Albert Cipriani

Dear PEEDNAR,
You ask:
A case can be made that Catholicism itself was the first science under the guise of religion. Like crime-scene detectives, it cordoned off the site of their investigation, rigorously collecting all the evidence (known as “the deposit of faith�), defined the physical evidence (canon of scripture), defined hearsay evidence (oral tradition) extrapolated from those definitions more definitions (extraordinary magisterium), logically refuted all contrary postulates (Inquisition) through a judicial process today's scientists call “peer review.�

In short, Catholicism can be defined as a Truth processing machine. Ya’ll can deny the Truths it processed, but you cannot deny its processing apparatus. That apparatus is essentially no different than the scientific method. They both use the law of non-contradiction in their approach to the Truth. They differ only in the kinds of Truth they approach, theological versus physical.

To the contrary, the religions of the East saw reality as an illusion to be overcome by indifference, not to be understood by investigation. They believed in paradox more than they believed in the law of non-contradiction. Thus, Zen masters would regal their students with such koans such as: “What’s the sound of one hand clapping?�

Even the East’s conception of time was a hodgepodge of circularity, with endless cycles of fortune and misfortune. Catholicism alone, against most of the philosophers and virtually all the religions saw time as linear, as something that had a beginning and an end. This meant that reality was dynamic and alterable, and by analogy, so too should be the lives of men. Time was a non-renewable resource, and thus highly valued and constantly used to make a difference. That’s one of the reasons the West was so dynamic. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

GeekUSA

"Uh, and your point is that Nature is superior to Man? What possible sense can I make of such a position? Do you mean that if it came down to Nature (whatever the hell that might mean to you) surviving or Man surviving, you could selflessly justify Man's extinction?" (Sorry, forgot to quote)

First of all, you idiot, man is part of nature, came from nature, and is dependant on nature to survive. I don't think nature could care less if man went extinct.

Second, I don't mean goddes worship where women are portrayed as "The Mother" or whatever, and I'm certainly not saying a country headed by women would never go to war. Thats generalizing a gender as a whole, which is obviously always going to be proven wrong. The point is(which I didn't make very clear at all, oops ;-)), most of the pagan goddess-worship sects believed in balence, and taught it more than any other monotheistic religion I have ever heard of. And balence is beautiful. Now ad hominem me.

GeekUSA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...................Do you still believe whatever anyone who calls themselves a Christian says, or is it just the evangelists speaking for you?

Life is a paradox. We are everthing, we are nothing. And how do you know Time is linear? You can look at a graph and see that something that seems linear also has a Z-axis, and an i-axis. Thats algebra 101. I could go on forever, but in some cases, its rather pointless.

socratoad

Jeez am I missing some concept here? Man is superior to nature?
What a detached way of thinking.
I have a philosophy that recognizes that that all life is sacred and all elements that supports life is sacred. thus the planet is sacred
And that he who harms the natural interaction of life commits a sin against life.
All else is merely rhetoric or worse the babbling of someone who is so far remover from nature that he/she no longer is capable of recognition.

Man is superior/nature is superior. these are but the arguments of the truly blind

Lugubert

GeekUSA,‎

You started this topic with, among other things, "Mary Magdalene was said to be a prostitute by ‎the Church, to start the demonization of pagan goddess worship( a goddess was often reffered to ‎as Magdalena), and oppression of women."‎

I don’t think it is possible to find a serious reference where "Magdalena" refers to a goddess. The ‎Catholic Church has sometimes said that Mary of Magdala was a "sinner"; the Protestant Church ‎has not. For the view of the churches, you can look at ‎http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09761a.htm.‎

Mary Magdalen was so called either from Magdala near Tiberias, on the west shore of Galilee, or ‎possibly from a Talmudic [!] expression meaning "curling women's hair," which the Talmud [!!] ‎explains as of an adulteress.‎

The reason for discrediting Mary of Magdala was not to fight pagan worships, but to argue ‎against the Gnosticist view that Mary was at least on par with the recognised male disciples. A ‎very full article on this problem, by the Harvard professor Karen L. King, is on http://www.sbl-‎site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=210. You can also search the Internet for "Gospel of Mary". It is ‎fascinating reading, and a good example of scriptures that the Catholic church suppressed as ‎objectionable and heretic. The Gnostics thought that the Catholics were heretics…‎

Now back to your introductory question, "So, does anyone here agree with me that the world ‎would be a much better place if worship of the femminine divine and balence in nature were still ‎the main religions?" I think a still better way is to have a genderless god (as in Sikhism) - or no ‎god at all (as in Daoism). Daoism is also very much about following Nature’s way and keep in ‎balance with it.‎

It might be fitting to end with a Tibetan Buddhist Mandala which Destroys the Notion of Male ‎Supremacy: It is the tenth picture on http://www.exoticindia.com/paintings/Thangka.‎

Albert Cipriani

Then you do not have a philosophy that recognizes anything and the sacred is non-existent. The formula of Everything = X says nothing about everything and too about X, so much that X ceases to function as a concept. For example, if everything were red, we could never know it and even the idea of colors would be inconceivable.

Well then, put down that ham sandwich and prepare to starve to death.

Oooo the “truly blind� as opposed to what, the falsely blind? For someone who won’t kill life to maintain your own, you have some nerve calling anyone blind. – Albert the Traditional Catholic