Good Friday

Remove all ads!

[snip]

Today in the Phillippinnes you will see newsclippings of cult followers having themselves hammered to crosses.

My question is.

Are they mad?

[Offensive bit removed.] -Tal

[ March 25, 2005, 13:05: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Nailed? As in literally nailed to a wooden cross. Or to put it as blantantly as possible - crucified?!?! Are they doing this to make a point, and is the actual anticipated result that these people will die from either blood loss or exposure?

 

To prove Barmy isn't telling porkies... Philippino People Nailed - Ouch

I particularly like the following lines.

"The rituals are not sanctioned by the nation's religious leaders, who say such acts are unnecessary. But the event has become a popular tourist attraction in this deeply Roman Catholic country." Worth the flight money alone.

"19 policemen were among their number." Maybe there is a God.

"Some local people volunteered to be nailed onto crosses in imitation of the biblical crucifixion. Nails were driven through the palms of their hands and feet." - Barking

""I feel lighter after I have been nailed to the cross," said Ruben Enage, who started taking part in the ceremonies 19 years ago when his mother was cured of tuberculosis." - NINETEEN nailings!!!! I am surprised they could find any mandable left. Someone needs to tell this chap about some of the advances in medical science.

 

Goodness knows you can't have people expressing their faith like that through self-inflicted harm.

 

Isn't it a Roman Catholic practice to chastice yourself? Well these people just don't like half measures.

 

Bonkers! They're 100% raving mad! Would this be called self-inflicted stigmata?

 

I thought that the point of Christ's death was that we could be forgiven of our sins and wouldn't have to suffer as He did...

 

The Roman Catholic faith twists a lot of the doctrine of the New Testament (and quite a bit of the Old Testament) around. I think this is because Catholics don't really take the time to read the Bible. They sure would learn a lot if they studied it for themselves instead of listening to how a priest interprets it.

EDIT: I could be wrong... I don't completely know or understand the Catholic faith (I believe Christianity and Catholicism are completely different).

 

Pretty much explains how the official "doctrine" feels about it.

Christianity=belief that Christ died for our sins and resurrected after three days.
Catholicism=from Latin, "universal." Where there is Christ, there is Catholic Church. Second, because Christ sent out Apostles to the entire world, to all the peoples of this world.
Nothing contradictory, Catholicism is simply a case of Christianity (like Orthodox, Protestant, or other churches).

 

Many casual Protestants repeat those claims that the Catholic church twists the Bible, but they rarely follow through with examples and I haven't seen any example I haven't been able to explain or refute, to be honest. When it comes to doctrinal controversies between denomination, I tend to assume linguistic or theological misunderstanding rather than ill will. But I still have hard time with people claiming the Bible is wrong on homosexuality and needs to be amended or that Jesus didn't really mean what He said or that divorce with remarriage is compatible with Christianity or that fornication is actually not a sin.

As for individual intrepretation, I really don't understand why common folks with no preparation in theology, history and the original languages of the Bible should be even better interpreters of the Bible than priests. Sorry, I don't get that.

Besides, go to a random Protestant denomination and say that Jesus really meant to consecrate the Eucharist when he said "this is my body" or that He didn't allow divorce or that premarital sex actually is sinful and you will hear lots about individual interpretation.

Chatholicism is actually the mainstream of Christianity and it was Christianity until denominations started to separate from it. It's no coincidence that even Protestants say "I Believe in One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church" in their prayers.

Funny thing, the Orthodox believe nearly the same as Catholics, including sacerdotal sacrificial priesthood and transubstantation and yet I don't see many Protestants jumping on them, if any.

[ March 27, 2005, 11:16: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

chev—I'd go a step forward and claim that most Protestant pastors do notice two things:
— that one doctrine: is the key to actually have one "Christian outlook" in most cases; never allows anyone to claim he is teaching Christianity if he goes against the Bible or words of Christ; isn't open to speculation or personal interpretation* and thus is insusceptible to pressure from any direction to sway any Christian teachings in order to support agendae that are clearly counter-Christian.
— that when you actually look at it, there is no such thing as "Protestant doctrine." There are no teachings, and people are open to completely individual interpretations, and all have to be allowed even if they are totally wrong. Furthermore, if you look at Luther's teachings, you'll notice that he has changed his opinion of many issues during his lifetime, sometimes back and forth. And that when you actually look at things, you notice that Catholic doctrine is the only one coherent in all teachings, and that there are no contradictions, as all of them follow the framework of charity.

*) Personal interpretation is different from personal experience. No Church would ever disallow personal experience, and all, in fact, encourage it. However, personal interpretation based on flawed (always) translation, is often wrong, and may actually support a notion that there are contradictory passages in the Bible, and that this opens up a path to 'personal interpretation.' The 'doctrinal interpretation' is superior in at least two aspects:
— takes into account all the known facts about contemporary times;
— takes into account linguistic differences and inferences.
I do not have to know Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew, nor do I have to study all the Biblical texts in order to know the Bible. I do not have to be a history professor in order to understand the historical context in which the events take place. It has been done for me by a multitude of people who painstakingly translated, annotated and commented the Bible in order to make it clear. This is actually not interpretation (unless you assume that ALL translations are interpretations), but a guide to reading.
If anyone would want to discuss the Bible, he would have to discuss it in original languages. But even then—I have to place absolute trust in the way I have been taught the original languages. This means that if my teacher of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic taught me wrong, I am going to have a flawed understanding of the text. However, even then, it is superior to double or triple translations, as was common in former times:
NT > Vulgata > common language
NT (Matthew) > Greek sources > Vulgata > c.l.
OT > LXX > Vulgata > c.l.

 

Actually, there are some questions about the accuracy of translation of the Bible. Some of these cases, these can be quite dramatic.

 

ahem. as a Filipino, I feel obligated to defend the rest of us by saying what I was doing while some nut was being hammered to a cross.




yep.


AFAIK there's really people that carry the cross around and all that stuff, but having yourself nailed on it only happens in the provinces I think..