Re: Mithra

From: Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue Apr 05 2005 - 21:08:49 EDT

Oh, ye of little faith.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: ASA
  Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:40 PM
  Subject: Re: Mithra

  George wrote:
      Transsubstantiation doesn't mean that bread & wine turn into the Body and Blood of Christ "in your tummy" but at the time of consecration. The Immaculate Conception doesn't mean that Mary "had no natural father" but that she "was, in the first instant of her conception, preserved untouched by any hint of original guilt." & saints aren't "appointed" but recognized. I don't accept the idea of the Immaculate Conception & think transubstantiation is an inadequate way to understand the Real Presence (though certainly better than protestant symbolism) but that's neither here nor there. If we don't understand the distinctive beliefs of our fellow Christians we certainly won't do very well with those of people outside the faith.
  Please excuse my gross oversimplifications. However, I find it hard to conceive where in the digestive processes wine might acquire the properties of the Diety, or how natural procreation results in anything other than natural babies. But I'm sure all the Scriptural referrences have been enumerated. Uh, what are they?

  Which brings me back to my earlier point. If we don't have data and evidence to support it, we shouldn't espouse it, let alone annex it to our religion and cause our brothers to stumble.

  Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
  Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
  www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Tue Apr 5 21:11:05 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 05 2005 - 21:11:07 EDT