOL
Discussions on theology usually last years…..many, many years.
April 1st, 2009 at 1:25 am
Still other legends exist about St Christopher actually being granted the face of a dog by God, to ward off unwanted female attention. lol, good one! Unwanted female attention!
April 1st, 2009 at 3:04 am
DiscHuker: I reiterate my point. Religion is based on beliefs. For a christian, it is essential to believe that Jesus & Christianity is the ONLY path to GOD.
(1) But why should a non-christian believe that Jesus was God’s son. How does it matter to a Christian what other religion thinks about Jesus (as long as it does get people to kill each other in God’s name)?
(2) Why does the beliefs of non-Christians affect you? All that is needed is respect to their position & religious tolerance. Is that asking for too much?
And with respect to your example of truck hitting someone on the street. I can turn the tables and ask what happens if you are standing in the path of the oncoming truck and you the one who is doomed. i have some bad experience with this example having heard numerous Christian missionaries utter this example to aid them in converting illiterates to Christianity (however the conversion was accepted only when the illiterates saw stacks of cash paid to them!)
April 1st, 2009 at 6:55 am
view: it isn’t just religion that is based on beliefs. every way of living is based on beliefs. either belief that God exists or belief he doesn’t, belief that living in california is better for your family, belief that you should drive a hybrid, belief that you should watch what you eat, etc.
as to your questions…(remember these are all based on the presuppositions of a Bible believing Christian)
1) a non-christian should believe that Jesus was God’s son for all the same reasons the christian believe that Jesus was God’s son; it is the truth, it is the way to peace with God, it is the pathway to being forgiven, it brings the promise of life with God eternally, etc.
it matter to a christian what others think about Jesus for several reasons;
-God is angry against Job’s friends in the book of Job because “you have not spoken of me what is right” (job 42:7)
-if someone is in a system which does not think rightly about God, they will miss out on all the beauties of a relationship with Him
-if they are in that system, they are with other, possibly leading others, away from relationship with the One, True God.
2)the beliefs of a non-christian do not affect me, per se. i have compassion for them. if you truly believe that your way of living is the right way, how much do you have to hate me to not tell me about that way. especially if your system of beliefs has doctrines about the eternal life
as far as religious tolerance goes, this is only something that people want who have no religion. every religion has a set of non-negotiable issues. while some may have more than others, all of them have some. to deny what is fundamental to them makes them lose their distinction and their reason for belief.
i have respect for all persons, because they were created in God’s image. however, that doesn’t mean that i have to agree with their beliefs, especially if those beliefs are leading them away from the greatest thing that is offered to them, peace with God.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
DiscHuker: A non-christian doesn’t have to believe that Jesus was God’s son. He just needs to respect the fact that Christians believe that Jesus was God’s son.
Every religion has concepts of eternal life & ways to reach God. The reason i (personally) don’t go around preaching my religion is because i don’t believe that there is only ONE WAY to reach God & that the rights for the way has been given to my religion. I believe that God is like a ocean & each religion isn’t more than a droplet. There are a zillion ways of reaching GOD and be at PEACE with him. But if one was interested, i would be more than happy to open up my religion to outsiders.
Religious Tolerance is easily achieved if one believes every religion to be unique & acknowledge that as a fact. Else, we are going to be in perpetual arguments on the merits of each religion that we forget that RELIGION IS A MEANS TO ACHIEVE A GOAL AND IN ITSELF, NOT A GOAL.
Peace be to you.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 am
DiscHuker: Baptismal regeneration is in the Bible
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 am
2 cents worth, for Viewfromoutsidechristianity religious tolerance is an oxymoron for those religions that have one god, wether it is christianity, islam etc, commands from the Bible or Quran are to be intolerant of other religions, love the people, speak the truth to them, to stand by and tolerate their “wrong religion” is essentially allowing them to go to hell, waving at them as they pass, so unfortunatly they will never acheive what you seek…
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 am
dbrownl: Thanks for the clarification.
I am astounded as to how people think that their Lord has commanded that there is but ONLY ONE WAY to reach them and that their group has the Lord’s blessings.
IMHO, if there was true GOD, he wouldn’t mind people taking any route to reach him. The goal matters & not the path!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:10 am
jayfray: you failed to see the last few words of the verse you cited…”BY the resurrection of Jesus Christ”
without a view towards the sacrificial nature of the atonement baptism doesn’t do anything.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 am
Atheism is NOT a religion.
It clearly states in the Utoes (Unholy Testament of Empirical Science) “Amongst ye chosen peoples, empirics, by The Science, thou shalt forever refrain from organizing brethren in any purposes involving intent to worship or give thanks to the savior of all man, The Science. Empirics with to do in any such togethering will be irrevocably banished, utterly rejected and forsaken by The Science and condemned to spend all his remaining consciousness in the festering torture of Superstition.” (Hawking – 3:22)
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:42 am
204. Kazorek : There is a distinction between an Atheist and Non-Religious. I don’t believe the term religion is well used in that sense, but Atheism is NOT the lack of a religion as you seem to think, it is a BELIEF that there is no omnipotent being.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 am
And you I assume belong to the religion that BELIEVES there are no space aliens that come to earth and abduct humans for experimentation. As well as the religion that BELIEVES there is no bigfoot. Oh, and there’s that religion that BELIEVES there is no Locke Ness monster.
Wow Mark, you and I share many of the same religious beliefs! We’re so righteous!
One question though.. if you belong to the religion that believes there is an omnipotent being, and I’m part of the religion that doesn’t believe there is an omnipotent being, then what ISN’T a religion?
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:41 am
organised religion is a no no in my book. I believe in a “higher being” but not in a religion that says what i can and can`t do.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 am
The only religious groups who believe in Jesus Christ are Christians and dead atheists.
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Hahaha. Good one
April 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 am
Bad day for the saints!!
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 am
hahahahah @ 208. hey, anyone who isn’t Christian wanna explain crying icons to me? As a Christian I can’t really see how you could deny that as a miracle. But just wondering…
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
smithstar15 (208):
HA! Mind if I copy that?
April 4th, 2009 at 2:40 am
I can explain that. It doesn’t happen.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:29 am
GTT–You sure can–
April 4th, 2009 at 9:39 am
kazorek, how can you say it doesnt happen, theres proof, countless videos and stories of it for generations?…
April 4th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Steelman (post 141) When you say,”I believe Unitarian Universilists believe that the majority of religions are a path to God, but given the extreme differences and claims of uniqueness, this is in and of itself an illogical position.” You are not exactly correct.
From the UU website the beliefs are better explained as: “Unitarian Universalism is a caring, open-minded religion that encourages you to seek your own spiritual path. Our Faith draws on many religious traditions, welcoming people with different beliefs. We are united by shared values, not by creed or dogma. Our congregations are places where people gather to nurture their spirits and put their faith into action by helping to make our communities—and the world—a better place.”
We joke about bringing our religious texts and scissors to church. My take on it is that most faiths have merit, but are also flawed. There are beautiful beliefs contained in some religions that at the same time have contradictory or troubling practices. For example, “an eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek,” which is it?
But look at the Golden rule as expressed in four different holy books:
Bible: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” Matthew 7:12
Qur’an: “Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” Fourth Hadith of an-Nawawi 13
Buddhism: “Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.”
Judaism: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD.” Leviticus 19:18[31]
April 6th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
So WHY do we have, or need, Saints? Anyone? Please.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
217. scandal007: So WHY do we have, or need, Saints? Anyone? Please.
****
Saints are people whose lives are something which to aspire to. They lived lives not of perfection, but of striving for perfection. Francis of Assisi, a playboy before becoming a monk, prayed, “Lord, give me chastity, but not yet”. He knew he was weak, he knew he wasn’t quite ready to give up his wandering ways, but he did. That he did is why we should learn about him.
Most of the saints have wonderful stories. They came from backgrounds that didn’t particularly spawn saints. These people overcame incredible odds to become the holy people they did.
We need them to guide us. To show us how to become better people. One needn’t be a Christian to follow the stories of the saints, to become better people by knowing their stories. One needn’t believe in God to make it a good idea. What they taught was being the best possible person under the worst possible conditions.
Clear enough?
April 6th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
216- Moonbeam- the golden rule in four different holy books was very cool.
April 6th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Thank you, Segue (218) your reply was much appreciated, though still not clear. (There are very many wonderful people in the present and from the past who inspire.)
So why do people pray to Saints? Isn’t that sacrilegious?
There is but one God.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
220. scandal007:…So why do people pray to Saints? Isn’t that sacrilegious?
There is but one God.
****
They aren’t praying *to* the saint per se, they are asking the saint to intercede, on their behalf, with God. It’s really very simple.
If they were praying *to* the saint then yes, it would be sacrilegious. But all they are doing is asking a favor, asking them to ask God on your behalf…get it?
April 7th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Afraid not, Segue….but thanks for taking the time to try and educate me.
So a Saint is closer to God than us mere mortals?
It wasn’t God that gave them Sainthood, it was man.
Think I’ll just stick to praying to God directly, but thanks again fo your advice.
April 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I am a Christian and I believe all of this is true, because God’s power is unstoppable
…and I know I am about to get some very negative responses lol oh well
April 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am
About Saint Lucy (Or Lucia): Her eyes were not gouged out during the torture, but she took the out herself and gave them to the suitor that admired her for having beautiful eyes, while asking for to be left in peace thereafter.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Kazorek 204 & 206-
nice!
April 16th, 2009 at 1:41 am
206. Kazorek : I’ve been away for quite some time now and I come back to find this rather aggressive reply to my comment. Being non-religious is simply not caring, you don’t think about it or dwell on it. You simply just don’t care, there is a HUGE difference – as is evident in people like you who obviously care a lot.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:03 am
He was just a bit of ugly, that’s why he’s been drawn as a dog most times.
In fact, a king sent two whores to tempt him, but he converted them to Christianity too!
November 20th, 2009 at 9:38 am
@Trigintor (14):
amen