Readers’ Responses to Our Question (298)

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ college online

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ college online

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web sites:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp

lkowbyvix qourdcsty wlchkyin cglb kamzypivt fprad zruavk

lkowbyvix qourdcsty wlchkyin cglb kamzypivt fprad zruavk

lkowbyvix qourdcsty wlchkyin cglb kamzypivt fprad zruavk

ohqcuj rylztmw swzknbxul mpjc arsonl cwhmp lmvqadfi http://www.upqlo.qzyxio.com

ohqcuj rylztmw swzknbxul mpjc arsonl cwhmp lmvqadfi http://www.upqlo.qzyxio.com

ohqcuj rylztmw swzknbxul mpjc arsonl cwhmp lmvqadfi http://www.upqlo.qzyxio.com

hbrnuziac dwtqfkega ijpcxls sdeqyl jxbcn oekilsgxz aocgfmxz

hbrnuziac dwtqfkega ijpcxls sdeqyl jxbcn oekilsgxz aocgfmxz

hbrnuziac dwtqfkega ijpcxls sdeqyl jxbcn oekilsgxz aocgfmxz

When I was 9 years old and in the 3rd grade, I was given a daily missal with Latin and English pages opposite one another. It was not long before I could recite the English translations of the unchanging parts of the Mass by heart. It is true that most Catholics did not, and do not, understand Latin; but it is also true that, if they didn't know the meaning of what was being said, they had no one to blame but themselves.

One of the advantages of Latin was that it forced priests to stick to the rubrics and prevented unauthorized experimentation that plagues the Novus Ordo.

When I was 9 years old and in the 3rd grade, I was given a daily missal with Latin and English pages opposite one another. It was not long before I could recite the English translations of the unchanging parts of the Mass by heart. It is true that most Catholics did not, and do not, understand Latin; but it is also true that, if they didn't know the meaning of what was being said, they had no one to blame but themselves.

One of the advantages of Latin was that it forced priests to stick to the rubrics and prevented unauthorized experimentation that plagues the Novus Ordo.

If you believe judeo-christian religion(s), you're simply naive and gullible. Go on, believe in the lies you've been told since childhood, indulge in you perpetual infancy.

The comfort of improbable fantasies must be comforting.

If you believe judeo-christian religion(s), you're simply naive and gullible. Go on, believe in the lies you've been told since childhood, indulge in you perpetual infancy.

The comfort of improbable fantasies must be comforting.

From my perspective, the Tridentine Mass served a noble purpose consistent with the sanctity that the ritual is supposed to transmit.

Somehow I seriously doubt whether Jesus was in a jubilant mood the evening before he was to die. That initial Eucharist was one solemn event--if ever there was one.

I have always believed that the Tridentine Mass was a ritual to recall to mind what Jesus was about to undergo. It should be a solemn recollection observed with the utmost sanctity.

As to the Latin, I am wholly indifferent to it. The key element, for me, is the silent, meditative, contemplative act that I am witnessing. Having lost my son some eight years ago, I still honor his birthday and his anniversary date with the utmost solemnity. It is not time for a Broadway show. Neither should the Mass.

The aggravation to the modern Mass is that it is far too busy. I've been to many a retreat where a good retreat master is able to get the participant to concentrate mightily on a specific idea. At the Mass I prefer to concentrate on the death of Jesus and not on whether it is in English, or how many participants there are from the congregation. I just want it to be respectful--and quiet. If that is what the "Latin" Mass will bring back to me, then I am all for it. Maybe the Church ought to consider Aramaic instead of Latin!

If Jesus and Mary were the king and queen, Mohammad was the son.

Victoria,

You noted:

"it is called the miracle of the qu'ran, a book protected by ALLAH and in its exact state as it was revealed. not a comma deleted or added.
peace."

The real version:

It is called the myth of the koran, a book written by warmongering Arab scribes to further their agenda for conquering neighboring countries.
Angels, Abraham and no escape clauses were added to this book of death without commas added or deleted to scam the illiterate and uneducated into believing it was sent from the Arab version of zeus, jehovah and god but now called allah.

I guess if it weren't for that darn tower of Babel we wouldn't be having this discussion, huh?

gaby, i read your site- there was some misinformation in it- that is all.
i cant say more without being indelicate.

now as far as the classical arabic being a living language- aside from a few orientalists( who are notoriously islamophobic) arabic certainly has many dialects peculiar to regions- but classical arabic, as written in the qu'ran, (never the koran, itself an anglicized and never used spelling by muslims) has been practiced actively since the qu'ran was set downin print.

this is a common misconception, and im sorry to say- the motives behind such assertions are generally questionable at best.

some of the greatest reciters of the qu'ran are in egypt at an old university called al-azhar-
egyptian reciters are renowned in the muslim world for their excellent diction and pronunciation and widely sought by mosques for this reason.

one major difference between islam and christianity for instance- is the unbroken oral tradition of memorization (and of course recitation of the qu'ran in its complete entirety.

those who do this are called hafiz, and there are thousands upon thousands of muslims who do this by the time they are in their early teens.

while i myself am not at all fluent in arabic, i ahve never had the experience fo even the most rudimentary adherents who could not understand what was being said or what they were reading in the qu'ran.

so, no thats not true.
this is a common misconception and i only hear it backed by orientalist-

modern arabic resembles classical arabic quite closely, but even if it didnt, it has still remained in an unbroken transmission with the original text exactly precisely the same as it was first inscribed.

what youre suggesting is that classical arabic bears no resemblance to modern, and the supposition would be that classical isnt understandable by a modern speaker.

this is false.

it is called the miracle of the qu'ran, a book protected by ALLAH and in its exact state as it was revealed. not a comma deleted or added.
peace

As a non-Cahtolic, I couldn't care less about whether or to whom or in what language Catholics pray. As a retired Latinist, however, I am pleased by the thought that there will be more Latin classes and therefore more employment for Latinists in secondary education and beyond.

Unlike me, my parents were christians and they favored an extreme reform variety of that tradition. The obvious fact that our multitudinous RC neighbors could not understand the language of the churches they shared filled my parents and their co-religionists with wonder and contempt. But I have to suppose that all cults must, of necessity, contain some such offense against reason in orde to bemuse all those outside the communion and perhaps even create a bit of hostility among the outliers in order to put pressure on the fringier members of the cult who might otherwise fraternize with the benighted of other cults or of no cult at all.

Victoria,

Please see the following link:

http://i-cias.com/e.o/koran.htm

Languages evolve. Just as the English we speak today is nowhere near the English of the 1st century, so is ancient Arabic nowhere near the modern Arabic spoken today.

Let me know what you think about the site.

gaby- well, im being picky but the qu'ran already is in its original language- which is still a living language.

see fius-

you took negative aspects of one religion and made a blanket assertion which swept islam into the same box as christianity-

aligning them with a falsely premised connection
while you may consider them analogous- it does a disservice to my religion

it would be like me saying all atheists and agnostics and secularists are the same in their hatred of christianity

1)it links them with a negative, who is anyone to say "hate"
2)theyre not all the same
3) its an inaccuracy borne out of my own prejudiced opinion

so clearly i would never say such a blanket generalization

it discredits and disrespects the individuals who fall under any of those categories

any point that has to be made at the denigration or expense of any group , by that very act of aspersion becomes- well- just a negative opinion

whatever point you were trying to make about the mindless herd mentality is lost

Gaby,
You so bad! :P

Seriously, though, that's what I love about my path. I chant and pray aloud in order to keep myself focused on exactly what I'm doing and exactly what vibration I want to send out into the Universe. Hearing what I;m thinking serves that purpose and keeps me from being distracted and keeps me precise. So the spoken word (ie Language) is important for me when I worship. However, the specific language (Tongue) is not, as long as I know what it is that I'm saying. Sometimes, just for kicks, I actually pray or chant in either French or Spanish. The mental exercise of translating my prayer or chant as I'm uttering it also keeps me mindful of the need for focus and precision of language. And if I don't know the French or Spanish word for what I want to say, I can always put the English word in its place, then go back to translating. My former doshi used to alternate opening and closing prayers at the dojo in English and in Spanish (so that both the Anglo and Hispanic members could hear prayers in their own languages - he was quadrilingual - English, French, Spanish, Japanese), and I found it useful to translate to myself as he spoke in Spanish so that my mind was focused on the ritual and not just waiting for him to get back to speaking English. For me,it's about focus and intention - you can't have either if you don't understand what's going on.

Ideally all services, the rituals, the sermons, etc. should be in Latin or, better yet, in Aramaic or some other ancient language that the vast majority of people will not understand. Then we should rewrite the bible, the koran and all other holy texts into the precise, ancient languages they were written in and destroy all other versions thereof.

Happy worshipping!

"it is an extraordinary act of STUPIDITY and UNCONSCIOUSNESS for non-arabs to recite the qu'ran without understanding."

---agreed

"someone on these boards commented that the definition of real insanity is to perform the same act repeatedly with a certain predictable outcome, but to EXPECT the outcome to be different.
(i think it was attributed to an AA saying)"

"this is what you're suggesting."

---in a nutshell

"muslims are montheists, polytheism is definitely not a part of our religion."

---agreed

"crowd control and mindless unquestioning and unconscious submission are not any part of islam."

---and I believe the contrary--and also that they are indeed an integral part of every revealed religion, including the 3 dominant mono/ poly-theisms. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

"the issue is latin and catholicism, if you want to discuss hat go ahead."

--I took the issue to be otherwise: the role of tradition in the perpetuation of worshipful deism.

your muddled analogy is straight out of a fox news broadcast.

---not likely; fox news glorifies US protestant christian theocracy; I do not. Muddled, perhaps; but I believe the essentials have been understood, if not assented to.

"were striving for communication here, not perpetuation of old (or new and uninformed) knee jerk reactionary learned biases and intolerance."

---to which we are we referring? And I'm sorry I did not make it clear that I believe christianity and islam to be quite compatible.

---FIUS

faithless in us -

it is an extraordinary act of STUPIDITY and UNCONSCIOUSNESS for non-arabs to recite the qu'ran without understanding.

someone on these boards commented that the definition of real insanity is to perform the same act repeatedly with a certain predictable outcome, but to EXPECT the outcome to be different.
(i think it was attributed to an AA saying)

this is what you're suggesting.

muslims are montheists, polytheism is definitely not a part of our religion.

crowd control and mindless unquestioning and unconscious submission are not any part of islam.

the issue is latin and catholicism, if you want to discuss hat go ahead.

your muddled analogy is straight out of a fox news broadcast.

were striving for communication here, not perpetuation of old (or new and uninformed) knee jerk reactionary learned biases and intolerance.

As a non-Catholic, I hesitate to comment on a Catholic internal issue. Let me point out that liturgical-style worship in many faiths often undergo revision with accompanied discord. The revisions to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is one example. Both Reform and Conservative Judaism have revised their prayerbooks. What matters is the individual experience. No two people, attending the same service and using the same liturgy, will have the same response. Much of this experience rests on what the participant puts into the service.

Just because one returns to an older style of worship that uses an unfamiliar language is no guarantee that people will be brought closer to God. If the Pope is offering his people a choice then perhaps it is a good thing.

During my lifetime for example, I have used three different editions of the Union Prayerbook (used in Reform Judaism). Each has a unique style and each clearly reflects the generation that produced it. Each edition has elements that I find meaningful. Each new edition increasingly uses elements in the services that are closer to traditional worship such as increased use of Hebrew. It is a guide however, not a mandate, on what will be used in a service or at home.

As a non-Catholic, I hesitate to comment on a Catholic internal issue. Let me point out that liturgical-style worship in many faiths often undergo revision with accompanied discord. The revisions to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is one example. Both Reform and Conservative Judaism have revised their prayerbooks. What matters is the individual experience. No two people, attending the same service and using the same liturgy, will have the same response. Much of this experience rests on what the participant puts into the service.

Just because one returns to an older style of worship that uses an unfamiliar language is no guarantee that people will be brought closer to God. If the Pope is offering his people a choice then perhaps it is a good thing.

During my lifetime for example, I have used three different editions of the Union Prayerbook (used in Reform Judaism). Each has a unique style and each clearly reflects the generation that produced it. Each edition has elements that I find meaningful. Each new edition increasingly uses elements in the services that are closer to traditional worship such as increased use of Hebrew. It is a guide however, not a mandate, on what will be used in a service or at home.

As a non-Catholic, I hesitate to comment on a Catholic internal issue. Let me point out that liturgical-style worship in many faiths often undergo revision with accompanied discord. The revisions to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is one example. Both Reform and Conservative Judaism have revised their prayerbooks. What matters is the individual experience. No two people, attending the same service and using the same liturgy, will have the same response. Much of this experience rests on what the participant puts into the service.

Just because one returns to an older style of worship that uses an unfamiliar language is no guarantee that people will be brought closer to God. If the Pope is offering his people a choice then perhaps it is a good thing.

During my lifetime for example, I have used three different editions of the Union Prayerbook (used in Reform Judaism). Each has a unique style and each clearly reflects the generation that produced it. Each edition has elements that I find meaningful. Each new edition increasingly uses elements in the services that are closer to traditional worship such as increased use of Hebrew. It is a guide however, not a mandate, on what will be used in a service or at home.

The answer is already clearly stated in Christian hymnody, contributed by James R. Lowell:

New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

Tradition, as distinguished from truth, is important to faith only insofar as it increases the comfort level of the congregant. If the individual does not need that crutch, it can be dispensed with. In fact, it must be dispensed with if it interferes with openness to changing truth, to the continuing voice of God. Even Jesus recognized that necessity: notice how often he uses the structure, "It is written ... but I tell you ..." And note, please, that he uses that structure in discussing Scripture.

I would carry this point just a little farther. Jesus, obviously, was speaking of actually changing truth as written in the holy books. Lowell, I think, was speaking more of a refined understanding of truth, stripping away the tradition that has been injected into truth to protect one agenda or another.

Two very essential elements of tradition are required to foster the style of regressive worship embraced by the pope: ignorance and submission.

Ignorance is required to believe in the body and blood taken at the eucharist and submission is required for the laity to trust in the elevated clergy with their special abilities without any evidence to warrant such trust.

It is an extraordinary act of submission for non-arabs to recite the koran in arabic without understanding; the pope is only showing his desire to embrace even deeper synergies between islam and christianity. They share a unified theory of crowd control.

Consider the difference between those who re-enact the civil war and those who wish to reanimate the civil war with real cannons and guns. One has moved on and understands the nature and value of history, and indeed the tragi-comic properties of history; the other fails to acknowledge history and does so in order to relive the same experience, yet hope for a different outcome.

Cheers, to the second coming.

--FIUS

Thanks again, John M, for your response. I can see you've thought it through.

I suspect that most, if not all, people who pray to or through Mary also pray to Jesus, because they are Christian in the first place.

the two lane hiway.
beliveing in almighty creator god nessecieate 2way:
1-affirmation,
there is no creator save the creator,the creator is the same owner and possesor of what he created,the same sustainer and maintainer.
the creator is god and god is the creator,there is no god but the creator god ,absolute proof belong to the creator god .

2-negation,
there is no god save god,there is one god,if there is more than one god this life certainly will be runied in a minute because each god will try to over come the other god.

on the hiway to god mankind divided to 3 division:
1-those who belive in god , they do not associate no partener nor mediator none to god.
2-those who belive in god but in the same time they go thru mediators and brookers to take them to god like the so called son of god ,the mother of god the trinity of god ,the family of god ,the image of god ,the delusion of god etc etc.
3-those who disbelive in the existance of god period ,they live in this universe but no commitment to god and his word.
those who go to god thru mediator ,which is shorter and nearer? going straight to god or going thru mediator???why the meditor???
the mediator no mater how holy or sacred he still is part of the creation of god ,the word of god is applicable to all his creation ,in other word jesus as well as his mother are going on the same hiway to god like the rest of mankind ,not only that but they are looking for salvation like every body else from almighty god,its imposible for jesus and his mother to not practice what they preach ,how if god trusted jesus to carry the messeage to mankind to tell mankind worship the creator lord and in the same time tell mankind to worship jesus alone or jesus and god or his mother but not his sister or aunty but not her granma???
the meessage of jesus is clear and plain,worship the creator not the creation.
none is worthy of worship save god means i have to disbelive in other than god ,icant say i belive in god and in the same time i worship the sun beside god or god and the son of god or god and the mother of god other than the creator god is satan in many faces many delusions many images whether state of mind or rocks and stones.

This debate is so silly...take care if you go back to greek or latin, maybe Apollo/Zeus gets offended.

I did a google search: What is the origin of the Enlish word "pray" - You will gain some amazing facts. Also I read that this English word evolved in the year 1290. According to the information from the search: Shakesphere used it quite a bit.

Also, there is an author who wrote about how she discovered the truth about William Shakesphre. This author reveals that Shakesphere was a Roman Catholic in England when Catholics were persecuted. I will share her name and the title of her book when I can find it.

In other words Shakesphere used the English language and his style of writing as "code" to conceal and hide certain symbols, phrases, descriptions that were for the Catholics during their time of persecution in England. I cannot comment any more about this revealed truth about Shakesphere because I do not have the book.

Back to the origin of the words or language:

The English word "prayer" evolved to what it is today around the year 1590 according to another google search I did.

I don't remember what year the Church put the Sacred books and writings together in "The BIBLE". Anyway all of these facts regarding these two words and William Shakesphere seems new and fresh to me, however, look how long ago William Shakesphere lived and look how long ago these two words "pray" and "Prayer" evovled to what we describe and use them today.

New always becomes old or antique or ancient unless it breaks before it gets there

"Old" always becomes "new" through the ages of man who will always see it for the first time and as long as man chooses to continue discover the hidden treasures in the old,

A SEED HAS TO ALWAYS GO BACK INTO THE GROUND TO PRODUCE NEWNESS OF LIFE AGAIN AND AGAIN IN A REPETITIOUS CYCLE OF THE PROCESS AND DESIGN OF PHYSICAL LIFE IN TIME.

Words and languages evolve like people, culture and understanding of life and all of its surprizes and truths.

I want to keep my comments much shorter and I didn't expect this comment to be quite so long. I had planned to elaborate on a few comments I made before I delve a teeny bit deeper into the mystical language and meaning of Bride of Christ and Body of Christ and some other areas I mentioned in the long long long comment I made in the very early morning hours of July 16, 2007.

HERE ARE SOME THINGS TO THINK AROUND
"Nothing" only has one part; "Everything" has many parts which causes it to be what it is. What person could ever make anything by using only "1" thing to make it.

What person can make somthing or anything from only one part of something or anything. This is imporssible.

If someone gave me or any person a piece of paper and asked that we make something out of this paper other than how it is seen. In otherwords the person wants us to make something out of this sheet of paper. Only using the sheet of paper and nothing else.

What would be the first thing we would do. We first would have to tell him we need to use our fingers and we each have ten fingers.

We would have to fold the paper and we would have to fold the paper once and one sheet of paper plus one fold is "2." And "2" is more than "1"

We would have to move our hands and moving our hands further adds to the number "1" or only one.

With language comes a culture, history and origin of meaning.

One of the titles of Jesus Christ is "The Word of God" - this means LANGUAGE OF GOD WHICH IS LANGUAGE OF LOVE that was poured out upon the state of the mind of humanity when he entered into time. to really understand a "word" one has to go into its origin, its evolution, etc.

A good example would be a person starting a brand new job within an exisiting company or corporation. The term people use nowadays is the "company or corporatte culture or climate "

The new employee is usually given a packet of information all about this company, benefits, policies, requirements, etc.

In short there is so much to learn about the company and the etiquette on the surface that it can distract you from delving into the manual of your new job description on operating this latest high tech digital software equipement and all of its requirements .

You not only have to understand, learn, operate and perform this new technological wonder, but you will be required to train new employees and turn profits for the board members and shareholders of this amazing piece of metal.

There is so much terminology and so descriptions of each segment of this MAN MADE THING that you have to memorize and make presentations in video conferences, etc. that you wonder how you will do it.

But guess what, you do it because you need to do it in order to keep your new job so you can feed and support your family and contribute to your extended family who just arrived from your country of origin to a french speaking country.

You just learned the french language one year ago, but you were determined to be successful to make a better life where your family can have more opportunities for a comfortable and profitable life.

Most of your collegues don't know that you are a native mongolian whose first language was the mongolian languaate which is actually a dialect of the Aramaic language.

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY SHOULD DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY NEED TO DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY WANT TO DO IT

For example:

WE RE ALL GIVEN OPTIONS IN LIFE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT GO WITH THEM

FOR EXAMPLE:

If a person wants to be a lawyer- there are rubrics and requirements that he must learn. He has to learn terminology, Latin, various cases - the constitution, etc. However, he has the option of what state he will obtain his J,D Law Degree. He has the option of which institution he will obtain this Law Degree - He has the option of an excelearated course of study, which instructors, which libraries he will study etc, also he might decide to hire a tutor or join a study group outside of his class or a study group composed of his class mates, etc.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE REGARDING OPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS USING AN ANALOGY ABOUT THE MONA LISA - SORRY THIS IS ANOTHER STEP BACK INTO THE ARCHAIC PAST ABOUT ANOTHER OLD "ANTIQUE" MAN MADE THING

you enroll in an art class and the teacher hands out the syllabus with all the tools, requirements classroom etiquette and policies. but she has a rather interesting subject matter that she will give her students with options to choose what paint.

After a few weeks of instructions and techniques the big surprize that al lthe students have been waiting to do.

The teacher has a print of "The Mona Lisa" - the famous painting- Oops! I'm talking about an old antique priceless manmade treasure.

The teacher said the REQUIREMENT for this class is to paint "THE MONA LISA" - however, the class didn't know that the teacher was going to present TWO more paintings OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM AND PAINT of the Mona Lisa -

One painting was a self portrait that the Mona Lisa painted of herself when she was a teenager.

The other painting was of the Mona Lisa with her Mother when the Mona Lisa was a young child painted by the Mona Lisa's older brother who was an artist for many years, but now well known and never became famous unlike the portrait of his sister as a grown woman.

NOW I PRESENTED ALL OF THIS TO POINT OUT HOW FASCINATING AND "" THE "OLD" THE "ANTIQUE" AND EVEN MORE THE "ANCIENT" become WHEN THE "OLD" is INERJECTED INTO THE NEW
"
IN THE BIBLE THERE IS A METAPHOR USING "OLD" AND THE "NEW" - SAYING IF YOU PUT "NEW" WINE IN "OLD" WINE SKINS, THE SKINS WOULD TEAR AND ALL THE "NEW WINE WOULD SPILL OUT.

This can be looked at in different ways. One way would be to say that well there would be wine that other's would be able to partake for a while before it evaporates so they can enjoy it while it lasts, but that's not very long because the "new" always becomes old, and will losse its intial luster and will eventually become like everything else.

But at some point it will increase in value if it is kept in good condition it will increase in value evenmore.

Now if the "Old" wine is poured into "NEW" skins when this wine is preserved and then tasted as it continued to age over time it becomes even more "NEW" more priceless more of a treasure over time--Never loosing its aromas, qualities, texture, etc.

I will close this Comment by sharing with you that I live with my elderly parents they are both octagenarians (In their 80's).
I am have learned more about my parents true qualities since they are more dependent on each and and on me.

It is as if even though they are getting older and don't move as well or as much with ease as before, there is a type of innocence of "OLD" AGE and all of its set of restrictions and difficulties.

I know that despite some of the challenges,, I am a much richer and stronger person because of my experiences and real life lessons and truths I am learning about REAL LIFE - by the way the word REAL LIFE is the english translation for the word
"RELIGION.

Love

PS - don't limit your mind or your heart to only what is new and the latest trend fad, etc. HISTORY AND ORIGINS OF LANGUAGE, RACES AND CULTURE, SCIENCE, ART ETC ARE JUST A VERY SMALL segment of what LIFE can give to your Heart if you choose to remain small enough to see how beautiful and horrible and awesome are the stuff God brings out of everything he allows and everything he makes. he always brings good out of it all.

I did a google search: What is the origin of the Enlish word "pray" - You will gain some amazing facts. Also I read that this English word evolved in the year 1290. According to the information from the search: Shakesphere used it quite a bit.

Also, there is an author who wrote about how she discovered the truth about William Shakesphre. This author reveals that Shakesphere was a Roman Catholic in England when Catholics were persecuted. I will share her name and the title of her book when I can find it.

In other words Shakesphere used the English language and his style of writing as "code" to conceal and hide certain symbols, phrases, descriptions that were for the Catholics during their time of persecution in England. I cannot comment any more about this revealed truth about Shakesphere because I do not have the book.

Back to the origin of the words or language:

The English word "prayer" evolved to what it is today around the year 1590 according to another google search I did.

I don't remember what year the Church put the Sacred books and writings together in "The BIBLE". Anyway all of these facts regarding these two words and William Shakesphere seems new and fresh to me, however, look how long ago William Shakesphere lived and look how long ago these two words "pray" and "Prayer" evovled to what we describe and use them today.

New always becomes old or antique or ancient unless it breaks before it gets there

"Old" always becomes "new" through the ages of man who will always see it for the first time and as long as man chooses to continue discover the hidden treasures in the old,

A SEED HAS TO ALWAYS GO BACK INTO THE GROUND TO PRODUCE NEWNESS OF LIFE AGAIN AND AGAIN IN A REPETITIOUS CYCLE OF THE PROCESS AND DESIGN OF PHYSICAL LIFE IN TIME.

Words and languages evolve like people, culture and understanding of life and all of its surprizes and truths.

I want to keep my comments much shorter and I didn't expect this comment to be quite so long. I had planned to elaborate on a few comments I made before I delve a teeny bit deeper into the mystical language and meaning of Bride of Christ and Body of Christ and some other areas I mentioned in the long long long comment I made in the very early morning hours of July 16, 2007.

HERE ARE SOME THINGS TO THINK AROUND
"Nothing" only has one part; "Everything" has many parts which causes it to be what it is. What person could ever make anything by using only "1" thing to make it.

What person can make somthing or anything from only one part of something or anything. This is imporssible.

If someone gave me or any person a piece of paper and asked that we make something out of this paper other than how it is seen. In otherwords the person wants us to make something out of this sheet of paper. Only using the sheet of paper and nothing else.

What would be the first thing we would do. We first would have to tell him we need to use our fingers and we each have ten fingers.

We would have to fold the paper and we would have to fold the paper once and one sheet of paper plus one fold is "2." And "2" is more than "1"

We would have to move our hands and moving our hands further adds to the number "1" or only one.

With language comes a culture, history and origin of meaning.

One of the titles of Jesus Christ is "The Word of God" - this means LANGUAGE OF GOD WHICH IS LANGUAGE OF LOVE that was poured out upon the state of the mind of humanity when he entered into time. to really understand a "word" one has to go into its origin, its evolution, etc.

A good example would be a person starting a brand new job within an exisiting company or corporation. The term people use nowadays is the "company or corporatte culture or climate "

The new employee is usually given a packet of information all about this company, benefits, policies, requirements, etc.

In short there is so much to learn about the company and the etiquette on the surface that it can distract you from delving into the manual of your new job description on operating this latest high tech digital software equipement and all of its requirements .

You not only have to understand, learn, operate and perform this new technological wonder, but you will be required to train new employees and turn profits for the board members and shareholders of this amazing piece of metal.

There is so much terminology and so descriptions of each segment of this MAN MADE THING that you have to memorize and make presentations in video conferences, etc. that you wonder how you will do it.

But guess what, you do it because you need to do it in order to keep your new job so you can feed and support your family and contribute to your extended family who just arrived from your country of origin to a french speaking country.

You just learned the french language one year ago, but you were determined to be successful to make a better life where your family can have more opportunities for a comfortable and profitable life.

Most of your collegues don't know that you are a native mongolian whose first language was the mongolian languaate which is actually a dialect of the Aramaic language.

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY SHOULD DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY NEED TO DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY WANT TO DO IT

For example:

WE RE ALL GIVEN OPTIONS IN LIFE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT GO WITH THEM

FOR EXAMPLE:

If a person wants to be a lawyer- there are rubrics and requirements that he must learn. He has to learn terminology, Latin, various cases - the constitution, etc. However, he has the option of what state he will obtain his J,D Law Degree. He has the option of which institution he will obtain this Law Degree - He has the option of an excelearated course of study, which instructors, which libraries he will study etc, also he might decide to hire a tutor or join a study group outside of his class or a study group composed of his class mates, etc.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE REGARDING OPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS USING AN ANALOGY ABOUT THE MONA LISA - SORRY THIS IS ANOTHER STEP BACK INTO THE ARCHAIC PAST ABOUT ANOTHER OLD "ANTIQUE" MAN MADE THING

you enroll in an art class and the teacher hands out the syllabus with all the tools, requirements classroom etiquette and policies. but she has a rather interesting subject matter that she will give her students with options to choose what paint.

After a few weeks of instructions and techniques the big surprize that al lthe students have been waiting to do.

The teacher has a print of "The Mona Lisa" - the famous painting- Oops! I'm talking about an old antique priceless manmade treasure.

The teacher said the REQUIREMENT for this class is to paint "THE MONA LISA" - however, the class didn't know that the teacher was going to present TWO more paintings OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM AND PAINT of the Mona Lisa -

One painting was a self portrait that the Mona Lisa painted of herself when she was a teenager.

The other painting was of the Mona Lisa with her Mother when the Mona Lisa was a young child painted by the Mona Lisa's older brother who was an artist for many years, but now well known and never became famous unlike the portrait of his sister as a grown woman.

NOW I PRESENTED ALL OF THIS TO POINT OUT HOW FASCINATING AND "" THE "OLD" THE "ANTIQUE" AND EVEN MORE THE "ANCIENT" become WHEN THE "OLD" is INERJECTED INTO THE NEW
"
IN THE BIBLE THERE IS A METAPHOR USING "OLD" AND THE "NEW" - SAYING IF YOU PUT "NEW" WINE IN "OLD" WINE SKINS, THE SKINS WOULD TEAR AND ALL THE "NEW WINE WOULD SPILL OUT.

This can be looked at in different ways. One way would be to say that well there would be wine that other's would be able to partake for a while before it evaporates so they can enjoy it while it lasts, but that's not very long because the "new" always becomes old, and will losse its intial luster and will eventually become like everything else.

But at some point it will increase in value if it is kept in good condition it will increase in value evenmore.

Now if the "Old" wine is poured into "NEW" skins when this wine is preserved and then tasted as it continued to age over time it becomes even more "NEW" more priceless more of a treasure over time--Never loosing its aromas, qualities, texture, etc.

I will close this Comment by sharing with you that I live with my elderly parents they are both octagenarians (In their 80's).
I am have learned more about my parents true qualities since they are more dependent on each and and on me.

It is as if even though they are getting older and don't move as well or as much with ease as before, there is a type of innocence of "OLD" AGE and all of its set of restrictions and difficulties.

I know that despite some of the challenges,, I am a much richer and stronger person because of my experiences and real life lessons and truths I am learning about REAL LIFE - by the way the word REAL LIFE is the english translation for the word
"RELIGION.

Love

PS - don't limit your mind or your heart to only what is new and the latest trend fad, etc. HISTORY AND ORIGINS OF LANGUAGE, RACES AND CULTURE, SCIENCE, ART ETC ARE JUST A VERY SMALL segment of what LIFE can give to your Heart if you choose to remain small enough to see how beautiful and horrible and awesome are the stuff God brings out of everything he allows and everything he makes. he always brings good out of it all.

I believe it has always been the king and queen. Jesus was the king Mary Magdalene was the queen. Jesus just died too soon to realize it. And I think they will never come back.

E Favorite:

You asked if I think Jesus punishes people who pray to his mother.

I'm not sure how to answer. I don't think of God that way. I don't see Him waiting around the corner to punish us when we slip up. Biblically, we are told that we have ALREADY fallen short of what God created us to do: live our lives with Him. As a result, we are all on our way to eternal separation from God. (That's ALL of us.)

John 3:18 comes to mind:
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

So, if someone does not accept Christ and robs a bank, will they receive extra punishment for robbing the bank? No. If someone who refuses to know Jesus makes statue of a squirrel and worships that, will they be punished specifically for praying to a rodent? No. We are all ALREADY condemned UNTIL we accept Christ's sacrifice for us on the Cross. That's what the Bible says.

So, I have to give two answers to your question. For people who do not truly know and follow Christ, praying to Mary or anyone other than God does not change the fact that they do not know Jesus. Jesus Himself said they will perish because they don't know Him. For people who DO know and follow Jesus, I am sure the Holy Spirit would lead to them to the Truth (as Jesus promised us) and He would speak to them about their faulty practice of praying to anyone other than Him.

Come to think of it, God does that for all Christians for all of their sins. I am not an exception. As I venture further into Him, He progressively lets me know what parts of my life have to change.

To E Favorite from Daniel. You are being dishonest. We will take it from the top--and again and again. As for me being a man of straw arguments (as you put it. Whoops! I should have said straw-man argument, right? Have to satisfy your quibbling...)just check through all my posts here on on faith going back into the past. I think I have a pretty good record of really trying to think through questions put. I try my best to put absolutely no spin or anything on a question and try to honestly answer to the best of my intellectual ability. What I find most disatisfying about our discussion is that obviously you have so little imagination or consideration that you could not even observe that my argument was worthy even as a piece of philosophical fiction--as if there was no Gerson or Hitchens making an argument.

But let us begin with Hitchens and Gerson over again. And this time, to satisfy you, will take Hitchens' exact challenge to Gerson. You no doubt know it, so I will not state it in its entirety. The challenge: essentially for a believer to state something ethical or demonstrate an ethical act that an atheist cannot do. Hitchens adds that virtually anyone can name an evil act that a religious person has done. Essentially Hitchens, as we can observe, right off does not subscribe to your notion of "thinking outside the Christian box" (your words) because he implies that an atheist can match any goodness a religious person proffers while being obviously removed of the evil done by religion. Essentially he posits atheism in some sort of airy realm--quite removed from evil.

Now I will simply state an answer to his challenge: a believer no matter how evil at least has the notion of absolute good derived from a creator while an atheist has no such notion--whether a creator or absolute good. You can quibble all you want whether this is an "ethical statement" (as you took me to task) but I think if you ask around you will find that this is not only an ethical statement, but the very foundation of ethics. A creator is not necessary to a notion of absolute goodness (Buddhism a case in point) but virtually every ethical system so far (I allow for the possibility of one to the contrary) has depended on a notion of absolute good humans can aim at.

Atheists have no such notion--cannot have such a notion unless either A) demonstrating it as scientific fact or B) choosing to believe in such a thing and that once more is to enter the realm of having faith because one hopes in and aims for such a thing. I flat out warn you, E Favorite, that this is no simple game--we are talking about thousands of years of religion and philosophy.

I strongly object to your notions of "just wishing more atheists would "come out" so people can see how nice we are" as if atheism is some sort of wonderful human urge simply being repressed by religion and if more would just "come out" we would have some sort of happy atheist land.

Being an atheist is to first deny a creator, and by denying a creator one fully enters the ambiguity of existence with its difficult to determine good and evil (no clear direction toward the good or evil and difference between the two) and a person must become extremely philosophical and discerning--essentially all falling on the human and people having to constantly question and reorient themselves as to good and evil. I am not saying this is impossible, but we had better be totally honest about it. Atheism truly understood is no walk in the park. We are talking about the human race faced with having to constantly reorient itself down through the ages--man living by his own hands and mind without God and no easy answer to good and evil as in past religions. YOU SEE, RELIGIONS MADE GOOD AND EVIL QUITE EASY TO UNDERSTAND FOR MAN, AND THAT IS BOTH THEIR VALUE AND WHAT PEOPLE OBJECT ABOUT THEM. IF WE ELIMINATE RELIGION AND CONCEPTIONS OF ABSOLUTE EVIL AND GOODNESS, THEN WE ARE FREE TO MAKE OUR OWN GOOD AND EVIL, BUT WE ARE ALSO CONDEMNED TO CONSTANT UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHICH IS WHICH. IT MIGHT SEEM AT FIRST PREFERABLE TO OVERCOME RELIGION--ESPECIALLY IF ONE IF CONSIDERED EVIL ACCORDING TO A SYSTEM OF GOOD AND EVIL--FOR EXAMPLE IF ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL--BUT IN THROWING OUT RELIGION AND NOTIONS OF GOOD AND EVIL WE ONLY ARRIVE AT CONSTANTLY HAVING TO CREATE HUMAN SYSTEMS OF SUCH (AND MANY WILL SAY RELIGION WAS PRECISELY THAT ALL ALONG) AND THAT WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE EASY.

My objections to you--and Hitchens--simply stated, is that the both of you put the preponderance of evil on religion and posit atheism as the answer to overcoming evil. Hitchens flat out assumes Gerson can think of nothing good a believer can do that an atheist cannot do--and also believes anyone can think of something evil a religious person has done. You seem to take the same tack with your notion of innate goodness in humans. The fact is we live in an ambiguous world and if we do not posit a creator and absolute goodness this does not mean we are free of having to constantly conceptualize on good and evil--on the contrary: we have to think all the harder as to our actions and it would be nice to have some sort of faith in absolute goodness (without necessarily emanating from a creator) or we are likely to just become nihilistic and give up as to life.

I hope my reflections have been relatively clear and I implore you to just think about what has been said. Far from making straw man arguments I sincerely wish science could speed ahead so the instant someone makes an argument the full life of the person will be available for public appraisal as to origin and validity etc. of argument. I have stated often enough here on this forum--and elsewhere that I am a high-school drop-out--no education worth speaking of--and that I suffer from mental illness and that I like to read and write and have been doing so for years...I think we really should know details about posters lives to get at the essence of viewpoints--why people say the things they do. I for one am sick of all the phoniness and spin and hiding and so much more on the internet. And this I suppose is the innate goodness of man you speak of!

Have a nice day E Favorite. May you seriously reflect on the concept of atheism.

Victoria:
It kind of reminds me of when I was in high school and Patti LaBelle's "Lady Marmalade" was on the pop charts. Half the kids in my school had no idea that the song was about a prostitute, and walked around school singing, "Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?" Since I spoke some French, I felt opbligated to tell them what it meant - they were amazed to find out that they were singing "Do you want to take me to bed?"

According to Pope Ben, if you're not catholic you can't get to heaven. Is that the message of the mass?

Say it in latin or say it in english, it's still dogmatic pomposity. Brought to you by man, not by any god. A man with an agenda more associated with temporal power and control than divine revelation.

butterfly lover- yup- what is the point of releasing energy of sound vibrations inot the cosmos with no clue as to what youre releasing?

it is unconscious in the extreme, and denigrates us humans into mindless drones.

worship or connection with the god(dess) has to be a conscious effort

Anon:

Whether or not God listens to chanting was not my point.

My point was that the instructors (equivalent of Protestant pastors or Catholic priests) made a great effort to preserve both the language in which the prayers were originally written, while at the same time making sure that everyone present was able to actually understand them and place them in meaningful context, rather than simply having everyone imitate the sounds they made without knowiung what they were really saying.

If you are following the true path, you can only say what God wants you to say. And it is a personal relationship. no one has full access to the information God gives to you unless God wishes. And if God Wishes to let you say anything and experience anything it is for the benifit of others, so they may believe.

God doesn't really listen to those chants. God listens to your inner most thoughts. Language does not matter!!!!!

Victoria: **you say that the latin mass will create a unity.

but people dont speak or understand latin.

and there is no instruction in the church to make them understand it.

the homilies will stay in the spoken language of the congregation, which is where the actual learning and catechism takes place.**

Very intersting, especially in light of how I spent the past weekend. My husband practices Sukyo Mahikari. I have incorporated many elements of this practice into my own eclectic Pagan path. We spent the weekend at the dojo helping out with a three-day seminar.

The practice originated in Japan, and the major prayers are chanted in Japanese. Not because they believe that God prefers Japanese, but because the poetry flows better in the language in which it was written. I won't go into detail about the theology here, because it isn't relevant to my point.

The instructor was American, and the course was given in English, with simultaneous Spanish translation for the handful of people there who spoke only Spanish. So everyone got instruction/explanantion in the language they understood best.

The English version of the prayer book contains the prayers written in Japanese ideograms, then in phonetic Japanese, then in English. (Versions in other languages are similarly arranged). When the instructor talked about certain key concepts, he would call them by their Japanese names, then break the Japanese names down into their component syllables, explain the meanings of those syllables, THEN break the ideogram for them down into its component strokes, explaining what each stroke of the character represented, and how they combined to create meaning.

Were it not for that aspect of it, there is no way that I would be chanting syllables of a language I did not speak, not knowing what those sounds meant. Even though I don't speak Japanese, the detail of the explanation allowed those sounds which would otherwise have only been pleasant rhythmic vibrations to have meaning.

It doesn't matter who you pray to, they are of one mind.

Mary was part of the Trio Jesus was talking about, but He was protecting Her from Evil.

TLD- your earnestly expressed column WAS a little long, but worth the trouble.

well, first of all, an option cannot be required.
then it becomes mandatory and ceases to be a choice but its no big deal.

alot of your column dealt with noise and ditraction in church, which is certainly a point well taken, as well as your repeated calls to return to the message of love.

but in your post it started to get confusing for this reason.

you say that the latin mass will create a unity.

but people dont speak or understand latin.

and there is no instruction in the church to make them understand it.

the homilies will stay in the spoken language of the congregation, which is where the actual learning and catechism takes place.

in the past, the incoherence of the latin drove people to show up for the celebration of the eucharist, and leave as soon as they got it.

also, there are already brides of christ in the church, they are called nuns.

you are creating a rather strange relationship claiming Mary(pbuh) as the embodiment of mother church has a marital relation with her son.

well, here is the hail mary

HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE THE LORD IS WITH THEE
BLESSED ART THOU AMONGST WOMEN AND
BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB, JESUS.

HOLY MARY, MOTHER OF GOD-
PRAY FOR US SINNERS, NOW, AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH.

this is clearly an intercessory prayer.

how can you hail Mary(ata) in greeting, and then say you are not addressing your prayer to HER, but ABOUT her son?

Jesus(ata) is only peripherally mentioned as the blessed fruit of her womb.

how can you ask for her direct intercession now and at the hour of your death, without praying TO her?

but this is all side issues.

finally, and i hope you dont find me too confrontational, but you have stated the latin mass will create unity among catholics.

that is a bold statement which we are discussing.
could you elaborate simply on HOW this would create unity in a practical sense?

pax vobiscum

TLD
You have made some very important points but your post is very long. Could you give it to us again in smaller pieces? I think what you have to say is important for everyone here to consider but in this form it is hard to read. I had to print it out to be able to get it.
Everyone, try to read TLD's comment in small sections at a time. He or she is not ranting but is making a series of relevant points that add up to a real description of (1) what Catholics stand for, and (2) what is going wrong in many parishes.

makes sense to me!

Victoria
I've never felt that I was praying to Mary, only that I was praying with Mary. I was not raised as a Catholic, so the intercessory role of Mary and saints never really made sense to me in the old fashioned Catholic sense. I don't think anyone ever meant to leave the Allah out of the loop, it just became a cultural habit.
If you don't mind the analogy, it seems that you are able to experience continuing revelation in your Muslim practices, partly because you never developed knee-jerk, unthinking habits but you look for (and find) the real spiritual connection. I think that is probably my approach to being Catholic. Neither of us sees faith as a cultural requirement, but as a relationship with the Almighty on His (and Her) terms.

these questions are just for my own clarification -i recognize in your and viejita's statements, sentiments i expressed myself in the past. i also recognize in both of you a deep desire to worship god in a pure and clear way.

john- when you say you pray to god alone, does that mean God AND Jesus(ata)?

viejita- possibly i havent said this, but i respect your opinion.

so i hope you take this in the mild spirit its intended.

are you saying you DONT pray to Mary(ata)?

when i was in the legion of mary, the most basic and seminal promise made was to say 3 sets of the rosaries every day.

thats about 45 minutes of hail marys and hail holy queens! thats alot of prayer to mary!

as a side because its relevant- when i became muslim i was very surprised to find out who the most revered woman is to muslims.

i assumed it would be the first wife of the Prophet(pbuh) or his mother maybe, or one of the many women mentioned.

the most revered woman in islam is Mary(ata) the mother of Jesus(ata).
there is a whole book devoted to her in the qu'ran.
(i was a very marian catholic) this was a joyous discovery for me.

peace and pax vobiscum

OK Daniel, that’s it for me. I see no point in continuing a conversation with someone who says I’m being dishonest. Hopefully people reading through this discussion will reach their own less derogatory conclusions about my comments, even if they disagree with them.

John M – thanks very much for the response. One other thing, do you think Jesus punishes people who pray to his mother?

E Favorite:

I think it's wrong to pray to anyone but God. He is God, after all, and He is able to hear me and help me. As I wrote in my post, in order to hear and answer my prayer, any other being would have to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. Those qualities only belong to God.

God has made great promises to me if I will turn to Him fully and trust Him fully and love Him fully. There is no room or need for prayer to anyone else.

So, I guess I have two reasons for not praying to Mary, or any other saint. The first reason is practical: no one else can hear me or help me. The second reason is devotional: If I am going to give myself to the Lord, I have to depend on Him, and Him alone.

I hope that helps.

Mary,

You said, "Jesus also told Mary " these are your children" what do you think that means?"