One thing I personally like about Catholicism/Orthodox that is lacking especially in Protestant/Evangelical Christianity is the devotion to Mary. I think the reverence to a female figure is very important to the faith and to one's outlook on life. I find that in the Protestants and Evangelicals (of course I know they overlap) they spend much of their time and energy in worshiping Jesus. Jesus this, Jesus that. Yeah, I get and understand his importance (its big don't get me wrong), but often times they seem to forget there is a God the Father. By having Mary as an important figure it emphasizes an admiration of motherhood, fidelity, love, and devotion. And the extension of that, the veneration of saints, places emphasis on both men and women in history and in faith. I'm not a liberal, I don't give a crap about diversity or any of that stuff, but I do find that it is important to recognize women in society, and the sects of Christianity which deviate from the oldest lines seem to lose this.
As Marian apparitions come, I don't really know. The Catholic Church is incredibly careful and incredibly skeptical when it comes to Marian apparitions as with other miracles and mystical occurrences. They take their time, do their research, and use much scrutiny before considering condoning said apparition. I don't know if they really happen, and none of us can ever know unless we witness one. I would say, however, that there are many things out there that can't be explained, things that affect us and the world around us that escape our ability to know. They can't be disproven, and only can be truly proven to those who experience them. But the rarity of their occurrence, the rarity of people claiming them (even falsely) and the stringent standard the Church applies to investigating them leads me to believe there may be some credence in them, but we'll never know.
The thing I don't like about fundamentalists of any kind is excessive literal interpretation. Both the strongest in faith and the strongest Atheists use literal interpretations to bolster, or dismiss religious texts. It was interesting to see an episode of Nova, I think, that showed that the fire of Sodom & Gomorrah is consistent with an asteroid strike in the same time. There is a lot of evidence of the historicity of many biblical tales, but they aren't literal acount. They are stories of our common humanity, tales from which no person could not derive benefit. They are sources of wisdom, something people don't appreciate.
As Marian apparitions come, I don't really know. The Catholic Church is incredibly careful and incredibly skeptical when it comes to Marian apparitions as with other miracles and mystical occurrences. They take their time, do their research, and use much scrutiny before considering condoning said apparition. I don't know if they really happen, and none of us can ever know unless we witness one. I would say, however, that there are many things out there that can't be explained, things that affect us and the world around us that escape our ability to know. They can't be disproven, and only can be truly proven to those who experience them. But the rarity of their occurrence, the rarity of people claiming them (even falsely) and the stringent standard the Church applies to investigating them leads me to believe there may be some credence in them, but we'll never know.
The thing I don't like about fundamentalists of any kind is excessive literal interpretation. Both the strongest in faith and the strongest Atheists use literal interpretations to bolster, or dismiss religious texts. It was interesting to see an episode of Nova, I think, that showed that the fire of Sodom & Gomorrah is consistent with an asteroid strike in the same time. There is a lot of evidence of the historicity of many biblical tales, but they aren't literal acount. They are stories of our common humanity, tales from which no person could not derive benefit. They are sources of wisdom, something people don't appreciate.