Atheists speaking up for the Catholic faith! Never in my lifetime did I ever expect to see such a miracle. But indeed it occured, despite all odds. And to which prosecutor was Catholicism a defendent to? Well well, none other than our good friend, fundamentalism!
Normally I would classify most Christian fundamentalists as well-intentioned, though perhaps somewhat misguided, depending on their extent of shall we say, hardcore-ness (e.g. "The Bible SEZ IF J00 IZ NUT GUNA CONVERT, YOO IS GUNA GET WTFPWNED!!1" or "ALL NON CHRISTIANS IS TEH DOOMED!!111" or something on that track.)
That said, a debate about whether Catholics are Christians is downright..... Let me just say that's not fundamentalism. It's not even lunacy for that matter. But the unfortunate reality is, some hardcore fundamentalists do have that notion. And the sad thing is, it's not even based on Catholic theology, but the well-worn stereotype of Mary worship, aka Marylatry (a play on "Mary" and "idolatry"). Here's a rather memorable argument by one of these types, who incidentally got wtfpwned by a non-Catholic in a debate:
"You know as part of my research in this debate I created some questions and phoned 4 random Roman Catholic Churches in the San Francisco Bay Area and asked the following questions below.
1. How can mankind receive salvation and is Jesus involved? Or does Mary tell Jesus whom to save?
2. Do you worship Mary?
3. Did Mary begat God the father?
4. Explain the Doctrine of Justification?
All the priests said that Mary was sinless. But when I then asked if she was divine, they all said that she wasn’t. Asking for a chapter and a verse to backup such statements was too much for them, so I did not ask, since I understand that Catholics do not use the Bible as their sole authority.<-- insert by bx: can you find me a verse that states that Mary is divine? It's precisely because there isn't any that we say she isn't a deity to us. You're shooting yourself in the foot pal. Sadly Catholic tradition, Church leaders, and the Pope seem to hold more weight than the Holy Scriptures.<-- find me any article in our Cathechism or Canon law that states that. Also none of them would admit that Mary begat God the father, and none of them would admit that salvation comes through Mary.<-- because rather obviously, we believe salvation comes through Jesus. When asked about the doctrine of Justification, what I was told was not Biblical. I was told that obedience to the 10 commandments and the Sacraments was involved in Justification. <-- if that's not biblical, what is?
Quote:No, the condemnation of graven images comes down to worship, and as seen above, veneration and respect are not worship. The argument that mere numerosity of images of Mary proves worship is ridiculous. <-- I struggle to see how you don't understand this. Analogy: does having many pictures of say, George Bush throughout the world's newspapers mean we worship him?
I asked the priests about all the Mary statues throughout the Catholic world, but some said that the statues do not mean a worship of Mary, but devotion and a reverence to her. So none of them would admit that they worshipped Mary.<-- gotta quote a forummer here: "Does having statues of George Washington mean Americans worship him?" The priests condemned the Catholics in other regions of the world that kiss Mary statues and bow down to them.
Regardless of what they say, the Catholic Church is in violation of the 10 commandments.<--gee. Which commandment?
"
In short, this dude, having some omgwtfbbq conspiracy theory that Catholics worship Mary, decided to call up some Catholic churches to expose their heinous crimes. And when the priests corrected and explained his misunderstanding, in his enlightenment, he decided that they were hiding the truth! On hindsight, his opponent didn't wtfpwn him. Rather, he wtfpwned himself.
But what was a real eye-opener to me was how a whole bunch of atheists actually knew Church and scriptural theology and used it to shoot down the argument. Puts me to shame I guess.
Well, extremes aside, many denominations are in conflict over how exactly to interpret the Bible: Literally, or in context? Or both? And if both, what should be taken in context, and what should be taken literally?
Herein lies the conflict between liberal and fundamentalist Christianity. To point out the problems of being a fundamentalist is relatively easy -- Taking the Word literally brings up the age-old conflict of science and religion. But the liberal Christian is not without his own problems too: if the Bible is to be taken in context, ie not literally, wouldn't that mean that defining events in Christianity, such as the Resurrection, the miracles -- All of these wouldn't have happened. And of course those who stand in between would face the question, "Aren't you just cherry-picking what you want to believe, and what you don't?"
So I did some reflection upon this question, and came up with an answer: The Bible should be taken both literally, and in context. Literally as in, the events did happen, though the exact details may conflict at times, the event in itself did occur. But these can also be taken in context: event aside, single verses could have different interpretations to them. For example, I am going through event X in my life, and another guy is going through event Y. In this scenario, the verse, say "Come to me all you who are overburdened, and I will give you rest." might have different meanings. Maybe for me it might mean rest from studies and crap, but for the other guy it could mean emotional rest. It is thus from this perspective that I find that the Bible somehow will always have a passage that could describe the situation one is going through at a particular point in time, and offer sound advice...
I guess I'll end off with a little thought that was in my mind a moment ago: Fundamentalism and liberalism are often at loggerheads with each other, but can they, or do they even, complement each other really?
No comments:
Post a Comment