|
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained.
You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email
will not be read. Please read this
page or the footnote if you have questions. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Abase yourself before the majesty of Rome (2.00 / 1) (#1) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 8th, 2001 at 04:17:26 PM PST |
|
|
|
It is the one true faith. All who deny the supermacy of Rome are heathens. This is no accident. Rome has been a splendrous city for thousands of years. One cannot stand againt Rome, as one might against Mecca or Jerusalem; one can only humble oneself at the feet of Rome, and kiss the robes that fall down from her glorious body. Even if Rome did not exist I would be in love with the idea of Rome. The beauty of Rome, the terror of Rome, the majesty of Rome, the invincible immortality of Rome call out to my spirit from across oceans and time. You feel it too. Everyone does. Humble yourself. |
|
screw rome (1.00 / 2) (#2) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 8th, 2001 at 04:20:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
screw rome and the horse it rode in on |
|
You sound... (3.00 / 2) (#3) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 8th, 2001 at 04:25:46 PM PST |
|
|
|
...like a heathen. Deep inside you there is a voice, a whisper, an indomitable core, that is overcome by Rome. Rome can be a Mother to you, or it can be a father. You have a choice. You can either be enslaved by Rome, and forced to do her bidding, or you can love her and be loved by her. One cannot oppose Rome; one can only serve her. |
|
Rome? (none / 0) (#13) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 08:37:09 PM PST |
|
|
|
Just something to point out:
Rome existed before Christ and wasn't built to be the Great City of Catholicism Sorry if I'm not compelled by Catholicism, but I would go to Rome to see the monuments built by the Romans in worship of their various gods (the Vatican, .... no) |
|
Holy words indeed. (3.00 / 2) (#9) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 10th, 2001 at 07:12:32 AM PST |
|
|
|
When choosing a faith I found it reasonable to ask: "What church did Jesus start?" Seeing that Jesus gave Peter authority to start his church the answer is obviously the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Good luck and God Bless. |
|
Peter? (none / 0) (#21) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 01:11:13 PM PST |
|
|
|
Seeing that Jesus gave Peter authority to start his church...
Where in the world do Catholics find justification for this? Matthew 16:17: "...thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church..." This is a lovely passage I've heard many times describing how Jesus promoted Simon Peter to the first Pope. Except "Peter" doesn't translate to "rock." "Peter" translates as "pebble." Jesus built his church on a pebble? Sounds to me like something was lost in the translation, don't you think? |
|
Rome... (none / 0) (#15) |
|
by oleander on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 12:19:46 PM PST |
|
|
|
...was a pretty shitty city back six months ago. But hey, maybe it's changed since I was there. The Vatican isn't territorially part of Rome, but I'm assuming you mean them both together. Right, and to sit here, you must answer me these questions three. [Nevermind.] |
|
The Fence! (4.00 / 1) (#4) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 8th, 2001 at 09:19:39 PM PST |
|
|
|
What no 'they're all true' option? |
|
All except Christianity (none / 0) (#10) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 10th, 2001 at 07:46:28 AM PST |
|
|
|
Christianity declares itself to be the One True Way.
If it is true, all others are false. If any others
are true, then it is false. So, you can only go
as far as to say "all except christianity" |
|
Untrue (none / 0) (#19) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 01:01:52 PM PST |
|
|
|
Historical Christianity regards itself as the fullness of faith. Christians that can trace their doctrines prior to the couple hundred years have no problem allowing that other religions may be true, or at least contain some truth. Christianity does, however, maintain that to an extent that other religions teach things that contradict Christianity, they are false. |
|
technically... (none / 0) (#26) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 02:01:30 PM PST |
|
|
|
any religion which declares an exclusive foundation is the one true way... 3 religions that each believe in their own one god can't all be true... if they all believe in one, they may be different views on one religion, but Christianty is the only religion that believes in one God, trinity and resurrection of a saviour... in that sense, Christianity is unique, and is the best bearer of the one true belief, but many others can be considered to believe that also.
Technically, there can be only one true religion in this sense. To create a religion which embraces any belief is simply to declare that all embraced religions are simply a way of life and NOT 100% truth, just a belief. Anyone who would join that religion essentially agrees that they do not fully believe that their faith is truth. Christianity in this case, cannot co-exist with another religion that contradicts it. The United Church has attempted to be more 'open-minded' towards other religions and has consequently been given a cold shoulder from the general non-United Christian believers... Any religion that embraces multiple belief systems, if any contradict another, becomes a grouping of people who are simply living 'better' lives because they can believe what they want, meanwhile not fully believing their faith to be true. It's like the umbrella religion is patronizing you and encouraging you to believe, and still accepting that others may be equally true. Thus, if it were a) christianty and b) all other religions, b would be a religion in itself which is basically not a religion at all, just a way of life. So having the different religions listed separately was the best, if not the only correct choice. [/rant] |
|
This is a hateful poll (1.00 / 1) (#5) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 9th, 2001 at 01:30:32 PM PST |
|
|
|
Or to phrase it differently, the RESULTS so far are hateful. Don't you have anything better to do than bash believers. Get a life. |
|
Hateful? (none / 0) (#22) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 01:28:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
Nope. Only to people who can't stand the thought that others might not agree with them.
Should I be prevented from ever expressing my views that there is no god? Would you advocate taking away my rights to describe my views just because the logical conclusion of my not believing in a god is that I believe you're wrong for doing do? wnight at /. and k5 wnight@rocketmail dot com |
|
disclaimer... (3.50 / 2) (#6) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 9th, 2001 at 04:04:19 PM PST |
|
|
|
I voted "buddhism" because of my zenbuddhist faith. All faiths are an expression of the same force (or absense or force), I just happen to believe zen to be the most effective way to limit suffering for most people. |
|
Hello ......... Islam?? (none / 0) (#7) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 9th, 2001 at 04:28:15 PM PST |
|
|
|
I answered this poll honest (they're all bunk) but i find it hard to believe that "zoroastrianism" has 4 votes but Islam has none. Is there prejudice against Islam here or what? |
|
Re: Hello ......... Islam?? (5.00 / 1) (#8) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 9th, 2001 at 08:13:37 PM PST |
|
|
|
Kem na Mazda! mavaite payum dadat,
Hyat ma dregvao didareshata aenanghe,
Anyem thwa ahmat athrascha mananghascha
Yayao shyaothnaish ashem thraoshta, Ahura!
Tam moi dastvam daena yai fravaocha.
Ke verethrem-ha thwa poi sengha yoi henti Chithra moi dam ahumbish ratum chizhdi. At hoi vohu Sraosho jantu manangha Mazda ahmai yahmai vashi kahmaichit. Pata-no tbishyantat pairi, Mazdaoscha Armaitischa Spentascha, nase daevi drukhsh, nase daevochithre, nase daevofrakarshte, nase daevo fradaite, apa druksh nase, apa druksh dvara, apa druksh vinase, apakhedhre, apanasyehe. Ma merenchainish gaethao astavitish ashahe. Nemascha ya Armaitish izhacha. |
|
What's wrong with you people (3.00 / 1) (#11) |
|
by Sylvester Q McNamera on Tue Jul 10th, 2001 at 11:02:01 AM PST |
|
|
|
Why do you let a little thing such as religion get you all lathered up. For the sweet love of God, there are many other things that are important in life so just relax. For instance, right now I'm going to go clean all of my guns, so I'm prepared if some redneck motherfucker tries to break into my house. I'll blow his fucking brains out, then I'll chop off his redneck balls and feed them to my cat. I have the right to own guns, as many as I see fit, and there is nothing you can do to stop me. Best wishes, --S.Q. McNamera |
|
Islam is a superset of Christianity (none / 0) (#12) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 11th, 2001 at 08:19:47 PM PST |
|
|
|
without the jesus worship (which is just another form of idolatry). but I guess the admins are all christians so this will be deleted. |
|
re: idolizing Jesus? (none / 0) (#23) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 01:47:40 PM PST |
|
|
|
explain idolatry then. Idolatry is the worship of something in place of the true object of worship, aka God. By your terms Worshipping God is just another form of idolatry (which is most commonly understood in christian lingo, just as 'pagan' is).
May as well say having sex with your wife while you're having an is adultery against your mistress... |
|
oops (none / 0) (#24) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 01:49:50 PM PST |
|
|
|
that would be, 'while you're having an affair'... |
|
Idolatry.... (none / 0) (#25) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 01:51:26 PM PST |
|
|
|
Gustavo Guti�rrez defines Idolatry as the worship of something finite as the absolute.
|
|
Generally, Catholicism is a subset of Christianity (none / 0) (#14) |
|
by typical geek on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 06:08:08 AM PST |
|
|
|
unless you're some kind of freaky anthropologist that is arguing that Catholicism is just a newer kind of paganism. gcc is to software freedom as guns are to personal freedom. |
|
Catholicism isn't Paganism? (none / 0) (#17) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 12:26:09 PM PST |
|
|
|
A few points... I'm a solitary Wiccan, practicing on and off for a few years now. I've been to many Catholic mass sessions in my life, but after studying Wicca and Paganism in general, those "rituals" are VERY similar. They have an alter that is configured with the same equipment and symbols many Wiccans use (chalace, spear, etc). They walk around the alter, blessing it while casting insense, etc. I could go into more depth on this, but I think you get my point. Let's move on to deity structure. The deity structure is almost identical to Paganism. Take notice that Catholocism has both a God (Christ) and a Goddess (Mary, "The Mother Of God"). They comprise the Catholic Godhead which encompasses several other holy beings of various degrees of significance. Similar to certain strains of Paganism, the Catholic church has a living human figure who is revered as a god (much like a Pharaoh was considered a god). I always get lots of argument when raising this point, but it's really quite clear. The Pope, in the eyes of Catholics, is a god (though they'll never admit it :). He is "infaliable" by the church and above all laws. This means that he is perfect to be unable to make mistakes. The Bible says that Jesus was a "perfect human", and since Jesus was God by Christian belief, a perfect human would equate to Jesus. I'm willing to accept criticism on this point, so someone inform me otherwise if this is a bit too far fetched. These similarities are quite astonishing and there are still more, but these are just some of the more obvious ones. However, the way Catholocism came to be what it is today is another story. I'll agree that it certainly started off as another variation of Christianity, but to make the story simple. As the english moved north and started assimilating the peoples they found there, they adopted traits from Paganism to make the conversation more easier (for example, importing holy days such as Yule which became Christmas (sorry, Christ was born in August by our calendar, NOT December) and so on). In the end, Catholocism became a hybrid of Paganism. Corrections? Ideas? Contests to any of this? These are only observations of mine and I don't really have researched any hard evidence to back this up yet, so if anyone's willing to enlighten me, please do so. :) |
|
You seem to argue that Wicca is a branch of . . . (5.00 / 1) (#18) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 12:59:15 PM PST |
|
|
|
I've been to many Catholic mass sessions in my life, but after studying Wicca and Paganism in general, those "rituals" are VERY similar. They have an alter that is configured with the same equipment and symbols many Wiccans use (chalace, spear, etc). They walk around the alter, blessing it while casting insense, etc. I could go into more depth on this, but I think you get my point.Catholicism can trace these rituals back for 2,000 years. How many historical documents exist to trace the same sort of rituals within Wicca for any serious span of time? The obvious conclusion is that the current rituals of Wicca were influenced by the Catholic Church and not the other way around. The deity structure is almost identical to Paganism. Take notice that Catholocism has both a God (Christ) and a Goddess (Mary, "The Mother Of God"). They comprise the Catholic Godhead which encompasses several other holy beings of various degrees of significance.This is a vast misunderstanding of Catholic dogma concerning the Godhead. Evan though Mary (the most blessed and glorious Theotokos) bore God, God predates Mary. Mary, exalted as she is, is not eternal, is a creature, is contingent, and needed to be saved just as every other creation of God. Similar to certain strains of Paganism, the Catholic church has a living human figure who is revered as a god (much like a Pharaoh was considered a god). I always get lots of argument when raising this point, but it's really quite clear. The Pope, in the eyes of Catholics, is a god (though they'll never admit itFirstly, the office of the Pope as currently understood by the Catholic Church is a recent innovation. The infallibility of the Pope was only pronounced at the second Vatican council which took place in the late nineteenth century. Even the universal jurisdiction of the Pope as a hierarch over the entire Church is relatively recent, being unknown to the Church prior to the tenth century. Prior to then (arguably) the Pope was simply a bishop with only as much authority as any other bishop, and due only a primacy of honor (ie. takes the first place at a Ecumenical council). Secondly, even the current understanding of the office of the Pope doesn't even come close to viewing him as a God. Catholics allow the Pope may be just as sinful as any other person and that he only speaks infallibility when speaking under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (similarly to the Prophets of Old). As the english moved north and started assimilating the peoples they found there, they adopted traits from Paganism to make the conversation more easier (for example, importing holy days such as Yule which became Christmas (sorry, Christ was born in August by our calendar, NOT December) and so on). In the end, Catholocism became a hybrid of Paganism.This analysis overlooks that Christianity rose first in the East and then moved west. By the time the Church got to merry old England, the date of Christmas had already been fixed by the Church. Many of the other rituals you speak of, the altar, the lance, the chalice, originated in the Asian and Greek middle east, not in the Latin west. Most of the rituals were being practiced in the very first century AD. They were not adopted by Christianity under the influence of Paganism, but where there from the very beginning. Regards, -l Consider reading Jarislov Pelikan's The Christian Tradition and Mary through the Ages as well as Paul Johnson's A History of the Church to help put this in context. |
|
Zoroaster (none / 0) (#16) |
|
by oleander on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 12:24:01 PM PST |
|
|
|
I am heartened to see some mention of Zoroaster at this late age. I am disheartened to see it tied with Scientology. Ah, how did The Onion put it... "L. Ron Hubbard invents gullability tester". Curses. |
|
Why? (none / 0) (#20) |
|
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 12th, 2001 at 01:04:32 PM PST |
|
|
|
Why in the poll is Roman Catholicism differentiated from Christianity? It seems to me that all forms of Christianity ought to have gotten one option to make room for another non-Christian religion, like say Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, etc. |
 |
Stories
27 votes - 14 %
