It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conspiracy of Catholicism

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I am interested to hear from catholics on one of the most visable error in the catholic church.

I know the memorized prayers are said without thinking, and the bible was formed by these men who decided to throw away some very important texts, but what about the most blatantly visable discrepency?:

"You shall not make any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: you shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Are there not statues in all these churches and don't folks bow down before them? Wouldn't this mean they sin everytime they go to church?

Just curious - I don't get it, thats all.

[edit on 20-8-2004 by godservant]




posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
what conspiracy?


Originally posted by godservant
I am interested to hear from catholics on one of the most visable error in the catholic church.


What makes you think you get to decide what is an error and what is not? Or rather, what makes you think your personal decision on that is meaningful to anyone?


Are there not statues in all these churches and don't folks bow down before them? Wouldn't this mean they sin everytime they go to church?


No. Catholics do not worship the statues found in churches anymore than other christians worship little metal 'T's that they hang around their necks or literalists worship parchment and bindings. Its patently wrong to state that catholics worship the statues found in churches, irregardless of whatever erroneous impression you may have gotten.

I have heard this silly idea before, and it reminds me of people in the dark ages thinking that muslims worship mohammed instead of god.


Just curious - I don't get it, thats all.


There is nothing at all to get, catholics emphatically do not worship statues. Your impression is incorrect. Are you 'Just curious' or implying that there is a conspiracy in religion; hence the forum and thread title?



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
servant, don't let the catholics fool you... they like to beat around the bush. They claim they don't worship these images, and for most catholics it is true (albeit there are alot of misguided souls out there...)

BUT: You shall not make any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth

If you go into a catholic church, one of the first things you see is a 'graven image' of a MAN on a cross... umm, man is part of this earth, mind you! Not to mention all the other silly trinkets and stuff that they have. It is not just Catholics that are guilty of this, though... it is just about any organized christian religion you can find.

Oh, if you want REAL conspiracy in religion, try more along the lines of WHAT they kept out of the bible, and for what purpose! Apparently there are books about how god sent angels (watchers, or Elohim(sp?)) to earth to keep knowledge from man. The angels didn't agree with god after some time doing his bidding, and they basically started to give us knowledge, lived with us, came to adore humans, and even procreated, making the 'giants' that were half man/half angel (can't remember what they were called). Think the books are called apocrophia, or something like that. Now THAT is a conspiracy!!!



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
check about 5 topics down and I've posted an article about Apocrypha



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum
servant, don't let the catholics fool you... they like to beat around the bush. They claim they don't worship these images, and for most catholics it is true (albeit there are alot of misguided souls out there...)


Ah, so you pretend to know the minds of catholics better than they do?


BUT: You shall not make any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth

If you go into a catholic church, one of the first things you see is a 'graven image' of a MAN on a cross... umm, man is part of this earth, mind you! Not to mention all the other silly trinkets and stuff that they have. It is not just Catholics that are guilty of this, though... it is just about any organized christian religion you can find.


So all art is forbiden by god then?



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Maybe not here in US Catholics do not worship the Idols in the church but where I am from in PR, every Catholic home has at least a painting of Jesus with candles in a table or the last super in the dinning room.

Also they had altars with different statues like Mary, Jesus, and other religious icons with candles and each statue will take care of different needs.

The reason of this is because our culture is so rich with the African culture so the church allowed the blending of the Santeria (saints) with the Catholics deities or religious figures.


But at the end most people has a favorite saint that they pray to it.


[edit on 24-8-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."


Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims[angels] of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."


the god of the old testament allowed idols. (idols being graven images)
he himself commanded the building of hundreds of idols in the temple

he simply said, dont worship PAGAN idols



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   


Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims[angels] of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."


That was for the ark of the covenant.

The conspiracy I talk of - is it possible to make someone sin everytime they go to church?



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant


Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims[angels] of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."


That was for the ark of the covenant.


Ok, so the ark of the covenant was mounted with graven images and idols


The conspiracy I talk of - is it possible to make someone sin everytime they go to church?


How can you force someone to unknowingly sin?

If the people going to church aren't worshipping the statues, then how have they commited the sin of worshipping statues?

If there were a conspiracy amoung the preists, and they made the statues as 'graven images' (which they haven't, but we're just pretending now), how does that mean that the churchgoers are sinning?



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
What about the sign of the cross in front of the crucifix. What about wearing the crucifix on a necklace. What about the fact that Christ is no longer on the cross, but risen - he is not on the cross anymore. What about the actions of the priests around these statues?

I am not saying that todays priests are trying to get you to sin. I am talking about 2000 years ago when the catholic religeon was formed - someone decided to make statues and someone decided to get rid of books - some say even modify the ones they've kept. That someone may not have had a pure heart. There are many secrets in the catholic church - why?

I am not trying to offend anyone - this is my opinion, and opinions can change.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
What about the sign of the cross in front of the crucifix.


The person doing it is not worshipping the cross


What about wearing the crucifix on a necklace.


Its a necklace. Do you think people with those little jesus fish on their cars are sinners too?


What about the fact that Christ is no longer on the cross, but risen - he is not on the cross anymore.


What about it? Are you seriously suggesting that Catholics are worshipping the cross?



What about the actions of the priests around these statues?


What actions are you talking about?


someone decided to make statues and someone decided to get rid of books - some say even modify the ones they've kept.

If the catholic church didn't want the bible to exist then it wouldn't. They certainly wouldn't've had monks all across europe dutifully copying it. If the RCC is anti-bible, then you wouldn't have a bible. You might have something like the dead sea scrolls, or the strange pseudo-christian texts that obscurely exist now.


There are many secrets in the catholic church - why?


What secrets?


I am not trying to offend anyone - this is my opinion, and opinions can change.


Let me tell you plainly that Catholics do not worship statues, crosses, rosaries, or any of the other paraphanelia that they have. They worship jesus and the rest of the Holy Trinity. Sure, the RCC isn't perfect, but catholics most certainly aren't worshiping graven images.

Also consider that the Great Schism occured (in part anyway) because hard liners in what wold become the RCC objected to the use of Icons as worshipping graven images, however I don't think any Orthodox christian is going to say that they worship a triptysch over the trinity.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
The original quote in this thread is an OT quote.

The NT is the Christian gospel, I wish I could remember who said it but there are references in the NT whre it states the OT is for remembering and study- but not for actual practice.

Since this is then what the Christian gospel will tell us, I would be inclined to think that the OT isn't taken so seriously and hence using OT quotes to show hypocracy in Christianity doesn't really work out in your favor so easily.

and no, i'm not a Christian defending my faith, just a tidbit for you.

EDIT:
The quote itself is also originally found in the old, old gospels... These gospels were written back when the original Jews were still in the process of being converted from polytheists to monotheists-
It was common for them to have multiple gods and images. Saying that "god is a jelous god" was to invoke fear in the people to stop the worship of other dieties and take away the images being used in worship altogether. They needed this one god to be special, so he didn't even get images, he simply was which added to his power as well.

[edit on 25-8-2004 by blanketgirl]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Weeeeeeeeeeeelllll, while were on this subject, could some one explainsomething to me, I have asked this on boards before nad I have mentioned it on this one asdn of course everyone skips over it.

1) Why was it necessary for there to be 'any" type of a sacrifice to god? For what purpose does killing an animal hold, for a god that can create with a thought? What was derived from it?

2) Why would a person have to die and shed blood for someone else's sins? Why would a god have to give up a child for this? A god can do or cause anything by thinking it, after all, that's supposedly how he created the heavens and the earth...why was this an absolute necessity to happen, for what?

As to not creating images and doing it anyway.....get real! The Christian bible says, not to lust in your heart, "most" Christians do it anyway, do not lie, cheat and steal, "most" professed Christians do it anyway, do not judge others, "most" do it anyway...this list could go on and on....



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
1) Why was it necessary for there to be 'any" type of a sacrifice to god? For what purpose does killing an animal hold, for a god that can create with a thought? What was derived from it?


This is something that always seemed ridiculous to me. So god creates the animal and man kills it in the name of god? Can't he just get a pet if he is lonely or is the pet store closed on Sundays?



2) Why would a person have to die and shed blood for someone else's sins? Why would a god have to give up a child for this? A god can do or cause anything by thinking it, after all, that's supposedly how he created the heavens and the earth...why was this an absolute necessity to happen, for what?


It is symbolic. You know, like in a fictional novel.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
The conspiracy I talk of - is it possible to make someone sin everytime they go to church?


Nooo. They have done better than that. Most Christian religions say you are born into sin and can't help but be a sinner regardless of what you do and how well you live. Then even when your sins are forgiven, you are always going to sin more (just by being alive, mind you) which means you'll then have to get forgiven again, and again, and again. Religions originated the idea of the repeat customer.

That is the true conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Weeeeeeeeeeeelllll, while were on this subject, could some one explainsomething to me, I have asked this on boards before nad I have mentioned it on this one asdn of course everyone skips over it.

1) Why was it necessary for there to be 'any" type of a sacrifice to god? For what purpose does killing an animal hold, for a god that can create with a thought? What was derived from it?


Nobody really knows exactly where it came from, but *everyone* used to do it. It's not a select group- from most of what I've read and seen in association with the actual sacrifices, I think it was the thought that if they did something bad- they would kill the animal and be relieved of the vengeance of the gods.

Have you ever read of the ancient Jewish ritual where a goat was taken into the temple- everyone laid their sins on to the goat and then it was run out of town? (this is where the term scapegoat comes from) It was led out of town and made to run off a cliff, supposedly dying and taking with it the sins of the community so they could start anew.
There were also sacrifices that are more like offerings, where an animal could have been killed to offer to a god to please him/her.



2) Why would a person have to die and shed blood for someone else's sins? Why would a god have to give up a child for this? A god can do or cause anything by thinking it, after all, that's supposedly how he created the heavens and the earth...why was this an absolute necessity to happen, for what?

If an animal could take their sins with it and relieve the sinners of their wrongs, wouldn't a person be a logical step up? Obviously, they could better embody your sins. It's like the ultimate sacrifice...

It might help you to learn about all savior myths rather than just the Jesus one. The idea that a god would send down their child in human form who sacrificed themselves is a common mythology. Even most of the life-stories of Jesus are common stories to hundreds of individuals who lived hundreds or thousands of years before Jesus would have. This is a huge part of why most scholars who aren't completely going off of faith can't answer whether Jesus really was a person or not. There is very little non-christian evidence of an historical Jesus, and that which there is wasn't documented for a good 70-80 years minumum... that's 70+ years for it to be word of mouth and gossip before anybody got around to recording it.



As to not creating images and doing it anyway.....get real! The Christian bible says, not to lust in your heart, "most" Christians do it anyway, do not lie, cheat and steal, "most" professed Christians do it anyway, do not judge others, "most" do it anyway...this list could go on and on....


I'm wondering if you are missing the point of some of those guidelines. The point is that as humans we do these things, but to be righteous and holy we must teach ourselves not to and strive to be better in these ways. It is not to say you are terrible if you do them, just that you need to work on fixing it.
Now as for the Christians who don't even try to better themselves... some people just think they are Christian because they were raised to think it-
it is also much easier to claim something than to actually be or do it. According to the US census, a catholic church claims me as a member because I was confirmed when I was 14. I'm sure they don't mention that at the beginning of the ceremony I went up to the priest and told him "I don't believe any of this crap and don't want to be Christian." His response was that it wasn't my decision, it was my parent's choice because I was a minor.

So- I am "christian" but then again I'm goddess-worshipping hippie at the same time...



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
1) Why was it necessary for there to be 'any" type of a sacrifice to god?


I can't imagine what possible purpose it could serve. However, logic shouldn't be applied to metaphysical systems I think. Or at least, being 'illogical' isn't much of a criticism of irrational systems. Any religion, ultimately, is a matter of faith, which, pretty obviously, need pay attention to reason.



2) Why would a person have to die and shed blood for someone else's sins?


Ah, I suspect here you are specifically refering to jesus. The interesting thing is that there are multiple myths of a 'god' who dies, (often associated with a tree or pole, in this case a cross) is buried for some time, is resurected, and then consumed. Christian theology follows this globally recurrent pattern, with crucifition, death, burial, resurection, and communion with transubstantiation. It looks like this rite is also associated with creative myths in some of the 'older' religions, often apparently being played out by a trio (or I should say a trinity) of women, ie persephone, demeter, and the moon goddess, with persephone going tothe underworld, returning, and the 'crops' reappearing (via demter) and being consumed. Anyway I am reading Campbell's Primitive Mythology, and some of that is the arguement he is making where I am in it. He also notes that the Elusian mysteries, probably associated with Demeter, had, as a culmination of one of the rites (at least, as is told in some sources) the rasing of a freshly cut ear of grain to the sounds of gongs. Juxtapose this to the raising of the eucharist to the tinkling of bells. Well, if you are into juxtaposing stuff that is.

So my point for that ramble was that the 'myth' is a traditional oft repeated theme involving man's own mortality and such.


"most" Christians do it anyway

Certainly. But either way, catholics are not worshiping statues in their churches. They can certainly perform their masses without the statues and in a plain white walled room.


blanketgirl:
Have you ever read of the ancient Jewish ritual where a goat was taken into the temple- everyone laid their sins on to the goat and then it was run out of town

Scapegoat eh?


There is very little non-christian evidence of an historical Jesus


Josephus supposedly mentions someone that might be him. But in reality, why should there be any mention of the quickly executed leader of a small and not terribly succesful religious sect?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Funny thing about Josephus-
Of course, he was an historian.
His manuscripts were copied a few times in the ancient world... the actual passages he "wrote" that mention Jesus didn't appear until a few hundred years after he "wrote" them. They first appeared in the copy owned by a Christian emperor written in a manner that they didn't fit the text, in between lines and in the margins, in a different hand writing than the rest of the text.
No earlier copies contained the lines at all...
authentic? I think not!

Sure, I could pull out an old history book and scribble in the margins, but that doesn't mean the author wrote it. If I did something like that today and tried to quote it as an original, people would think I was nuts!

Besides Josephus, there are only 2 non-Christian sources within 100 years of Jesus that mention him at all, and it is a passing comment both times that "there was a Jesus with a brother" or something little like that- but they aren't really specific enough to mean anything unless you want to read into it. Not enough to state that he existed and he isn't recorded in any official records.


Originally posted by Nygdan


There is very little non-christian evidence of an historical Jesus


Josephus supposedly mentions someone that might be him. But in reality, why should there be any mention of the quickly executed leader of a small and not terribly succesful religious sect?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join