[PLUG-TALK] Credibility...

[Ronald Chmara]

On Jan 8, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Michael Robinson wrote:
>> Catholics often worship a man (in effigy).
>> Since they say that a man can be a God, they worship with the effigy.
>> *shrug*
> No, you are wrong.  Catholics don't say that any man can be God.
> You don't understand and accept the divinity of Jesus Christ as
> I have already stated.

I am quite familiar with the issue, actually.

In a nutshell:
"Can somebody who was born, and lived, as a man... be a God?"

In the case of Jesus, and Catholic tradition:
"Can somebody very special, who was born, and lived, as a man... be a  
God?"

I personally have no problem with the idea that all people may be, or  
become, God or Gods.

Some religious traditions strongly object to this very idea, as you  
specifically note, Catholic teachings object to it.

>>>  Follow
>>> that logic, every human being becomes a graven image
>>> because man is made in the image and likeness of God.
>>> Please don't go there.
>> Well, I've already gone there, early Christians say it's heresy, and
>> you're not making any sense.
> Where do early Christians claim that being made in the image and
> likeness of God is a heresy?

Worshipping God in the form of a *human representation*?

That is the heresy.

It's *still* often part of Orthodox Judaism, and Islam, and parts of  
Christianity.

The issue is not about worship of God, its about worship of Human  
figures *before* god, or *greater than* God, or even *equal to* or  
*part of* God.

> They don't.  Martin Luther maybe does, but Martin Luther was crazy.

Something about stones and sin comes to mind....

>> I suggest you study the first 300 years of Christianity.
>> No, really, take a few years. It helps to learn ancient greek.
>>> A symbol representing
>>> the 1 true God cannot be an idol, by definition.
>> Wrong, in early Judaism/christianity.
>> The "golden calf" represented God. It was wrong at times, right at
>> other times.
> The golden calf did not represent the 1 true God because the followers
> of Moses did things in it's name that God has never condoned.

Oh, that's the only calf you know about?

Uhm, you need to study Christian theology some more.

>   If the
> golden calf had represented God the Father or God the Holy Spirit the
> story of the golden calf would not make sense.

Well,  the Moses tradition also didn't have the "Holy Spirit", or  
"Hell", or "Satan" ("al-Shatan" was quite different).

Context is needed for things to make sense.

>>> You
>>> don't worship a symbol, if it represents God you worship
>>> the God person that it represents.
>> I do not disagree, as most buddhists do not worship some guy who
>> lived a long time ago.
>> Many Christians, however, seem to worship some guy who lived a long
>> time ago.
> Jesus Christ is still alive, what is your point?  He is in heaven
> seated at the right hand of the Father.

Wait, *not* part of the father? Is there some siamese-twin action  
going on?

(cue "only mostly dead" joke here.)

Is he a "God" to be "worshipped", or not?

(Hence, the problem)

>  Jesus Christ walked around
> on the Earth in his glorified from after he was crucified.  Jesus
> Christ is also present in every Catholic church in the world in
> the form of bread and wine.  Those are NOT symbols by the way,
> they are the real thing.

Can I test the Wine and get a DNA sample of Jesus's blood?

No?

How about the Wafer?

No?

What makes them "real", and not merely symbols, then?

It's not real blood.

It's not real flesh.

What is "real", and not symbolic, about them?

>>> "You see, early Christians were kind of upset about the
>>> idea of  worshipping god in the form of a man
>>> (or other "earthly" things), as that was a Gentile,
>>> pagan, custom. It wasn't until Arius's battle  with
>>> Alexander of Alexandria, and the resulting Nicean
>>> creed/heresy, that Christians decided to, well, kind
>>> of ignore the issue, and  declare that worshipping a
>>> man figure, *as* a part of God, was really  just
>>> plain "ok"."
>>> Hmm, sounds like you don't believe in the divinity
>>> of Jesus Christ.  The idea that Jesus is fully God
>>> and fully man.  Am I correct?
>> You didn't pick that part up about Arius, did you?
>> Do you have any idea about that history?
> Well, I looked the Arian heresy up.

Good on you. It was an interesting struggle.

>>> What in the Nicean creed is there that makes you
>>> call it a heresy?
>> Worshipping a man, instead of his (Jesus as a man) worshipped god.
> Come on, verse please.  You can do better than make a claim and not
> point to the verse or verses you are basing it on.

Jesus is a branch/trunk from the root, not the root itself (John), in  
most translations (and originals), and many Jews were kind of unhappy  
about the implicit polytheism of a trinity, Godhead, or however a  
many-god was constructed.

Put into simple terms, does a person worship Jesus, *or* God?

(This was the problem with Jesus-worship being opposed to God- 
worship, with the Nicea solution being that Jesus-worship *is* God- 
worship)

> Let's see :
> "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of
> heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
> We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, eternally begotten from the  
> Father,
> God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
> begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.  Through him all
> things were made.  For us men and our salvation he came down from
> heaven: by the Power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin
> Mary, and became man."

Wow, you ask for a verse, and then cite a very-much later document  
created by...... a political committee.

Uhm, that seems odd.

Unless, of course, you believe that God can be defined by politics,  
and voting.

>> Zeus impregnated lots of maidens, that didn't make their offspring
>> "God".
>
> Zeus isn't real and never was.  Zeus is out of Greek mythology.
> Greek mythology doesn't even entertain monotheism.  Not only
> does it not entertain monotheism, Greek mythology entertains
> the notion that there are greater and lesser Gods who don't
> particularly care about the human race.
>> Same rules.

Good to see that suffering has ended because of God and the Catholic  
saints....

Oh. Wait.

> The problem is, people who agree with me will never
> speak on here.  It has been said that you are never
> accepted in your own community, maybe there's some truth
> to that.


I've never heard that said, what's the source?

-Bop