Saints

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
They are interesting. Tell me, what is your view on Saints? I thought they were a Catholic thing until I saw whodey reference St Paul.

Some are transformed gods e.g. St. Brigid.

Sainthood is not exclusively Catholic. Orthodox churches also have saints and the celebration of the feast day of a saint still remains in the Anglican communion. I suspect however that Whodey was using the title in a different sense, merely as a recognition of his sanctity and virtue, rather than any comment about the cult of saints.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That's right, I don't understand it.

Can you explain it to me in laymen's terms?

A saint is a deceased person who has been posthumously recognised by the Church as a person of virtue whom they believe is in heaven. Recognition of sainthood means three things: 1. people are commended to pray to this saint for his intercession, 2. the saint receives a particular memorial day, 3. the body of the saint and any objects related to him are immediately relics.

There are also many not recognised in the Catholic Church as saints, but as "blesseds". This title recognises their holiness but does not permit these privileges of sainthood. For example, the cult of a blessed is generally restricted to a particular region. This means that their memorial day can only be celebrated there.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I suppose that makes sense. It's a better explanation than Palyanka's.

The catholic people actually fall for this? Like worshipping saints, like they actually are gods? Very hinduistic, if you ask me.

It's Hinduistic on the surface of it. If you were stduy furthur you would realize that there are some big differences, like that Hindus will acknowledge saints outside of their own religon, amonst others.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
It's Hinduistic on the surface of it. If you were stduy furthur you would realize that there are some big differences, like that Hindus will acknowledge saints outside of their own religon, amonst others.

The hinduistic gods are traditional since prehistoric times.
The catholic gods, sorry saints, are decided from a holy chair. They are given god-like powers - like protecting cities, certain groups of people, and such. You can pray directly to them, as they actually were gods. They are central in worshipping, in ceremonies, lucky charms, and such.

I see many similarities with the hindu gods, even if I cannot oreder them in a one-to-one relationship.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The hinduistic gods are traditional since prehistoric times.
The catholic gods, sorry saints, are decided from a holy chair. They are given god-like powers - like protecting cities, certain groups of people, and such. You can pray directly to them, as they actually were gods. They are central in worshipping, in ceremonies, lucky charms, and such.

I se ...[text shortened]... any similarities with the hindu gods, even if I cannot oreder them in a one-to-one relationship.

This is rubbish.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This is rubbish.

Of course it is, I've been telling this all the time!

The bible clearly says "There is only one god", then why treat a lot of saints as gods too?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The hinduistic gods are traditional since prehistoric times.
The catholic gods, sorry saints, are decided from a holy chair. They are given god-like powers - like protecting cities, certain groups of people, and such. You can pray directly to them, as they actually were gods. They are central in worshipping, in ceremonies, lucky charms, and such.

I se ...[text shortened]... any similarities with the hindu gods, even if I cannot oreder them in a one-to-one relationship.

Like I said, on the surface there may appear to be similarities, but there are many noteable differences.
Unless used in the correct context, I dont think its accurate to say the hindu avatars are like the catholic saints.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Of course it is, I've been telling this all the time!

The bible clearly says "There is only one god", then why treat a lot of saints as gods too?

Well I dont know about anyone else, but since all humans have the god-seed within them, I would not only treat the real authentic saints as gods, but also common people, who are "good" . Thats right, I would treat a good person like I would treat God.
This conclusion is based on solid personal experience, not to mention the logical conclusion that I came to by studying the sutras and the vedas.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well I dont know about anyone else, but since all humans have the god-seed within them, I would not only treat the real authentic saints as gods, but also common people, who are "good" . Thats right, I would treat a good person like I would treat God.
This conclusion is based on solid personal experience, not to mention the logical conclusion that I came to by studying the sutras and the vedas.

First, I don't believe in any interreligious liaisons either. but the similarities are striking. I wouldn't dream of hearing someone catholic say "Yes, you're right in this! I wouln't think of it myself in this way, but now when you mention it...!" Neither I wouldn't hear any hindu saying. "That's right. We all have our sphere of gods, catholics has their hindu gods and we have ours." Of course not.

So the similarities between the two religions exist in my mind, and anyone shareing the same thoughts as I have.

If I am considered a good person to someone, I wouldn't want to be prayed at every night before the night sleep, nor wouldn't I want to be depicted as an icon, nor an image of myself being brought round his/her village once a year in a procession. I'm happy as the things are now actually.

(When my girlfriend when we have a nice workout in the bed utters "Oh my God" in the very last seconds, I don't think she means me explicitly.)

As I cannot, or even want to, change the dogmas or rituals of the catholic church, even if I don't understand them, I do want to understand them, compare them with what I do understand, in order to learn more about religions and their mechanisms.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
First, I don't believe in any interreligious liaisons either. but the similarities are striking. I wouldn't dream of hearing someone catholic say "Yes, you're right in this! I wouln't think of it myself in this way, but now when you mention it...!" Neither I wouldn't hear any hindu saying. "That's right. We all have our sphere of gods, catholics has their ...[text shortened]... t I do understand, in order to learn more about religions and their mechanisms.

1. Thats a good start to understanding the differences-definately the right approach.
2.People may have similar thoughts to you , but everyone has their own unique take on everything. (ie. mature, compotent adults)
3.I agree. There are so many more practical things to prav for🙂
4.Lol! No, she probably doesn't mean you explicitly, but that is one of my points. ie. since we all have the god-seed(the potential to be gods), every interaction with ither people can be revelatory, even if the people involved aren't aware the role they are playing in someone elses story. And when they are conciouss of it- thats when sparks fly!!
5.Their is much to learn about religous practices in the modern world. Sounds like you have a very diplomatic, open-minded approach to this. I commend you for this.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
5.Their is much to learn about religous practices in the modern world. Sounds like you have a very diplomatic, open-minded approach to this. I commend you for this.

Thank you karoly. I really do.

There are sesveral different approaches to a question like this:
(1) Taking the question as an insult. "I'm better than those hethens, How dare you compare me to those!"
(2) Taking the question as a wakness. "I know something you don't, meaning I'm better than you."
(3) Taking the question as an entrance of missionary or preaching. "Now, if you read the verse [this and that] you see that if you only have the right mind you will be given the answer."
(4) Taking the question as sign that it actually is a good question, worth debating.
(5) Don't wanting to answer the question at all, but give an answer anyway, but on a totally other issue, pretending ansewering the question.
(6) Going off topic, by using a detail in the question, and enlarge it as that, and nothing else, is the important matter.
(7) Taking the question as an attempt to learn more of people who actually know the answer.
...as to take a few alternatives.

Some of my questions might be taken for provocative. They are not. But I put the finger at weak spots to show in a clear way what I don't understand, thus giving them a chance to formulate the answer.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Of course it is, I've been telling this all the time!

The bible clearly says "There is only one god", then why treat a lot of saints as gods too?

No. I mean, your understanding of sainthood is totally bogus. I would have thought that you, as a supposedly empirically minded atheist, would not persist in these outrageous, fundamentalist Christian prejudices.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No. I mean, your understanding of sainthood is totally bogus. I would have thought that you, as a supposedly empirically minded atheist, would not persist in these outrageous, fundamentalist Christian prejudices.

Of course my undestanding of sainthood is low.
Why do you think I ask? To get to know less?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Of course my undestanding of sainthood is low.
Why do you think I ask? To get to know less?

You didn't ask. You frankly made a provocative remark that Catholicism uses saints in a way comparable to Hindu gods. It's these sorts of comments I expect from Galvo or Robbie.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You didn't ask. You frankly made a provocative remark that Catholicism uses saints in a way comparable to Hindu gods. It's these sorts of comments I expect from Galvo or Robbie.

You should expect this from Fabian, because it's his standard MO. Make a point by asking a loaded question and then feigning that he wants to learn in order to mindlessly repeat his point over and over and over again.