My Turn - Proving The Church.

[Quietfire]

Hi Pham,
With all this "prove this and prove this" going on. Ive been doing some thinking. (yes, dangerous I know)

This is my feeble attempt to strengthen everyones (myself included) apologetic armor.
This is NOT a random thread.
This is NOT a joke.
I will be asking questions, from around the net, that prose that the Vatican and Catholic Church are wrong.
This is NOT an Ironmonk challenge.


Since I honestly believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, built by Christ, and that the gates of Hell will never prevail against her, I am only putting to bed many of the claims that persist outside of Phatmassland.
(Phatmassland-in union with God, The Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, and the Pope)

Many of the thing that I may post might seem trivial, please dont look at them that way. I am asking for concise, intellegent, and honest rebuttals.
Some rules.
Most important.
No thread hijacking.
This is me against the Church. Not me and Prots against the Church.
(Im not against the Church, just asking for Church defense)
Keep the links to a minimum. (I cant honestly read every link posted- I have a job) You can post the link, but also include the answer in cut and paste if you must.
Your simplified answer is your best bet. If I require clarity, I will ask for it.
This is not a random posting board for brain dumping, so unless you are able to provide intellegent proof, just read and dont post.
No bashing.
This is my thread and my rules. Phatmass rules STILL apply also. So if anyone gets outta hand, Im jumping on a plane, showing up at your house, and giving you a hearty fish slap. Got it? *and dont think I wont do it*

Again, this is my thread, so I reserve the right to change the rules.

Ok?
This is the first challenge. I am sorry that it requires reading an entire link, but this should at least get the ball rolling. The topic is the
[url="http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/christian_dress/4.html"]wedding ring[/url] and are we following a pagan ritual.

Remember to keep your answers intellegent, simplified and straight to the point.

And have fun, I am not against the Church.
Simply strengthening my armor. Cause I need it.
This is simply the first problem I came across, I will provide many, many more.
Once we get this going, I will be slamming tons more on you all.

Let us prepare for battle.
Swords? Shields?


Peace.

Edited August 9, 2004 by Quietfire

[Quietfire]

This is a site that is exploding with wrongs about the Church. Please feel free to go [url="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/2594/"]here[/url] and 'cut and paste' ANYTHING from that site here, with an intellegent rebuttal.


This [url="http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/2594/debate.htm"]particular one[/url] is ripe.


Got tons more.
Patience.

Peace.

Edited August 9, 2004 by Quietfire

[Quietfire]

Ohhhhhhh, you are gonna LOVE this [url="http://www.biblicaltruth.com/Mini%20Studies/truth_about_the_trinity.htm"]one[/url]

Cut and Paste.
Smack it here.

Stay charitable.


Phatcatholic, If I am not mistaken, this is one of those Messianic sites that we discussed in Apologetics. One of the reasons why its important to know what these groups understand before claiming they are Christian-Non-Catholic as opposed to Non-christian.


Peace.

[Quietfire]

To make this easier,
If you wish to debate the first site, call it 1 at the top of your debate post.
If you wish to debate the second site, then 2.
The third....3.

This will help it from getting confusing.
If you wish to start a whole new thread, for the sake of clarity, then have a ball.
It may help to keep things on track.


Peace.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Aug 9 2004, 05:54 AM'] The topic is the
wedding ring and are we following a pagan ritual.

[/quote]
When I got married my wife and I decided not to follow through with the tradition of wedding rings. I am not a big jewelry fan and I believe the wrist watch to be the only practical adornment when it comes to fashionable jewelry. My wife and I believed at the time that it wasn’t going to be a piece of metal that decides if we love or are committed to each other or that it wasn’t going to be a ring that reminds us of why we decided to come together but that it was going to be our spirit and our willingness that decides this and the effort and strength that was going to describe our commitment to our relationship. The wedding ring also seems to represent a symbol in POWER for example that you are bound or obligated to a relationship. This is a very outdated if not unrealistic perspective. No ONE owns anyone. Rings can be bought and sold. LOVE is here to stay.

This was an interesting question as well as an interesting post (I could talk about this all day if you wanted me to ) and I will try to respond to your other posts in due time.

[p0lar_bear]

Discussion 1:

Do wedding rings have pagan origins? Yes

Does that mean we should not use them? No

Some fundamentalists seem surprised or excited every time they 'discover' that the Church adopted some pagan custom or some other element from a pagan culture. the fact is, many of the things we do today were adopted from pagan cultures. The triquerta (which Rebirth Flame had as an avatar for a long time) was originally a symbol for a celtic goddess, now it is a symbol of the Trinity. (More recently, Wicca has started using it). Its pagan origins and neo-pagan use does not make it any less effective as a symbol of the Trinity.

Many think that any association with things pagan is anti-Christian and blasphemous. St. Paul, though, taught and acted differently. When he came upon Athenians who worshipped “an unknown God,” he did not chastise them for idolatry and ignorance: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. . .” (Acts 17:22-23).

St. Paul redirected them away from created realities (Acts 17:29) to the Creator (Acts 17:24-25, 30-31). He told them about God’s plan of salvation and though some mocked him, “some other men joined and believed” (Acts 17:32-34). If St. Paul could successfully use a pagan altar as a Christian symbol, it stands to reason that the Church can use existing customs for Christian uses also. the Church did this in many ways. The setting of the feast of Christmas on Dec. 25 is an example. In addition, the custom of the bride wearing a white dress is derived from pagan customs. Clerical dress of priests originated as the symbols of Roman political status.

In contrast, Scripture teaches us that idolatrous pagan worship is wrong and should be categorically rejected. For example, on another occasion, Paul cures a man in Lystra who could not walk (Acts 14:8-18). As a result of the cure, the crowds began calling Barnabas “Zeus” and Paul “Hermes,” Greek gods worshipped by pagans of this period. Paul and Barnabas then rent their garments, an action associated with protests against blasphemy, and explained to the people that they were only men, not God.

The Church recognizes the value of symbolism for men (mankind). Just as wearing a cross can be a reminder and a visible indicator of one's commitment to Christ, a ring can be a reminder and visible indicator of one's commitment to his or her spouse. While the custom is derived from pagan origins, it, along with many other elements, has been 'baptized' so as to have a Christian meaning.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Having knowledge of the ancient world, I'll take the wedding ring.

First, from the article, most of the historical facts are correct. I only found a few incorrect matters:

[quote]"When a Roman slave was allowed his liberty," wrote James McCarthy, "he received, along with cap and white vest, an iron finger ring. The slave had been fastened, so to speak, by a Caucasian chain of bondage. When granted his freedom he still had to wear, as Prometheus wore, an iron ring by way of remembrance. He was not permitted to have one of gold, for at that time that was a badge of citizenship."[/quote]

It is in the second sentence. "Caucasian chain of bondage" seems to signify that Mr. McCarthy knew little about his subject. I say this because "caucasian" has nothing to do with it. Romans were not generally racist. They enslaved members of all the peoples they conquered and it would make little sense to a Roman to say that they are trying to claim the non-white for the white.

[quote]Mercury: a ‘magnet’ set in quicksilver.[/quote]

That would be a loadstone set in mercury. Quiksilver is mercury. Here's the tricky part-you can't make a ring out of mercury; it's liquid at room temperature.

I also take issue with this:

[quote]McCarthy continues noting that in spite of the moralists’ denunciations of their own countrymen for wearing too many rings, "rings continued to be worn and Rome continued to decline. Rome fell and the rings continued on. Whether there is a moral here I cannot say." Indeed there is a moral, because what happened in the history of imperial Rome, has been largely repeated in the history of Christianity.[/quote]

What I don't like is that he asserts that the fall of Rome and the fall of other civilizations correlate to rings. That is a red herring. It is greed in general which often brings down civilizations. To lay the blame specifically on rings is to ignore the other wealth of the world.

[quote]Upon his return the prodigal son received a ring from his father as a symbol of dignity (Luke 15:22). The finger rings mentioned in the Bible are signet rings used as symbol of authority and dignity.[/quote]

The author assumes that a ring given for dignity must be a signet ring. There is no hint of it in Scripture, however, and while it is reasonable that it might have been a signet ring in this scenario, it is just as reasonable that it was a ring to show class or rank or honor or belonging. A ring of belonging is the type into which a wedding ring fits.

[quote]The Jews and the Christians borrowed the practice from the Romans. Since the betrothal ceremony usually involved the groom giving a sum of money or a valuable object to the bride, it was a natural transition to make this object a ring.[/quote]

This betrothal practice was a Jewish custom, as well, as can readily be seen in the Book of Tobit (a deuterocanonical, but still obviously from that time period and from Jewish culture). This was seen as a holy custom. It is therefore reasonable to argue that rings for the purpose of showing marital union may also be seen as holy.

[quote]How early the Christians adopted the Roman custom of the betrothal ring is unknown. There is no mention of betrothal rings in the New Testament, apparently because their use had not yet begun.[/quote]

If there is no mention of them, then how can he assert that they had not began to use them?

[quote]Bishops and popes came to love their rings so much that they wanted to be buried with them.[/quote]

The anti-Catholicism here is plainly seen. The married Christians in the catacombs were buried with their rings as well, but the author did not point out any problems with that, nor did he accuse them of greed.

[quote]The influence of paganism is evident in many of the episcopal rings since they are set with ancient pagan gems engraved with pagan symbols.[/quote]

Judges 6:25-26 states:

[quote]That same night the LORD said to him, "Take the second bull from your father's herd, the one seven years old.  Tear down your father's altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.  Then build a proper kind of altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second bull as a burnt offering."[/quote]

Perhaps it's just me, but I can see here a precedent being set by God Himself for the practice of Christianizing Pagan customs.

[quote]By the fourth century the proliferation of rings must have assumed such alarming proportions that the so-called Apostolic Constitutions outlawed the use of finger rings: "Neither do thou put a gold ring upon thy fingers; for all these ornaments are signs of lasciviousness, which if thou be solicitous about in an indecent manner, thou will not act as becomes a good man.[/quote]

The author perhaps is not intending to use smoke and mirrors here. He says that the Apostolic Constitutions outlawed the use of rings, but only gold rings, worn for sinful purposes (as far as the spirit of the law goes), are banned.

[quote]First, the origin of the finger ring is shrouded in pagan mythology and idolatrous practices. To invest a pagan symbol with a sacred Christian meaning can easily lead to the secularization of the symbol itself. A case in point has been the Christian adoption of the Day of the Sun as the Lord’s Day, which soon became a holiday rather than a Holy Day.[/quote]

This is a logical fallacy. He takes a correlation and makes it appear to be a cause. Sunday has become more of a holiday than a Holy Day because those who called themselves good Christians secularized it, not those who truly were good Christians, nor those who were genuinely in favor of having Sunday as a Holy Day.

[quote]Second, the Romans introduced the use of a plain iron ring to "tie" the betrothal commitment of two lovers. However, we have found that the plain iron betrothal ring soon evolved into elaborate gold rings used to cover all the fingers.[/quote]

There is absolutely no cause to believe that the reason immodesty came into practice was because of the wearing of a single ring. It could just have easily have come out another custom.

All of these things said, I cannot argue his main point, which is that if we wear rings, they should be modest. All we do should be modest, so this must be true. I only have some issues with his logic at arriving to that conclusion.

[Jake Huether]

From a logical standpoint, I think it makes sense to wear something to symbolize your marriage, not necessarily for your own good but for the good of those around you.

I like to know that I'm set appart for my wife. When another woman sees my wedding ring, she know's I am taken, and not only is she saved from the embarrassment of having to be "shut down", but I'm saved the potential temptation to "flirt" or whatever.

It servers the same purpose as a habit for the religious. A ring is a sort of seperater for those who are called to the married life.

I don't like the idea of not wearing a wedding ring, because I don't want to be seen as someone who isn't married. If this could be achieved through non-pegan means, cool, then I'll jump ship. But as far as I know, a ring on your ring fingure means you're married... nothing more.

[Quietfire]

[quote][quote](Quietfire @ Aug 9 2004, 05:54 AM)
The topic is the
wedding ring and are we following a pagan ritual.[/quote]




When I got married my wife and I decided not to follow through with the tradition of wedding rings. I am not a big jewelry fan and I believe the wrist watch to be the only practical adornment when it comes to fashionable jewelry. My wife and I believed at the time that it wasn’t going to be a piece of metal that decides if we love or are committed to each other or that it wasn’t going to be a ring that reminds us of why we decided to come together but that it was going to be our spirit and our willingness that decides this and the effort and strength that was going to describe our commitment to our relationship. The wedding ring also seems to represent a symbol in POWER for example that you are bound or obligated to a relationship. This is a very outdated if not unrealistic perspective. No ONE owns anyone. Rings can be bought and sold. LOVE is here to stay.

This was an interesting question as well as an interesting post (I could talk about this all day if you wanted me to ) and I will try to respond to your other posts in due time.[/quote]

While I agree that it is a tradition and one is not obligated to wear one. I dont agree with the concept that wearing a ring is a sign of "ownership". I realize you didnt use the word but you used the word "owns".
The question wasnt whether rings signify ownership or obligation, but if they are a pagan ritual and how the Church has dealt with this.
I agree that it was a pagan ritual at one time. But the arguements thus far have been sufficient in providing reasoning why this is not the case today.

Your reasoning is your own personal preference, and while that is admirable the purpose of this thread is to strengthen our apologetic armor.

In your statement you feel that (wedding) rings are a symbol of binding one to another. This has been proven with the other posts.
Yet I do not see this as particularly pagan in its purpose.
If my wedding ring is seen as a symbol to other men that I am commited to one particular man, then where exactly is this a bad thing?

On the other hand, I do not demand that my husband wear one. His profession can been classified as "demanding on the hands" and others have lost fingers due to the fact that rings can get caught in machinery.

He does, however, wear one outside of his job. Of his choosing, btw.
Our reasons for choosing bands was simply to show our fidelity towards one another, although our fidelity had already been established with our profession of Love. This outward symbol holds the same reverance for me as seeing a cross. It reminds me, puts me in that moment so to speak.
Not that I will forget, but for reflection.

After all, we were married before God, we prayed that his blessing was upon our marriage. To me, there wasnt just two marrying(joining as one) that day...there were three. (the symbol of Holiness)

I dont see where this is a bad thing.

This is all a matter of preference again.

Hey, but thanks.

Peace.

Edited August 9, 2004 by Quietfire

[Cure of Ars]

I read the first link and I agree with him for the most part. I thought that this following quote has some relevance to the discussion. Just because pagans once used a symbol it does not mean that it is inherently evil.

[quote]
Almost every symbol known to man has at one time or another been used in pagan worship to some degree or another.

Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities-why anything could be "proved"! (Ralph Woodrow)

In their attempts to avoid all things Pagan many denominations have stripped away symbolism. They have kept only a few Christian symbols. But under the examination, even the few symbols they have left they could still be linked to paganism by a creative historian like Hislop.

The fish was used for millennia worldwide as a religious symbol associated with the pagan "Great Mother Goddess." It was meant to represent the outline of her vulva. That's what some pagan religions used long before Christ.

The cross had been used for centuries in the Hindu religion, in Babylon, Egypt, and Assyria. During prehistoric times in Europe a human would be sacrificed and hung on a cross. Then the human would be taken down, chopped up, and pieces would be planted with the crops for fertility. And as we saw earlier, Hislop claims it is "T" in Tammuz, the pagan god, synonymous with the devil. [/quote]

[url="http://davidmacd.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.htm"]http://davidmacd.com/catholic/were_catholics_pagan.htm[/url]

Edited August 10, 2004 by Cure of Ars