1 edit
Originally posted by rwingett"That is absurd. If it is "god" who makes saints, then the process by which saints are chosen can not be changed."rwingett
That is absurd. If it is "god" who makes saints, then the process by which saints are chosen can not be changed. Man could not change it, and god would have no need to change it as he would have chosen the proper criteria in the first pl ...[text shortened]... he process (which should come as no surprise in the first place).
Logic strikes again ...
Is this the post that you had in mind when you shared your worries and deep concern with us Rwingett ?
You just want to attack the Roman Catholic Church. You are not worried nor are you curious about how the procedures are about canonising. You do not want to learn anything at all about the Church or the Roman Catholic Faith. As a freethinker you want to see the Church destroyed ....
The post that I have quoted shows that you had your pre-fabricated opinion even before you started this thread. You just wanted a anti-religion thread. Maybe because it is Christmas soon .....
I still wish you peace .....
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoewell, i am curious about the process so perhaps you can explain the following to me.
nor are you curious about how the procedures are about canonising
i have quoted from an earlier post:
"Father Michael Mannion responds:
There is a written set of criteria for canonization, the process by which the Church formally recognizes a deceased person as a saint. Remember: it is God who makes saints. The Church's canonization process merely ratifies and proclaims what God has done."
so by saying it is 'God who makes saints', is it meant that through God these individuals lead a life "whose holiness is well recognized and whose life is a source of inspiration to all believers"? the purpose of the rest of the process described (the documentation and the voting etc), is done to recognize these achievements officially and therefore make them publically available to others? is this what father mannion means then by "merely ratifies and proclaims what God has done"?
is my interpretation correct on this? (and thanks, btw)
in friendship,
prad
To rapalla7 and ivanhoe:
You are correct in that my primary aim was to take a few potshots at religion (something I can rarely pass up). But I was interested in hearing about how some religious people felt about the pope's sainthood production line, and whether they felt that it has diminished the value of sainthood at all. Or whether they're like chancrematic and don't feel that sainthood makes any difference to religious people in general.
Even though I've phrased my posts in a combative tone, I think it is still a legitimate question. Is the pope helping or hurting his cause by mass producing saints at a furious pace?
To pradtf: Stan Musial was a famous St. Louis Cardinals firstbaseman. It was a joke. I thought that might be over a lot of people's heads, but I went with it anyway.
Originally posted by rwingettIt could be because of the catholic school boom. Simply put they were running out of names and people were confused as to which one to drop there kids off at.😵
To rapalla7 and ivanhoe:
You are correct in that my primary aim was to take a few potshots at religion (something I can rarely pass up). But I was interested in hearing about how some religious people felt about the pope's sainthood production line, and whether they felt that it has diminished the value of sainthood at all. Or whether they're like chan ...[text shortened]... It was a joke. I thought that might be over a lot of people's heads, but I went with it anyway.
Originally posted by pradtf
well, i am curious about the process so perhaps you can explain the following to me.
i have quoted from an earlier post:
"Father Michael Mannion responds:
There is a written set of criteria for canonization, the process by which the Church formally recognizes a deceased person as a saint. Remember: it is God who makes saints. The Church's canoniza ...[text shortened]... d has done"?
is my interpretation correct on this? (and thanks, btw)
in friendship,
prad
I am not an expert in this field, but I guess you're more or less right in your interpretation. I want to emphasise however that it is NOT necessary to have lived a life without sin in order to become a saint. All human beings are sinners, only Jezus Christ was without sin. Being a saint means that we can assume that the person in question is in heaven. It does NOT mean that a person was without sin during his or her life. Thàt is the reason why rwingett says about that emperor he mentioned that he cannot be a saint, but then again Freethinkers claim to investigate before they make any claims. Don't make me laugh .... Freethinkers pretend to knòw and they show this attitude time after time after time .......
They have their pre-set opinions about the members of the Roman Catholic Church and they take every weapon they can find to attack the Church and through guilt by association the Roman Catholic Faith.
They call that rational reasoning .....
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoethat makes sense to me.
Being a saint means that we can assume that the person in question is in heaven. It does NOT mean that a person was without sin during his or her life.
it is part of personal and specieal evolution and the existing saints help as guides and inspirations.
there is a story in hinduism where there was a murderer who had committed such horrible crimes, that when he sought redemption none would take him. finally, one rishi told him that all he could suggest is he utter the name of rama and hope that he is shown mercy. the murderer couldn't even say rama's name so the rishi told him to keep repeating 'mora' which means death. he kept doing that over and over again: 'mora mora mora moramoramo ramo rama' and eventually he was able to say rama. then he dedicated the rest of his life to good and became a rishi himself eventually.
i think there are stories like this in many religions where 'saints' become that way inspite of what they have done in the past.
it seems to me that one of the blessings of religion is it gives hope that people can aspire - justifying coretta king's words about her husband in that
"he never lost faith in the redemption of man"
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo if people disagree with you, it's only because they have preset opinions and haven't investigated things thoroughly? Now let's see...if people agree with you, would that mean that they have open minds and investigate things thoroughly? I'm starting to see how this works...
I am not an expert in this field, but I guess you're more or less right in your interpretation. I want to emphasise however that it is NOT necessary to have lived a life without sin in order to become a saint. All human beings are sinners, only Jezus Christ was without sin. Being a saint means that we can assume that the person in question is in heaven. ...[text shortened]... h guilt by association the Roman Catholic Faith.
They call that rational reasoning .....
Come on, do you REALLY think that the former Austro-Hungarian emperor is worthy of sainthood? No, it's an embarassment to Catholicism. That's why you would rather spend your time attacking my research methods than answer my questions. Do you, or do you not, think 473 "saints" in one papacy is too many?
Originally posted by rwingettYou are missing the point.
Come on, do you REALLY think that the former Austro-Hungarian emperor is worthy of sainthood? No, it's an embarassment to Catholicism. That's why you would rather spend your time attacking my research methods than answer my questions. Do you, or do you not, think 473 "saints" in one papacy is too many?
As Ivenhoe writes, according to the Church all people are born as sinners. But some are able to escape from that doomed state and become saints. That can happen at the very last minute (read the story of the good murderer on Calvary)
It seems this Pope found a faster method to tell if someone died as a saint. That is why he found more than 400 new saints and another 1500 on their way to sainthood
How to become a saint? Good stories help. But most important are miracles. These miracles should have happened during his/her life or dying and also around his/her grave.
What you shouldn't do if you want to become a recognized saint is writing. A special congregation scrutinizes all written text. And they are very strict in their judgement. So never write you advocate condoms against aids, because you will have no chance at all.
Originally posted by rwingett
So if people disagree with you, it's only because they have preset opinions and haven't investigated things thoroughly? Now let's see...if people agree with you, would that mean that they have open minds and investigate things thoroughly? I'm starting to see how this works...
Come on, do you REALLY think that the former Austro-Hungarian emperor is wo ...[text shortened]... than answer my questions. Do you, or do you not, think 473 "saints" in one papacy is too many?
Your reasoning is bias, manipulating and aimed at achieving a political goal. You do not want to learn anything at all. You want to win the political battle. I even dare say that Freethinkers abuse reason and logic to rationalise killing to solve the problems in society. They don't have any problems with killing as long as it is based on "reason and logic " ....... All the eloquent reasoning of bbarr for instance cannot conceal his true intentions. There are people that call bbarr the "voice of reason". How wrong they are ..... The Freethinkers included eloquent bbarr are advocates of the Culture of Death. The Roman Catholic Church chooses without hesitation for the Culture of Life. That is the reason why the Freethinkers are constantly attacking and ridiculing the Church. They call the Church irrational because the Church teaches us to believe in God. They idolise reason and logic while at the same time they limit the rights of the unborn to life. They preach the "rational" dogma that it is OK to commit suicide, of course under "carefully" selected criterions. They preach the "rational" dogma that it is OK to help somebody to commit suicide. BBarr even goes further. He claims that, under no doubt very "carefully" defined circumstances, we have an obligation to kill. What will happen to me in bbarr's Utopia if I would refuse to obey His Most Holinesses orders ? They want to make the Church a scapegoat for all the misery and suffering that has happened in the past. If you call that logical reasoning and you fail to see the underlying principles of enemy thinking you are even more ignorant than I originally thought.
The discrimination, abuse and insults that I encountered from the side of Mr. Feivel, His Most Holiness bbarr and Big Mouth McChicken are still there for all of the RHP members to read in the different threads about the various subjects that deal with the relation between Freethinkers and religion as a whole and the relation with the Roman Catholic Church in particular ......
I repeat: you do not want to learn anything at all about the Roman Catholic Church or Her Teachings. You want to destroy the Church .......
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo are you conceding this battle? Are you tacitly agreeing that 473 saints in 25 years (or roughly 19 per year) is too much? Since you refuse to answer my question, and choose to dance around it in increasingly puzzling tangents, I can only conclude that such is the case.
Your reasoning is bias, manipulating and aimed at achieving a political goal. You do not want to learn anything at all. You want to win the political battle. I even dare say that Freethinkers abuse reason and logic to rationalise killing to solve the problems in society. They don't have any problems with killing as long as it is based on "reason and log ...[text shortened]... ll about the Roman Catholic Church or Her Teachings. You want to destroy the Church .......
.
Your latest attempt to avoid the question is not worthy of comment. It is nothing more than standard christian hyperbole. If you have nothing further to say, I shall consider this discussion between us closed.
Happy Holidays, Ivanhoe.
Originally posted by Feivel
We have now heard from the lunatic fringe 🙂
Feivel the HardcoreFreethinker
You give the impression that you are quoting my words, Mr Feivel.
I mean these words : "The entire post was snipped for all our sakes"
However I do not remember using these words.
From what post of mine did you "quote", Mr Feivel, the Hardcore Freethinker ?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoebbarr's eloquent reasoning provided a logical, consistent rationale for animal rights that strengthened my beliefs.
All the eloquent reasoning of bbarr ...
.
in that same thread, you made a compelling case for the same thing based on religion that i found extremely powerful.
when we have agreement on something so basic and fundamental as upholding the rights of those oppressed who are unable to ask or fight for it themselves, surely we are standing on common ground that is foundational in its solidity. surely we can all work from this place to resolve other differences with both respect and courtesy. surely we can augment each other in the mutual quest to better society and our species with both reason and faith.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfA nice sentiment, Pradtf, but it is impossible. Reason and faith are wholly incompatible. An increase in one equals a decrease in the other.
bbarr's eloquent reasoning provided a logical, consistent rationale for animal rights that strengthened my beliefs.
in that same thread, you made a compelling case for the same thing based on religion that i found extremely powerful.
when we have agreement on something so basic and fundamental as upholding the rights of those oppressed who are unable to ...[text shortened]... quest to better society and our species with both reason and faith.
in friendship,
prad