Religion a Private Matter

5 days, no reponse- as predicted, another soja paste and run

this is a dead thread soja- no one here but us chickens-

your first point- that anti-theists can argue ad infinitum - not applicable as we are both believers-

your second point- that this forum is for fostering understanding and establishing a common ground-
is exactly what i have been doing-
you asked me a question-
why did i leave catholicism and turn to islam?

to claim that the answer- respectfully given- is outside of the realm of these boards or what you perceive their purpose is- also not applicable to this discussion.

moving on- your third point- that these boards are not for attmepted conversions- i totally agree.

which is why ive given extended assurances to you that i have not the tiniest interest in converting you-

however, your fears- cloud your ability to even answer the simplest of discourse-

neither HL,nor i - have expressed any mention of islam whatsoever-

why do you keep bringing it up?

i am not simpleminded to be so easily distracted-

now- back to the unanswered question-

i think it frightens you- but i said that in the first post-
i predicted it would be too scary for you to ontemplate- and it is true.

i refer you to my post on april 29 @ 11:04 AM

where i stated (and i quote myself)
***********************
"its a frightening question to ponder-
but we don't avoid questions because we fear the answer may alter our views-"
***********************

while you deliberately choose to interpret the john 14 passages in a strict and literalist (what i call) funda-mentality- in complete contradiction- you interpret other biblical passages from a symbolic, broad POV.

you use different criteria to get the foregone conclusion that you want to arrive at-

when it's convenient- in the case of john 14- it becomes strict- and still it requires a great deal of stretching to arrive at that conclusion.

and that is a peripheral and weak passage-
(especially to construct an entire theology from)

while the 1st commandment is so seminal and basic to the religion of Jesus himself- and all jews- and hence all early christians who formed the church-

that to abandon it in favor of the former (john 14) defies all reason!

this disconnect within your own mind lends no credence to your statement-
***********************
"I have found no spiritual insight in the Quran that provides any reason to me as a Christian, to consider converting to Islam."
**************************

well- first- no one asked you to convert-

and second- youve given no indication that your capacity to interpret your own scriptures to provide spiritual insights.

so, it is not surprising that you have not been able to glean any insights from the qur'an.

and then- to make-yet another comparison (unsolicited) between the qur'an and the bible-

with the bible predictably triumphant- poor islam just a shadowy plagarism in your estimation-

***********************************
" Anyone who has read the Bible fully and prayerfully would find that the best of spiritual insights expressed in the Quran can be traced back to the Bible; "
*****************************

completely contradicts your earlier complaint that these boards are for finding common ground.

well- ive read the bible- fully-prayerfully- scholarly-literally-symbolically-
i dont agree- but it is not an opinion.

it is based upon years and years of active comparison-
but you will never see me malign the bible - as i actually DO respect the other faithful-

and never find it necessary to put one down to raise myself up.

o yes- i got THAT idea from the qur'an.
how about that.

and i have many many other questions.

but the first one seems to have stumped you.

****************
how do you reconcile the first commandment-
to worship no other gods before or beside God?
with the worship of Jesus(may He be blessed)
as God?

there is a contradiction and conflict there that cannot resolve itself-

either you honor the 1st commandment- and reject the divinity of Jesus(ata)

or you honor Jesus as God and reject the 1st commandment.
(which you've already stated you believe and honor)

but one negates the other-
the 2 ideas cannot exist together in harmony- they cancel each other out-
************************

no answer? just say it then.

Victoria & HL

On this Forum believers of all persuasions are familiar with anti-theists who claim God doesn't exist. Any believer who has invested the time and energy to get into a debate with them know that they could keep the debate going for eternity with clever rejoinder to anything a believer has to say. Anti-theists (as opposed to atheists who are content to let believers remain believers) are not content with not believing in God themselves, they insist others should give up their belief in God as well, and anyone who doesn't is deluded at worst and stupid at best.

This On Faith forum is about finding common ground with people of other faiths and none, based on shared human values and a universal concern for the welfare of all mankind. It is about trying to find a basis to work together based on mutual respect, accepting the differences in perspectives and beliefs.

Any attempt at trying to convert a person of one faith to another or to none has been met with great failure in this discussion forum. People looking to convert to other faiths would go to the numerous websites run by the members of the respective faiths. Nobody would bother to read this forum to convert to Islam or Christianity or any other faith. This forum, as far as I can see, is about learning to respect people of other faiths, learning to appreciate different perspectives and working out common ground to have meaningful dialogue and work towards the common goal of common good for all human beings.

Therefore, while I respect your commitment to Islam and your desire to convert others to your faith, may I gently remind both of you that neither I, nor anyone else for that matter, would consider this the appropriate forum to explore Islam as a religion if the intention was to seek spiritual insights to convert to the religion? My personal interest in Victoria's spiritual journey has been only because she was once a Catholic and spent long years in training to be a nun in a Franciscan convent, which is known and respected worldwide for its work for the poor and marginalized. Nothing I read in the Quran has convinced me that a Franciscan stands in need of spiritual insight that only the Quran could give.

While I respect Islam and Muslims, especially their dedication to their religion, it must be added that I have found no spiritual insight in the Quran that provides any reason to me as a Christian, to consider converting to Islam. Anyone who has read the Bible fully and prayerfully would find that the best of spiritual insights expressed in the Quran can be traced back to the Bible; many Biblical persons are mentioned in the Quran, even if they are portrayed in a different way.

Typical Soja, she does not understand why anyone can’t be Christian but never seem to be able to defend what she believes in the first place.

Soja said:

Victoria, your question regarding the divinity of Jesus is a simple one to answer. I have addressed it several months ago on this forum.

The Gospel of John 14:8-11 gives the answer:

8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Is Philip asking Jesus to produce the Father (God) in physical form or does he mean something else altogether? Is this similar to when Moses implored God, "Oh, let me behold your Presence?" Please explain.

9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

What does this mean to you? How is this proof that Jesus claimed to be a god?If I say: anyone who has seen me has seen my brother, does that mean my brother and I are the same?
Could you please elaborate?

10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

The first part of the verse states “That I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me”; what does that mean? Keep in mind what comes after that in verse 20 when Jesus says: “At that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” If verse 10 means that Jesus is God because God is in him then using the same logic we can assume that verse 20 means that the apostles are part of this god council (for lack of better word) too since Jesus is in them and they in him.

In the second part of verse, Jesus says he is not acting alone; he doesn’t speak for himself but God is instructing him of what to say and preach. Elsewhere Jesus supposed to have said: “For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.” And "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me." Could you please tell us how this connects to your concept of the trinity doctrine?

11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

Again how is this proof that Jesus is a god? Isn’t he explicitly saying that the miracles he had performed were not of his power but the works of God through him? Because in the same book Jesus also said: “I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is righteous, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me.” This is congruent with what Peter said in Acts: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves also know.”

Again how is this proof that Jesus is a god? Please elaborate.

Keep in mind these absolute explicit declarations lest you forget:

Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad. “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” Deut. 6:4; isn’t this what Jesus answered when an inquisitor asked about the first and most important commandment of all? Or maybe you want to remember what is said in Deut: ‘He is God; there is no other besides Him’. Deut. 4:35
Or maybe this reminder from the Quran: “your God is One God; there is no God save Him, the Beneficent, the Merciful.” And “There is only God the One!”

In the book of Mark Jesus said: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God”; if he objected to simply being called good how would he react to being called a god by you or anyone else? Think about it.

THAT WAS VICTORIA - having trouble posting on here lately-

SOJA-
how do you reconcile the contradiction between the first commandment and the concept that Jesus is divine, and god?

I guess you don't. Don't worry- I couldn't either. I left. You stayed.
well, we're different people. ALLAH created us all,

SHAKIR: O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.

so you see, the distinction is not made on the basis of gender, or race or any group- but those who are righteous and noble-

which could be anyone from anywhere.
pretty inclusive, isn't it?

to loosely quote thomas jefferson (one of the founding fathers of america) "My neighbor's faith neither breaks my leg, no fills my pocket."

i am not going to make comparisons between other religions-
when one compares, there's always a winner and a loser-

i respect other people and their faiths-

in islam- we are simply advised to debate with grace and gentility- and if no agreement is reached- to agree to part ways-
you to your religion, and me to my faith.

i have no desire to convince you, or anyone else- of anything.

well dearheart- lets agree to disagree-
you have a drive to seek justice in this world- i like to think that i do too-
i consider that one of the strengths of islam-

its a beautiful thing-

so, at the least- namaste and i recognize the god-force within you.

SOJA-
how do you reconcile the contradiction between the first commandment and the concept that Jesus is divine, and god?

I guess you don't. Don't worry- I couldn't either. I left. You stayed.
well, we're different people. ALLAH created us all,

SHAKIR: O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.

so you see, the distinction is not made on the basis of gender, or race or any group- but those who are righteous and noble-

which could be anyone from anywhere.
pretty inclusive, isn't it?

to loosely quote thomas jefferson (one of the founding fathers of america) "My neighbor's faith neither breaks my leg, no fills my pocket."

i am not going to make comparisons between other religions-
when one compares, there's always a winner and a loser-

i respect other people and their faiths-

in islam- we are simply advised to debate with grace and gentility- and if no agreement is reached- to agree to part ways-
you to your religion, and me to my faith.

i have no desire to convince you, or anyone else- of anything.

well dearheart- lets agree to disagree-
you have a drive to seek justice in this world- i like to think that i do too-
i consider that one of the strengths of islam-

its a beautiful thing-

so, at the least- namaste and i recognize the god-force within you.

Catholic News Agency 30 April 2008

Pope meets with Iran-based Muslim group, method for dialogue agreed on

Vatican City, Apr 30, 2008 / 04:06 pm (CNA).- Following today's general audience, Benedict XVI received a group of Iranian Muslims who have been meeting biannually for the last 12 years with thl e Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. The dialogue between the Vatican and the Muslim group resulted in an agreement on faith and reason, violence and religion and the method for dialogue.

The Vatican is being represented in the discussions by a delegation led by Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, while the president of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organization of Tehran, Iran is leading their group. Representatives from both groups have been holding meetings in Rome to study the theme of: "Faith and Reason in Christianity and Islam".

During the course of the discussions, which came to a close on Wednesday, the two delegations agreed upon the following points:

1. "Faith and reason are both gifts of God to mankind."

2. "Faith and reason do not contradict each other, but faith might in some cases be above reason, but never against it."

3. "Faith and reason are intrinsically non-violent. Neither reason nor faith should be used for violence; unfortunately, both of them have been sometimes misused to perpetrate violence. In any case, these events cannot question either reason or faith."

4. "Both sides agreed to further co-operate in order to promote genuine religiosity, in particular spirituality, to encourage respect for symbols considered to be sacred and to promote moral values."

5. "Christians and Muslims should go beyond tolerance, accepting differences, while remaining aware of commonalties and thanking God for them. They are called to mutual respect, thereby condemning derision of religious beliefs."

6. "Generalization should be avoided when speaking of religions. Differences of confessions with Christianity and Islam, diversity of historical contexts are important factors to be considered."

7. "Religious traditions cannot be judged on the basis of a single verse or a passage present in their respective holy Books. A holistic vision as well as an adequate hermeneutical method is necessary for a fair understanding of them".

Speaking with the Iranian news agency IRNA after a meeting with Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Mostafavi said that the two had discussed other ways to improve dialogue between Catholics and Muslims.

One of the ideas under discussion included holding meetings dedicated to religious-themed theatre and cinema. Another proposal floated in the meeting was to facilitate exchanges between scientific institutes and universities linked to the Catholic Church and Shia research centers in Iran.

Victoria, Christianity has survived two thousand years and has had billions of believers in that time based on a supposedly attempted answer to the identity of Jesus. Even today one third of the world’s population is Christian. Not a bad record for an attempted answer.

Going into the history of the Syro-Malabar Church in Kerala and to its connection with the Roman Catholic Church in Rome, serves no purpose in our discussion, so I would prefer to leave that out. Anyone who is interested can look up links provided by Google.

What would be of immense help to Franciscans, Catholics, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Wiccans is a detailed explanation of your experience in each of these traditions. It would add to their knowledge if you could explain how Islam provides the ultimate answer to all spiritual quest. Just in case you misunderstood me before, I do not sit in judgement of you for choosing Islam as your religion. I was only trying to point out that your understanding and experience of other religions you practiced may not have been ideal, which is why you felt the need to move on. I have read the Quran myself, so there is no need for you to conclude that I do not know what Islam is about.

As to the faithfulness to the practice of celibacy for a religious reason, it is the same as remaining faithful to the vow to remain faithful to one’s spouse made during the marriage ceremony. The decision to marry is an act of the free will and the obligation to remain faithful to one partner goes with the commitment, just as the choice of a religious life which comes with an expectation to remain celibate is made freely. All human beings are subject to temptations of the flesh. Whether one enters into marriage or makes a vow of celibacy, one is not forced into it. The decision to remain faithful to oneself and one’s vow is a matter of personal integrity. Are you discussing personal integrity? And by the way medical doctors do not necessarily have to suffer from all diseases before they give any advice on how to deal with any of them. So your opinion that a celibate priest is likely to be completely ignorant about sexual matters may not be accurate. A priest is not expected to fulfil the role of a sex-therapist to his parishioners, so what is your complaint?

I will let others carry on the conversation with you. The Islamic view on Jesus, I'm already familiar with after reading the Quran, so there is no need to go over that with you.

HI SOJA- thanks for trying to answer-

since you say you have difficulty understanding me- i think it is the reason why you make so many assumptions about me-

instead of reinterpreting for you what you think or say- i will paste verbatim in the interest of truth-

S- "how you could practice so many different religions and not find satisfaction in any of them."

why assume i found no satisfaction?
of course i did- each experience being a springboard into deeper insights-
but satisfaction is not complacency-

since you have spent so much energy making observations of a personal speculation-

i will make an observation using exactly the information youve supplied- and make one speculation- the first one ive ever made in reference to you-

your family, for 1,956 years- and yourself since birth- have been catholic-
it is possible that there are some emotional attachments to catholicism that make you cling to dogma and rearrange what you encounter to support a predetermined outcome.

for instance- you have simply completely ignored the first commandment in the question i proposed-

its not possible to harmonize the contraditcion if you ignore one variable in an equation.

and yet- you interpret literally- the verse from John to validate a pre-existing idea-(divinity of Jesus) and it is a vague reference at best- requiring a solid belief in the divinity of Jesus to rest upon-

that would mean- if you are consistent- that you would interpret the first commandment literally also.
you solve that conflict by ignoring the entire half of the contradiction-

well, of course if you remove one variable form an equation- you are left with one whole answer-

now the first commandment is not vague- requires no preconceived theology to stand upon-

actually- even though it is quite clear- and much stronger- you chose to ignore it completely-

it is the roots and trunk of the tree of judaism (which Jesus practiced) and you choose instead to concentrate on an outer leaf in that tree-

but without the roots, and trunk to stabilize the tree- the leaf will die-
the trunk and roots don't need the leaf-
the leaf cannot exist without them-

lets call 1st commandment A
and John 14:8-11 B

A+B=X ( X being the conclusion you reached-
or divinity of Jesus)

but A actually precedes and cancels out B

A definitely does not equal X

so your equation is B=X

i notice there are many times that you also make the choice to interpret the bible symbolically- or boradly- and most liberally.

consistently- the same criteria should apply equally to all interpretation-

now, i will propose that some of your confusion regardng how to understand me comes not from my own inconsistency-
but your pre-determined perception of what you imagine me to be-

and my journey often does not conform to that perception- hence the many suppositions and assumptions and misunderstandings on your part- in regards to what i think or believe

as for John 14- the greek word homoousius (consubstantial- i.e. "one in being with the father") from whence you get your idea that Jesus is god- does NOT exist in scripture- but is an addition of the greek bishops at constantinople when they convenedthe council of nicea some 300 years after the ministry of jesus-

an interesting study if you're up for it-

go to the source is my motto

now that is all logic- and reason-

form the perspective of pure spirituality-
my own path led me to venture outside of the comforting and comfortable realm of the familiar-
so - for about 2 years- i prayed with earnestness and a certain spiritual desparation-

i asked god to lead me to worship (her/him) in the true way that (he/she) wanted me to-
NOT just that i was comfortable with-

that is the actual prayer- you know the anser already that i received-

i have no reason to believe that my answer is wrong- and your idea of what my answer should have been- is right.

o- one thing on a personal note- it is kind of annoying to me-

i suggest you spend 30 years of your life as a celibate before you attmept to instruct others as to its realities and hardships-

it is the other side of the coin of the celibate priest giving advice on sex-

so if you come up with a full answer to the complete question- let me know.

or, if you like- i can certainly come back with a great deal of reasoning from your own scripture to support the 1st commandment-

or you can just ignore the request-
whichever you like-
peace

I disagree with the Pope. When religion becomes political, it becomes about ascendency over others, not about spirituality or the quality of ones soul.

Those who seek to develop greater goodness then become drowned out by power mongers.

Muslim Tarek Fateh also makes this point:

Those who USE religion as a political vehicle seek to destroy our liberties and also destroy the heart of their own religion.

As long as Islamists around the world use Islam as a political ideology in the footsteps of such jihadi ideologues as Hassan Al-Banna, Syed Qutb, Abul Ala Maudoodi and Ayatollah Khomeini, their Muslim, and non-Muslim opponents will have the right to challenge this ideology with full vigour. Hiding behind the skirts of religion to avoid being critiqued, these fascist cults demonstrate not just cowardice, but a cunningness that is fooling large segments of the liberal-left intelligentsia in the West, which will be among the first to suffer if and when Islamists use liberal democracy to extinguish its light."

Victoria, as a Christian by conviction, who has not felt the need to change my religion in spite of my openness to truth and beauty in all religions, it is difficult for me to understand why you, obviously a deeply sensitive person spiritually, who went so far as to be in long training to be a nun, would abandon Christianity even if you did not feel called to a celibate life as a nun. Real celibacy is a rare calling; real faithfulness to the vow of celibacy requires an extremely deep prayer life made somewhat difficult when one is in an active order (even more difficult if one is living alone in a diocese as a parish priest without the daily support of a religious community) in constant contact with the "temptations of the flesh" in a world that is not dedicated to celibacy.

It is somewhat difficult for me to understand how you could practice so many different religions and not find satisfaction in any of them. Having read the Quran and some Scripture from other religions myself, I do not see how you claim that Islam has the answers that other religions could not give you. It is one thing for someone who is born into a Muslim family and Islamic culture, but for you as a Catholic in long years of training to be a nun, who practised other religions?

It is informative to know what drives a Catholic away from Christianity and what answers exist in Islam that other religions do not have.

Victoria, as a Christian by conviction, who has not felt the need to change my religion in spite of my openness to truth and beauty in all religions, it is difficult for me to understand why you, obviously a deeply sensitive person spiritually, who went so far as to be training to be a nun, would abandon Christianity even if you did not feel called to a celibate life as a nun. Real celibacy is a rare calling; real faithfulness to the vow of celibacy requires an extremely deep prayer life made somewhat difficult when one is in an active order (even more difficult if one is living alone in a diocese as a parish priest without the daily support of a religious community) in constant contact with the "temptations of the flesh" in a world that is not dedicated to celibacy.

It is somewhat difficult for me to understand how you could practice so many different religions and not find satisfaction in any of them. Having read the Quran myself, I do not see how you claim that it has the answers that other religions could not give you. It is one thing

Victoria, your question regarding the divinity of Jesus is a simple one to answer. I have addressed it several months ago on this forum.

The Gospel of John 14:8-11 gives the answer:

8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

-----

The concept of God taking a human form, Incarnation, is very easy for a Hindu to understand for it is very much a part of Hindu belief. Remember my non-Christian ancestors were Hindu Brahmins? Based on the case Apostle Thomas made, they were convinced that Jesus Christ was a historical Avatar. I have found no reason to doubt the eye witness account of Jesus and His life and teachings in Bible.

hello again soja-
i have a mild curiosity as to your rationale for that question-
i havent found a satisfactory one yet- and some pretty heavy hitters have tried- ("it's a mystery" just doesn't make it, does it?)

i hope you don't pull a disappearing act or ignore it alteogether-

if you have an answer-you'll answer
if you don't have an answer-you won't.

soja- well, "literally thousands of posts" is a bit hyperbolic-
but i am flattered that you have been so keenly interested in my opinion to read all of my posts (even if you misremeber some basic facts about my history)

ill propose that your statement- asking where a comparison is being made- is a comparison!

"You refer repeatedly to a competition where there is none. I have remained a Christian all along... You on the other hand... Where exactly does a comparison, leave alone a competition, in our spiritual journeys exist?

dont worry so much about my personality-

you seem determined to convince me (or yourself) of the superiority of catholicism to islam-

but i cannot make any such attmept- (nor am i inclined to) as that same religion of islam demnads that no aspersions or negativities be cast at other beliefs-

ive told you many times- i cannot and will not critique another faith negatively-

and long soliloquies of a personal nature are out of place here-

i can however, ask you to answer a seminal question that i asked myself-

how do you reconcile the first commandment-
to worship no other gods before or beside God?
with the worship of Jesus(may He be blessed)
as God?

there is a contradiction and conflict there that cannot resolve itself-

either you honor the 1st commandment- and reject the divinity of Jesus(ata)

or you honor Jesus as God and reject the 1st commandment.
(which you've already stated you believe and honor)

but one negates the other-
the 2 ideas cannot exist together in harmony- they cancel each other out-

its a frightening question to ponder-
but we don't avoid questions because we fear the answer may alter our views-

for me, this - and many other questions propelled me to seek answers-

peace soja- let me know what you come up with-

Jesus said what?? The fact is that Jseus and Moses did not even exist at all. The only reference to these two people appares in religions writings.
Now the real scary thing here is that God had sex with a married women!!
why was that? and she had to be a virgin? hum is't one of the ten commandments addressing this issue: "thou shall not covnet thy neighbors wife" And how could Mary be a virgin? she was married. Was it not the custom for the village elders to watch the newly married couple consummate the marrage?

Next you will tell me the world is only 6000 years old. Then move to the bible codes, the word search to end all word serach games.

Then you will kill me for not beliving in your god, and the fear I might spread the word that the 3 major religions are nothing but lie's.

It was god fearing religious people that flew plans into bulidings 7 years ago..

Another link of the speech of Mark Thompson, Director General of BBC (Faith and the Media), since my earlier post seems to have disappeared:

http

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3130671015893767744

The BBC link to the speech: Faith & the Media, by Mark Thompson, Director General of BBC

http:

//www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_faith.shtml

Mary

Many thanks for mentioning the talk at the Westminster Cathedral by the Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson: Faith & the Media. I watched it on a video link. It is simply terrific! I'm excited about the programs he mentioned are in the works of the BBC too.

Here the link (there is no www:)

http

smalldifferences.blogspot.com/2008/04/mark-thompson-faith-media.html

Victoria, you have posted literally thousands of comments on this forum since November 2006. Anyone who has been participating in the discussions since the beginning or anyone who takes the time to read through all the comments from the beginning would know that I have only put together a summary of your spiritual journey from your own posts.

You are an ex-Catholic Franciscan nun in training, now a zealous Muslim. That makes your spiritual journey unlike most others. Your interpretation of religious/spiritual matters is coloured by your personal journey, just as mine is coloured by my biography and my unique spiritual journey. I see nothing wrong in calling attention to a fact that serves to clarify each one's position.

You refer repeatedly to a competition where there is none. I have remained a Christian all along while opening myself with deep respect to the wisdom in other religions in order to learn from them. You on the other hand have practiced one religion after the other, rejecting each one before moving on to the next. Where exactly does a comparison, leave alone a competition, in our spiritual journeys exist?

I'm still very much on a journey, needing to start all over again repeatedly within the Christian tradition. You have found all your answers in your practice of Islam. Where is the comparison, leave alone the competition?

its not really a book to read, its an investigation into the self to live-

it took me 2 years to get through it-
deceptively deep for its length-

soja- i have answered your questions- but you didnt remeber what i said-

asking you if you , as a catholic- submit yourself to the authority of the pope-
'is the first personal question ive asked you in a years worth of speaking to each other-

youve invented a history and series of events which dont exist-

ive remarked before- that your interest in the details of my life go beyond mere curioisty-

as you have misrepresented what i actually have told you- with rhetorical questions posing as statements- which are incorrect-

its not a competition dear-

you to your souls journey and me to mine-

we dont diminish each other by our
respective faiths-

i preferred to see the best in your observations about what i know or dont know-
so i chose to interpret it as sarcasm- rather than condescension or oneupsmanship- or just unkindness-

when you come with a question that isn't veiled in building some future critique or attack-

im here to answer-

but with gentle inquiry soja-

i dont elaborate on exactly why i left the church beause to do so- i will have to negatively criticize catholicism-

and i respect others too much to do that.

perhaps it has gone unnoticed by yourself- but i dont do that.

id rather be considered a fool than malicious or backbiting.

CCNL

If you believe in the value of the Ten (according to you twelve?) Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, then I am at peace.

I am convinced that every Catholic should be taught to reflect on the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount repeatedly over their lifetime to revive the Church. There is an urgent need to emphasize the basics of our Christian faith. That will lead to an automatic sense of unity with other Christians, and people of other religions.

I still value the Sacraments and the great rituals and music which adds beauty and meaning to the practice of the faith. As human beings we need rituals and ceremonies too, times to fast, times to celebrate births and marriages, mourn with those who have lost loved ones - all as a community. The Jewish tradition is full of beautiful tradition of rituals and we as Christians have our foundation in Judaism.

A religion which consists only of a set of teachings may appeal to scholarly types like you, but the average human being longs for more, an integration of religion into the life of the community in many ways with rituals and feasts.

Mary, thank you once again for your kind words and the reference.

I'm happy to be a Catholic. I feel blessed doubly because I'm both a part of a direct Apostolic tradition (St Thomas) in India with a rich history and tradition, also a part of the universal Roman Catholic church. I feel very free in the church and appreciate the universal nature of it.

As to how God gives His grace to others, I do not make any claims. I'm convinced that God draws all people to Himself in different ways. Only God can be judge of a human heart. I believe that all truth, goodness and beauty comes from God, no matter where it is found. People approach God in different ways and God responds to all human beings, without restricting His grace to Catholics or Christians alone. Verses in the Book of Acts, quoting Peter confirms that. That is why inter-religious dialogue interests me so much.

Dom Bede Griffiths, whom I knew personally for nearly nine years, and with whom I spent several months at his Christian Ashram, was a pioneer in inter-religious dialogue. He engaged with Hinduism and Buddhism intensely without giving up Christianity. Anyone who doubts his Christian conviction must know that he used the Jesus Prayer as his mantra in meditation. It is taken from the Eastern tradition. He integrated Hindu rituals into Mass, giving it a Christian meaning. He adopted prayers from the Syrian rite, while remaining faithful to his Benedictine tradition. The Ashram was a combination of the Benedictine monastery and a Hindu Ashram.

Victoria, you wrote,

MARY- i think soja was being sarcastic-

if either of you truly want to get to the heart and soul of catechism- read st john's dark night of the soul-
(in catholicism) i can think of no superior blend of contemplation (he's one of the doctors of the church) combined with serious intropsepction necessary to attain that elusive state of grace-

April 28, 2008 12:58 PM

--------------

One thing I can confirm Victoria in the way you mind-read me, you are not really adept at reading people's words and intentions.

If you had really understood what St John of the Cross wrote in his book, you would not have found it necessary to leave the Franciscan convent, leave alone Catholicism and Christianity.

Victoria, you wrote, "ok soja- i was just curious- you've asked me many many questions whcih i've always tried to answer honestly-

if you say you are in submission to the authority of the pope- that is fine.

why didnt you just say so before?

its no big deal- just a simple question-"

April 28, 2008 9:33 AM

----------

Victoria, I meant that the question you asked is a non-question. When I was baptised, I was only eight days old. That was when I was received into the Syro-Malabar Church. I did not have to profess allegiance to the Pope in Rome or allegiance to any priest or Bishop for that matter. It was the same when I received the First Holy Communion and was given Confirmation. Since I have been made a member of the Church without having to take an oath to the effect you imply exists in order to be a Catholic, you might like to explain when you took such an oath in your life, since you were raised by an atheist father and agnostic mother and must have joined the Catholic Church at a later stage in your life.

You have never given the answer to the question several people have asked you:

Why did you join the Catholic Church when you were raised by atheist-agnostic parents?

Why did you join the Franciscan convent to be nun and live there for so many years, and yet not take the vows?

When you decided to leave convent, why did you give up Catholicism?

Why did you give up Christianity?

Why did you practice Judaism, or spend so much time with Jewish scholars and Rabbis?

Why did you practice Buddhism, Hinduism and Wiccan ? Why did you reject all these religions?

Why did you finally decide to become a Muslim? What teaching in Islam did you not find in other religions?

As far as I can remember, you have not answered this at any time. You only mentioned that the answer was too complicated.

Victoria, Soja and Mary,

Once the Catholic Church is "deflawed" and the muck and stench of 2000 years of "voodooing the hoodoo" and the "mumbo jumboing" of atonement and original sin removed, there will be no pope since only the Beatitudes and the Twelve Commandments will be left standing.

MARY- i think soja was being sarcastic-

if either of you truly want to get to the heart and soul of catechism- read st john's dark night of the soul-
(in catholicism) i can think of no superior blend of contemplation (he's one of the doctors of the church) combined with serious intropsepction necessary to attain that elusive state of grace-

Soja, yes, it is through the sacraments and the mass that Catholics access God's grace. (Hopefully Victoria won't want an explanation of grace!)

I do think, however, that Catholicism is hard, well, all Christianity is hard. A distant God, a pure spirit, the Creator who will not show his face...that we can allow. But the same God become man, the same God who showed us his face and his grace and told us how to live and showed us how to die. Now *that* is hard. Read somewhere that whilst Protestants want to know how to gain salvation, Catholics somehow cannot get over the fact of the Incarnation. Hence the palpable difference of feel in the Catholic mass and sacraments.

If you have a chance read the Mark Thompson lecture "Faith in the Media" (...in the same series as the AofC). It gives a quick history of religion in the 20th c. and at the beginning of the 21st. Well worth a read (IMO better than the AofC and far surpassing Wm. Hague)Just add the www, as thanks to Jacob Jav. we can no longer link)rcdow.org.uk/lectures.

An excerpt:

"And I have what some will regard as a rather counter-intuitive story to tell. It is how, over a generation – as it happens over roughly the time I’ve been involved in broadcasting myself – one picture of religion has been replaced by another, more complex, more challenging, in many ways deeper one. I’ll talk about some of the new, seemingly intractable dilemmas that this change has confronted us with. I’ll also try to explain why, when I look to the future of the relationship between faith and the media, what I feel, most of time at least, is hope."

(Most of the folks here are stuck in the old picture of religion. What's happening now is very different. Where we Catholics are in the new scheme of things---well, who knows? But FWIW Mark Thompson is a practicing Catholic--I think I've seen him once or twice at West. Cathedral--and he is hopeful.)

a different kind of nonsense......

________________

Experience Chan! It's not mysterious.
As I see it, it boils down to cause and effect.
Outside the mind there is no Dharma
So how can anybody speak of a heaven beyond?

Experience Chan! It's not a field of learning.
Learning adds things that can be
researched and discussed.
The feel of impressions can't be communicated.
Enlightenment is the only medium of transmission.

Experience Chan! It's not a lot of questions.
Too many questions is the Chan disease.
The best was is just to observe the
noise of the world.
And the answer to your questions?
Ask your own heart.

Experience Chan! It's not the
teachings of disciples.
Such speakers are guests from outside the gate.
The Chan which you are hankering to speak about
Only talks about turtles turning to fish.

Experience Chan! It can't be described.
When you describe it you miss the point.
When you discover that your proofs are
without substance
You'll realize that words are nothing but dust.

Experience Chan! It's experiencing
your own nature!
When you don't fake it and waste time
trying to rub and polish it,
Your Original Self will always shine
through, brighter than bright.

Experience Chan! It's like harvesting treasures.
But donate them to others.
You won't need them.
Suddenly everything will appear before you,
Altogether complete and altogether done.

Experience Chan! Become a follower
who when accepted
Learns how to give up his life and his death.
Grasping this carefully he comes to see clearly.
And then he laughs till he topples the
Cold Mountain ascetics.

Experience Chan! It'll require great skepticism;
But great skepticism blocks those
detours on the road.
Jump off the lofty peaks of mystery.
Turn your heaven and earth inside out.

Experience Chan! Ignore that
superstitious nonsense
That makes some claim that they've attained Chan.
Foolish beliefs are those of
the not-yet-awakened.
And they're the ones who most need
the experience of Chan!

Experience Chan! There's neither distance
nor intimacy,
Observation is like a family treasure.
Whether with eyes, ears, body, nose, or tongue -
It's hard to say which is the most amazing to use.

Experience Chan! There's no class distinction.
The one who bows and the one who is bowed to
are a Buddha unit.
The yoke and its lash are tied to each other.
Isn't this our first principle ..... the one
we should most observe?

Master Xu Yun

MARY- actually it was the niceaen creed i was thinking about in particular-

ok soja- i was just curious- you've asked me many many questions whcih i've always tried to answer honestly-

if you say you are in submission to the authority of the pope- that is fine.

why didnt you just say so before?

its no big deal- just a simple question-

Mary

Many thanks for explaining to Victoria what it means to be a Catholic. Of course I believe in all that you wrote. What keeps me a Catholic by conviction are the Sacraments. I appreciate all the other Christian denominations and have been greatly enriched by contact with them. None of them can give me the satisfaction from the Catholic Sacraments. I'm glad that the Syro-Malabar Church is part of the Roman Catholic Church. I can attend Latin rite Mass anywhere in the world. I have been doing that since about the age of fifteen anyway because I lived in places which did not have a Syro-Malabar church.

Thanks for the UK link you posted.

Victoria,

As a Catholic I (and, I hope, Soja) submit to the authority of the Church and its head, the pope,in areas where it is infallible: which is in respect to essential Christian doctrine. The Church cannot err of these essential points (the Trinity, the resurrection of Christ, original sin and baptism, the Eucharist &tc.) and is very unlikely to err, really, on any matter concerning the faith. I would also suppose that the Church has these characteristics in perpetuity since Christ's promises to the Church have no expiration date.

Theology develops over time. If the Church were prone to errors these would have increased exponentially over the past 2,000 years. This has not been the case. Example: the Nicene Creed, pretty much the same since it was AD 352.

I have no idea how my response to the following comment from Victoria on another thread, ended up here.

VICTORIA:

yes soja- both popes have warned against the mixing of religious traditions that are the base, specifically - of the "christian" (again, not catholic) meditation taught by father keating.

and misleading the flock, setting up shop on their own- are the exact warnings of the church.

so it's a misrepresentation to state that father keating is has the imprimatur of papal authority.

i think you just were not aware of this.

as a catholic, do you submit to the authority of the pope?

you are wiggling all over the place to avoid answering this simple question.

April 27, 2008 11:28 AM

Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia:
Victoria, Fr Thomas Keating and others like him are not banned by the Pope. They continue to remain priests and form and lead meditation groups in whatever capacity they choose to.

What exactly constitutes validation?

Could you provide exact reference to the warnings issued by the Popes against meditation, even against Christian meditation?

Non-Catholics as far as I know (except Eastern Orthodox Christians) have no contemplative tradition.

Victoria, I was baptized in a Syro-Malabar Church; I received my First Holy Communion in the same denomination. I was given Confirmation by a Bishop of the Syro-Malabar Church and attended Sunday school also in same Church. Not once was I asked the question you ask me, nor was I accused of wiggling all over the place. I'm considered a full fledged Catholic. The Syro-Malabar Church in Kerala is autonomous, follows a Syrian-rite liturgy, but it remains a part of the Roman Catholic Church. So may I ask you on what authority and to what purpose, you, as an ex-Catholic and a current Muslim ask me this question? I don't think for a moment that you really understand Catholicism. Your meaningless question proves it.

You seem to be poorly informed about the contemplative tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.

Soja,

Are you sure the "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist is who "she" says she is???

After all, this in an open blog with no ID needed for commentators. The panelists' IDs are obviously true. Be wary, however, of the
commentators and their motives e.g. the Jihadist says she is a Sunni. If so, she comes weighted down with the discrimination and hate for 200 million Islamic Shiites. Note that she never discusses the Shiite problem and never addresses the four "fems" aka flaws, errors, muck and stench of Islam i.e.

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Male Islamics to include imams and clerics having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

The Jihadist "paints" a rosy picture of Islam but since "she" never addresses the significant negatives, one must assume her Islamic brainwashing is severe and/or she is simply very afraid of the Islamic truth squads. The latter issue extends to all commentators on this blog e.g. describing Mohammed as an illiterate, warmongering, womanizing, hallucinating, lust and greed driven, long-dead Arab which is historically true would be an automatic death warrant in Muslim countries.

Hi Farnaz!

Thanks for the tip to skip CCNL. I'm used to reading exactly the same lines he has been writing since Nov 06. He is the scholar who can't be bothered to respond with more than cut and paste jobs of the one original response he prepared eighteen months ago for the On Faith forum. If you have read him once, you have read him always.

I enjoyed reading the poem you posted. Thanks.

Best wishes
Soja

CCNL

Thanks for the references. I'd rather be brainwashed by your definition than be the kind of scholar that you are. It doesn't add to your cause if all you can do is try to bring division among believers, instead of encouraging dialogue and unity; trying to destroy religions rather than add real depth and meaning to them. Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in God as the Creator of the universe and we share many religious aspects in common. Why not call attention to that in your scholarship, and try to bring harmony?

Jihadist is a charming, witty and extremely intelligent woman who is doing her part in trying to find common ground with all religions. We need more and more Muslim women like her! She has the power to influence thousands of Muslims in her country of adoption(Malaysia) and her country of birth (Indonesia). She can be a great inspiration to Muslims in Europe because her mother is Dutch. Why not encourage her efforts and support her, rather than impose your kind of "scholarship" on her?

Hmmm, disturbed by the reality of it all?

Well, that is part of the education process. Once again for a public review of the flaws and errors in it all to refute 2000 years or more of religious brainwashing:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Oh, what the heck:

Sailing To Byzantium
William Butler Yeats

That is no country for old men. The young
In one another’s arms, birds in the trees
—Those dying generations—at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unageing intellect.

II

An aged man is but a paltry thing,
A tattered coat upon a stick, unless
Soul clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress,
Nor is there singing school but studying
Monuments of its own magnificence;
And therefore I have sailed the seas and come
To the holy city of Byzantium.

III

O sages standing in God’s holy fire
As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing-masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.

IV

Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

Pagan musings.

CCNL:

You scholar among scholars. You refer Soja to Josefus?

Tossed, tossed, tossed, almost all of it tossed.

Best advice?

An [middle-aged} man is but a paltry thing.
"clap its hands and sing, and louder sing
For every tatter in its mortal dress,
Nor is there singing school but studying

Aologies to WBY.
.................................................

Soja,

Skip the great ccnl scholar. He knows not what he does, thinks, reads, or writes.

Best,
Farnaz

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Soja and I differ on many points. I recommended to her various sources for catching up to the historic Jesus. Also noted were some of the flaws, errors, muck and stench of our current Catholic Church.

As you know, we have already caught up with the warmongering, hallucinating, greed-lust driven, womanizing Mohammed.

Your last commentary shows also the immediate need for the Five Step Programming for Deflawing Islam. Once again and free of charge:

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."
A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

4. " To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line.

Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy".

Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Accept these five "cleansers" and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

Imagine the CEO of a global organization telling their senior vice-presidents that they should resist any tendency from their customer using their products and services in manners not recommended by the corporation.

Additionally the CEO says that they must make special efforts to stop the tendency of the customers not to openly show that they use the company's products. This will be a missed opportunity of growth trough one of the must effective low cost promotional tools in the market: imitation.

Now compare that business speech with what the Pope said. Specially with this two expressions:

"Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted."

"...We cannot separate our love for him from our commitment to the building up of the Church and the extension of his Kingdom."

Sally touched on the money perspective on this tread in her post of April 24, 7:31 AM. I just wanted to express more specifically that the Pope was talking strategy with the guys that lead the business in the field, but at the same time he is adding supernatural and nebulous speak for the faithful.

Not that I believe that the major organized religions are there only for business, but it is an important part of the them, together with power and other ingredients.

Talking about religious enterprises, they have a big advantange. The product and services are marketed for the afterlife: you don’t worry about warranties nor maintenace: God will pay those bills...

Peace to all,

JAC

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Now on to Soja? One of the most reasonable, calm and considered people in On Faith threads?

Soja to CCNL : "The seeds of “reality” sown in my mind? You hope against hope that I might buy your virulent anti-Christian views that you pass off for scholarship? I suggest you get ready to wait forever and a day."

Moi : Good for her. Ditto for me.

And to add that you barely conceal an enveloping, encompassing bigotry of beliefs and believers under the cover of "scholarship" borrowed from and parrotted here from the Jesus Seminarians.

It will be a cold day in hell before I take your posts as sincere.

Come hell or highwater, "we" will not go by your pass/fail self-set "reality barometers"

Is your "Uncle" really pleased and satisfied with "your" work in On Faith threads?

Is your "Uncle" really pleased with "you" using the name of the "enemy" whoever and whatever that is?

Come to mamma. Give me "your" best shots of name calling and vilifications of the Prophet, Islam and Muslims.

Come to mamma pussycat, to the one beyond "your" reach and grasp after all these months and many posts directed at and against.....

Here is the link to the ArchbisophofCanterbury's lecture on religion and spirituality: (just add the www)
rcdow.org.uk/lectures/rcdow.org.uk/lectures

Part of the Cardinal's series of lectures at Westminster Cathedral on faith in the mod. world. Kind of like this series but minus the occasional rants and spams.

In a sermon in Memphis you told of John the Baptist as one proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of heaven versus Jesus following him proclaiming its actual presence... Is this idea related to the idea of the eternal now, i.e., this present existence is all there is or ever will be? I personally find it hard (considering evolutionary thought) to consider an actual after-life?

I agree that religion will lose its own soul if it becomes a private affair, and that is a good thing for the world when it does happen.

Mankind is purposely individual and expresses differences from the individual viewpoint, even through the expressions of its eternal, different fingerprints and faces of separateness and individuality as opposed to 'belonging' to a group, or religion.

Individualism is where mankind is headed increasingly in his, her, and all the differences in between his and her, in our eternal futures of evolution by the process of eternal reincarnations of the souls of mankind.

The souls of mankind are 'seeded' eternally into new human bodies being born at the earth time of death of a body of mankind, releasing the soul for the next experience in eternal reincarnation.

Religion is only a temporary stage of grouping people, even as psychologists tend to group ideas about people's various and individualistic actions of individual free will. Grouping people together by religions and psychologists is a compromising system of the basic free will to be individual expressions of god in the material worlds of living (Cosmos).

Everything in existence is individually different by design of natural law (god's will), and resists being grouped by that fact alone. Man is eternal god on earth, and religion is a power grab over the idea of god, and over the mind of man. Love, Armand

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

You take Sonja to task for picking Catholic dogma of her choosing and you yourself left Catholicism because of the onerous teachings. And yet you pick and choose the passages of the koran that you agree with and disregard the rest.

Typical "wishy-wash" thinking on your part!!!

And what sayest thou about the obvious "fems" (aka the flaws, errors, muck and stench) of Islam i.e.

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Male Islamics to include imams and clerics having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.
????????????????????????????????????????????????

soja-
as a catholic, do you sbmit to the teachings of the church and the authority of the pope?

its a yes or no question.

theres no amount of wiggle room- its yes or no.

not my rules soja- the rules of your own religion.

the church doesnt give you the option to pick and choose what issues you like-

personally- my conscience did not allow me to continue to support the church's position on many things-

i knew in my heart- either i submit fully to the authority of the pope- and call myself a catholic-

or recognize that i was not able to split my mind in two and reconcile the dogmatic inflexibility of the churchs position on women, birth control, and issues you yourself have listed-

also the extraordinarily unfair distribution of wealth i saw-

many things that made it impossible for me to stay-

you seem to be attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable-
that is your own journey-

so, do you submit to the authority of the pope, or do you reject it?

it doesnt require a paragraph of rationale-
its a yes or no.

When religion becomes a public matter then people do thongs like "So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land." Numbers 21:35

Soja,

Again your commentary is as expected from a Bred, Born and Brainwashed Catholic. I can only offer a wide choice of reading materials that hopefully will allow you to one day find the real Jesus and the reality of the flaws and errors of all religions.

Historical Jesus studies have been afoot for only about 200 years. Before that, the lack of education and communication in the global world prevented a thorough review of this fellow Jesus so called son of God.

Blind faith based on the musings of a few elderly gentlemen of the first and second century CE, and promulgated by a few "elite", white male Europeans is no longer acceptable.

Sources of knowledge to the reality of it all:

The Historical Jesus: earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of most of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication

Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html----"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

Josephus on Jesus
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

Some additioal reflections:

Money also played a role and still does. Money and our Church go back to the beginning according to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, amazon.com/.

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

See the book for added clarification of Reimarus views.

And St. Paul's ability to collect rather large sums of money from the Gentiles for Jewish relief, probably went a long way in "greasing" the Gentile entrance into the movement i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

So add Gentile money to Jesus' teachings, Paul's epistles, Constantine's need for support and the whims of Pilate to the list of the foundations of our Catholic Church.

Our relationship with God is a strictly private matter. We must give an account of our lives to God who searches all human hearts and minds. That is the love God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul and all your strength part. Loving our neighbour as ourselves is very much a public matter without which Jesus says we cannot convince Him of our love for Him.

We are asked to pray to our Heavenly Father in secret - that is the strictly private part of religion. But we are also expected to worship as a community of believers and support each other in our respective journeys to God and to help each other in our needs, whatever they may be. That is the public part.

Victoria you write, "it's the popes stated contention, in this question- that to delve into such private practices results in one losing the soul of the religion.

The Pope's quote in the question is:

"To the extent that religion becomes a purely private affair, it loses its very soul."

I understand it to mean that the highest principles in religion must shape the life of society and public policies, not just the individual. For example of what use is it to be aware of and pray about human rights if we do nothing in public to defend it? What use is it to talk of helping the widow and the orphan if we do nothing in public to put policies in place to address it or take other public steps to address the issue?

Little Bear, Jesus Christ had no hangups with women. He had female followers, e.g. Mary, Martha, Joanna among others. Women were among the first who reached His tomb on Easter Sunday and witnessed the Risen Lord. From the earliest times, both in Judaism and Christianity women were not ignored or treated as second class human beings. The Book of Genesis affirms that God created man and woman in His image and likeness.

Victoria, Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount. He taught that He came to fulfil the law of the Prophets and not abolish them.

Loving God above everything else, and loving one's neighbour as oneself is the essence of religion.

How many Christians actually live by what Jesus taught?

Did you live fully in accordance with the Sermon on the Mount during the many years you lived in a Franscican convent in training to be a nun?

How many of us do what we know to be right and good?

To say that the Pope has to be 100% perfect and all knowing like God in every single thing, without any room for the Holy Spirit to work in him and through him, through reason, or he is 100% wrong, is black and white unrealistic thinking. The Catholic Church has evolved over the centuries. Whenever the Pope makes a decision he has to make sure that it is not based on the latest trend in thinking or clever scholarship alone, but is applicable for the universal Catholic church in a universally beneficial way. Such changes take time and all the Church needs is to be open to suggestions from all, to the Holy Spirit working through even its prayerful laity.

Ever since I got to know Dom Bede Griffiths I have been able to appreciate the wisdom of the Catholic Church, value the wealth of its spiritual tradition etc. What drives the Church is a universal love and a spirit of selfless service, no matter how many Catholics may be religious hypocrites.

CCNL

The seeds of “reality” sown in my mind? You hope against hope that I might buy your virulent anti-Christian views that you pass off for scholarship? I suggest you get ready to wait forever and a day.

Thanks for explaining what you meant by “Mother Nature’s” methods with regard to contraception. No “Mother Nature’s” for Alzheimer’s yet, and hopefully you have no objection to our need to treat them as being alive, with every right to live a life worthy of human dignity until such time, God, who gave them life sees it fit to recall their spirit to His kingdom.

You wrote, “Sexual orientation problems are seen as already noted by an unnatural desire to be celibate.” How many non-Catholics feel an “unnatural” desire to be celibate? How come there are so many people with sexual problems out there in the world with absolutely no desire to be celibate? Celibacy in the religious tradition, in case you are not aware, predates Christianity by several centuries in Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. You might like to reconsider your opinion that sexual problems draw people to a life of celibacy. You not only insult Catholic celibate clergy who do not have sexual problems, but also all the celibates in other religious traditions, including the likes of HH the Dalai Lama and his monks, all Buddhist monks and nuns worldwide, Jain and Hindu monks and celibates of both genders in all these religions.

As to men who seek out celibacy in priesthood as a way to escape their sexual problems: would you have anything against alcoholics who seek out work situations which prohibit the use of alcohol, they are trained over several years to abstain from alcohol, who are given every support to abstain from alcohol, etc?
The parish priest is first and foremost the representative of the Church who administers the Sacraments to the parishioners. He is not appointed to serve as a Biblical scholar. The laity for the most part are not seeking scholarly discussions with the parish priest; priests with high SAT scores and great public speakers. A prayerful priest who loves his flock and caters to their needs, one who speaks from his heart about things of God based on his own experience, is all that is essential. Luckily the Catholic Church has scholars a-plenty to fulfil scholarly roles and offer more intense spiritual direction to those who seek it. Like a GP, all the parish priest needs to do is direct parishioners to the right sources within the Church to fulfil the specialised needs of his parishioners, if they seek it.

According to you, “We” send money to lobby the Vatican to introduce ?anti-Christian views that serves to abolish Christianity as a religion, and “we” are disappointed that the money won’t buy the Pontifical Biblical Commission to set up a “troop” of crusaders who will destroy the religion from within? Who is the “we?” Do you call yourself a Christian? If so, on what grounds? If you are not a Christian, but an anti-Christian and anti-theist, what exactly are you claiming to lobby for in the Vatican?

I’m neither a Bible scholar nor a theologian, hence the dogmas of the Church does not bother me. I’m sure there are millions and millions of Catholics who practice their religion happily and well without wasting a night’s sleep over dogmas, which play no real role in their day-to-day existence or morality.

Yes I agree with Pope Benedict, that religion should not be a private matter. I mean, look around you; they are taking GOD out of everthing in society. You can't mention him in public schools, the PC police will come and arrest you.As a nation, I think we will pay for this dearly later on.As far as Catholic priests falling on their face, it boils down to one thing- they did not honor their vows.Holy orders is one of the seven sacraments of the church. Matrimony is another,and since one out of two marriages end in divorce,do we as lay people honor our vows to this sacrament of matrimony? I don't think so.As far as women priests go, if Christ wanted female priests, the blessed Virgin Mary would have been the first one!

Unable to post link

http www.alleanzacattolica.org/idis_dpf/english/e_euthanasia.htm

Ooops, the last post was from the CCNL.

Soja,

The seeds of reality have been sown in your mind. Hopefully they sprout into an acceptance of the history of the real Jesus. Seeds require frequent watering and we are glad to fill that function.

Most birth control pills are "combination pills" containing a combination of the natural hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation.

The bar to priesthood has been lowered in order to get sufficient priests. Sexual orientation problems are seen as already noted by an unnatural desire to be celibate. Also considering the poor sermons given by most priests of all ages, SAT scores and speaking ability are not requisites to get into the priesthood.

We give significant funds to the Vatican each year to keep the "troops" updated on theology and bible history. The pope's book did neither with respect to the historic Jesus movement and conclusions. Where is the Pontifical Biblical Commission in all of this?

The continued "limbo" fiasco is other evidence of another failure to deal with the theology issues of original sin.

SORRY, THAT WAS VICTORIA-

soja- i'm in agreement with you on these issues you've stated-
******************
"I’m able to practise my faith without getting bogged down with dogma.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that priesthood should be offered to women and celibacy for diocesan priests should be optional rather than mandatory.

Personally I’m of the opinion that contraception has a valuable role to play even in marriage."
******************

but it was exactly some of these issues, that i, as a practicing catholic- was never able to reconcile with the position of the church.

either the pope is the spiritual leader, and his word and ruling is final-
or he is not.
but it is not possible to compromise within the doctrine of the church.

there is no allowance for it.

it's the popes stated contention, in this question- that to delve into such private practices results in one losing the soul of the religion.

as a practicing, observant catholic- what is your answer to this question, as it cannot be both.

CCNL

Pope Benedict XVI was elected in April 2005; the foreword to his book, Jesus of Nazareth is dated seventeen months later, 30 September 2006. The book he refers to as his personal search for the face of the Lord, he writes in the foreword has had a long gestation, going back to the 1930s and 1940s; he started work on it in the summer holidays of 2003 and continued working on it during his holidays in 2004, using every spare moment after he was elected Pope…

If I gave the impression that the Pope implied that he wrote the book as a point by point repudiation of the works of NT exegetes, then I take the blame for the misunderstanding. The Pope appreciates scholarship and his book is not meant to be a scholarly repudiation of scholars! His book goes beyond scholarship without denying due credit to scholarship. In writing his personal testimony he automatically repudiates the Jesus Seminar views.

The Pope has a ten page bibliography at the end his book. It is hardly likely that he, as someone who was once a German professor, and was the right hand of Pope John Paul II, and was known for his scholarly nature and output, needed, at the ripe old age of eighty, to plagiarise the writing of another priest, Father Raymond Brown as you say, to pen his thoughts on a topic that is the essence of his whole life conviction.

And yes, of course conclusions about Jesus and Christianity and Christian belief, which you have posted times without number since Nov 2006…yawn, yawn, yawn! You are having great success convincing all anti-theists and anti-Christians. With someone like me, you are just wasting your time you know. I mentioned several times that my Hindu ancestors, who were orthodox Nambudiri Brahmins, were converted by Apostle Thomas in 52 AD. I have no reason to question that bit of historical background to my faith. Jesus Seminar scholars are entitled to their scholarly ideas.

Mother Natures’ methods for dignified death of those suffering from Alzheimer’s: what might they may be? Mother Natures’ method of contraception: what exactly are you referring to? I’m not a mind reader, so you’ll have to spell it out clearly.

You write, “The lack of talent of the current priests is a direct result of limiting the talent pool to males with sexuality issues.” The last time I checked the Catholic Church was recruiting young men to the priesthood, giving the presence of sexual problems as essential criteria. All those who did not have sexual problems were automatically rejected. Also those who were doing the selection could read future behaviour of would-be priests fifteen or twenty years ahead, and could discern sexual problems that were not immediately apparent at the time of their acceptance or training to be priests. That was quite an unscholarly way on your part to go about drawing conclusions…

Religion by definition is one big group hug, thriving by social reinforcement. The danger, as with any collective, is dominance, a sort of governing without government, or in place of civil government, the ultimate church state breach. Faith may be a private matter, church may be a gathering of the faithful, but in no way can the group be allowed to extend its doctrine into government or enforce its dogma on skeptics.

Soja,

Benedict's book Jesus of Nazareth was "penned" before Benedict became pope and is basically a short version of Father Raymond Brown's book, An Introduction to the New Testament. The pope should have noted this in the forward of his book. It is not the required point by point official, Vatican repudiation of the works of NT exegetes like Professors Crossan, Borg or Fredriksen (all members of the On Faith panel) and the Jesus Seminar. The following is a short summary of the conclusions of these contemporary NT exegetes:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

A few additional points:

The lack of talent of the current priests is a direct result of limiting the talent pool to males with sexuality issues.

"Mother Natures" techniques are widely used in approved medicines and health maintenance but said techniques are not acceptable in controlling conception and a dignified death?

It is obvious from the few questions asked, what was asked, and the time consuming answers, that the papal interview was staged to prevent the pope from being criticized and taken to task about the current crises.

Two posts have disappeared. Could the IT technical staff please fix the problem?

CCNL

Btw, since I’m female and John is my father’s first name ( aged sixty eight, he passed away a little over eleven years ago), I’m quite okay with you dropping the John and addressing me simply as Soja.

You analyse everything as an anti-theist, so your comments are not without bias.

I have no way of knowing how the Vatican prepares for state visits, so I would not offer my opinions on that; I take your views to be your opinions rather than any fact based conclusion.

It would be perfectly legitimate for the Pope to be informed about the concerns raised by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, don’t you agree?

Please read the comments on Professor Thistlethwaite’s thread’: Pope Benedict, please protect our children from abuse.

The talent of the priests reflect the talent of the people of the time and the people they are derived from. Popes do not create human talent. The dedication of the priest to his vocation is a personal matter.

I’m a simple lay Catholic who is attracted by the contemplative tradition. I’m able to practise my faith without getting bogged down with dogma.

The Pope’s book Jesus of Nazareth was his answer to the historic Jesus movement. Portraying Jesus like a philosopher no different from Socrates is an academic exercise. The Pope is not obliged to respond to every school of academic thought.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that priesthood should be offered to women and celibacy for diocesan priests should be optional rather than mandatory.

Personally I’m of the opinion that contraception has a valuable role to play even in marriage (read: people should not produce more children than they can support); compounding the problem of sexual relationship before/outside marriage with STDs and unwanted pregnancies is no help to anyone.

Sexual morals, unpopular though they are, do have a positive impact on the well being of children, the stability of societies and happiness of ordinary people. The need for a lifelong companion is legitimate. It should not be reduced to a lifelong competition where only the most sexually adept and promiscuous have their needs met in excess and the others are left out in the cold.

As to the choice of white Europeans as Pope until now - only God knows (?Papacy was historically linked to political Europe); that is no reason to conclude that it won’t change.

Please read the book by Ian McEvan, Ámsterdam, for a macabre take on euthanasia. If someone with Alzheimers is not worthy to be called alive, the definition of people not worthy to be called álive’ can be stretched to include people like you and me with time. Who is to make the final decision and where are we to draw the line? Being kept alive only on a machine while the brain is completely dead is another matter, for the life is entirely dependent on a machine and the human body, which is not capable of doing anything on its own or responding to the environment in any way, and is totally incapable of maintaining life without the machine.

Pope Benedict said "any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted...To the extent religion becomes a purely private affair it loses its soul". Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I would have to say the Pope is correct for the simple reason that religion is concerned with a metaphysical view of existence and a metaphysics is much more easily sustained by a community than when confined to the private soul. A metaphysics strictly individual perishes unless it is sustained by an extraordinary individual and capable of spreading and creating a community under its umbrella. The only objection to religion becoming a public matter rather than private is that a strictly public religion tends to congeal in a particular metaphysical view and allow no room for improvement.

So the goal for religion is to have a continuously updated metaphysics, a metaphysics which is not private but public, but again private so that the public view is constantly improved. In our modern time however, our time of a separation of church and state, our time of secularism, what we have is a shattering of all public forms of metaphysics (read religion) and increasingly only private views before a biological and materialistic view of existence. Needless to say, in such a world even an extraordinarily individual metaphysical view tends to remain private and to perish. It seems in the modern world metaphysical communities cannot be formed no matter the force of personality in that direction.

What we have is a state (in every sense of that term) in which simply one generation of humans succeeds another, no true community except it be to ensure that there will be another generation of humans. And needless to say, before this strictly biological and materialistic view we become more and more desperate, shattering more and more into individuals without however having the force of creating a new metaphysical community nor being able to return to whichever old one. Instead we have increasingly private fantasies, delusions, errors,--the increasing phenomenon of madness in a world in which the only community seemingly possible is the strictly biological imperative.

In short we have to ask if with the decline of metaphysics it is possible to have community at all. Can we really live happily knowing we are just biological creatures or will we just try to stuff ourselves with economic plenty and flee into fantasies primarily visual? We have no angels but we have much food and films to choose from. Again, is the biological, materialistic, secular view really capable of being called community? Apparently many think so. But then again, for all too many the force of truly living without metaphysics has not hit home. We truly have not grasped what effect it will have on society to live strictly by the biological, to expect our children in school to behave and learn only for the purpose to ensure the next generation of children exists. We really have not asked what the consciousness of such a community would be like. And I find it difficult to see it as anything more than a community of strictly utility.

So to conclude, religion as a purely private affair must be resisted unless of course a community can be created not bound by the metaphysical. Only then will religion as a purely private affair not be a danger. It will not be a danger because we can get through the dangerous straits of individuality and pass from the metaphysical view to the biological. But if a community cannot be created not bound by the metaphysical then of course religion as a purely private matter will be a danger and will be countered by a return to old metaphysical views (or new ones) which are only all too public--we will resurrect or create anew metaphysical views of existence for the public. To be absolutely clear, today religion as a purely private matter is a danger because we are trying to live without metaphysical views of existence and are making them private--and in privacy they perish or try to resurrect an old form of religion in a very uncertain existence--an existence by no means conclusive--the biological and materialistic view of existence. Religion as a purely private affair is uncertainty itself.

Soja John,

Typical "Vatican speak". Lots of words, no specifics.

And obviously the questions were planned in advance by the Vatican "yes men" and the pope himself.

The questions not asked but should have been.

"Holy" Father,

What about the inappropriate conduct of many priests and bishops, the emotional stress on the victims, the resultant billion dollars in lawsuits and just punishment for leaders like Cardinal Law??

What about the lack of talent in the priesthood??

What about the lack of Vatican response to the historic Jesus movement??

What about the Church's continuing cling to original sin and the resulting subsets of crazy ideas like limbo??

What about the denial of priesthood to women??

What about the restriction of the priesthood to single men (unless you are former Episcopalian priests)??

What about the continued chain of Vatican "leadership" by old European white men??

How are birth control pills not a variation of natural law?? and

Are those with severe Alzheimer's Disease really alive??

MEETING WITH THE BISHOPS
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RESPONSES OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE BISHOPS

National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, 16 April 2008

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080416_response-bishops_en.html

The Vatican link to the Pope's visit to the US, 15-21 April 2008:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/travels/2008/index_stati-uniti_en.htm

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

How goes the very serious issue of your Islamic deprogramming? That is something you can do in private in keeping with the this week's topic.

With respect to your comment, "But it is also a fact that Jewish, Muslim and Christian classical scholars influence one another on theology and philosophy. Al Ghazali, Moses Maimonides and Thomas Acquinas comes to mind among others. We find in their respective works, the first "Common Word" of the Abrahamic faiths. "

Au contraire, as said old-time theologians were not privy to the history of their religions as they also suffered from the Three B syndrome. Now every theologian, "pew sitter, and "bower" know the flaws, errors, muck and stench in "all them religions" thanks to the Internet. "Frebrezing" is in play and the sweet smell of Reality is only ten years away!!!!!

Hello Liora,

I am reading all your posts and exchanges with others here and in other threads with great interest - including current scholarships on Christianity and Judaism.

Yes, discussions on religion should start with its moral applications to specific issues. Perhaps, to add as well, discussion on the ethics of applying religious-based values in the public square apart from personal adherence to them.

Farnaz said in Susan Jacoby's thread: "Put two Jews in a room and you will get a hundred opinions". It seem to be the same for adherents of other faiths and belief systems, including Islam.

The only thing 100 theists have one opinion on is - there is a God. Everthing else, even on nature of God, are opinions and very diverse ones too even within the same faith group as you noted. We are thus reduced to generalities and core tenets of faith, creed or dogma of specific religions when talking about faiths.

On your interest to know more about Islam, it is easier for Muslims to grasp and relate to Judaism than Christianity on several aspects of theology. As you know, what Jesus was, is and means is also a significant difference in Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs.

But it is also a fact that Jewish, Muslim and Christian classical scholars influence one another on theology and philosophy. Al Ghazali, Moses Maimonides and Thomas Acquinas comes to mind among others. We find in their respective works, the first "Common Word" of the Abrahamic faiths.

Thank you and best regards

"J"

That is a strange thing to say for the pope but then again, I have no time for such religious figures. ofcourse religion should be a personal affair. He is he like Taliban who want their form of Islam to dominate the world?

Where else we seek God if not within our own hearts? The pope thinks God lives in Vatican?

All pomp and ceremony, far from what Christ preached. The public encourages such pomp. Most live on hope and seek to find God in others forgetting themselves. It is a case of the blind leading the blind.

I suspect I'm about to surprise some people.

Christianity is always a private matter involving in each conversion but two entities God and one human being. God makes you a Christian. Not any act of man, no flowery speech, no human argument just the Holy Spirit changing a human heart by placing in it faith by which that human may then believe God and be saved.

But that change results more often then not in a change in a person's life which those who knew him before may have difficulty believing.

To answer the question religion is both a private affair and a cultural tradition.

Now for my editorial aside, I have been unable to find a nook in "On Faith" to point out a major oversight of this web page in discussing Christiantiy. In short, Orthodox Christians are being overlooked. The Pope's visit generated a lot of questions to be discussed on this forum. Questions currently active, still include the Pope, Obama's Catholic Crisis, and Pro-West Islam.

Even Christy McKerney who wrote four articles on religion in Alaska never mentions the Orthodox Church. So how does one visit rural Alaska without observing the presence of the Orthodox Church!!!!

Back to my point, Orthodox Christians are currently observing Holy Week, Easter will be celebrated on Sunday, April 27, 2008. I hope that the Post will have articles Orthodox Christianity and will have in the Sunday paper articles on Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity deserves a presence on this forum.

To answer the question religion is both a private affair and a cultural tradition.

Now for my editorial aside, I have been unable to find a nook in "On Faith" to point out a major oversight of this web page in discussing Christiantiy. In short, Orthodox Christians are being overlooked. The Pope's visit generated a lot of questions to be discussed on this forum. Questions currently active, still include the Pope, Obama's Catholic Crisis, and Pro-West Islam.

Even Christy McKerney who wrote four articles on religion in Alaska never mentions the Orthodox Church. So how does one visit rural Alaska without observing the presence of the Orthodox Church!!!!

Back to my point, Orthodox Christians are currently observing Holy Week, Easter will be celebrated on Sunday, April 27, 2008. I hope that the Post will have articles Orthodox Christianity and will have in the Sunday paper articles on Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity deserves a presence on this forum.

CCNL writes to me:

Proceed onward now in your clarification of Judaism as you understand it vs. the understanding of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis.

Thanks for giving me direction. I have just got off the phone with the CEO of JPS and have spoken with USCJ. I am and will continue to post for awhile on Susan Jacoby's site.

I don't know how to tell you this, but you have been seriously misrepresenting both ETZ Hayim and the 1.5 milliom. I posted to you a few times on Susan's site, partially apologizing for on point. You appear to be conveniently ignoring my posts, but my points are being made.

At any rate, all of this has proven very enlightening and instructive to me in some very positive ways. I hope what I post later on Susan's site will be enlightening for you.

It would be helpful if you actually read what I write, though.

Jihadist:

You are more than welcome. More than anything I would like to see a real exchange of information among atheists and persons of all religions, including of course IsLam. Then there are so many varieties these religions.

I'd like, too, to see some real secular sholarship discussed. Not what CCNL puts out with his 30% authentic. Personally, I've had arcaheology and history up the wazoo as far as the Tanakh is concerned, but I have no problem going through it with the NT.

Still, I'd rather get to text: the Q writer for the NT, E. J (with Bloom included), etc., for the Tanakh. The reasons so much of Josefus has been tossed. I'd like CCNL to proceed with his understanding of it. Oh, and the Paul/Saul controversy, which is becoming less and less controversial.

I don't know enough about the Qu'ran to make any statements about secular scholarship.

But I think it would be best if the discussion started with religion, its moral applications to specific issues. (That, you see would be a Jewish perspective! Maybe peresons of other religions would put the matter differently.) I would very much like to know more about Islam. I know so little.

Victoria:

You are correct about all you say.

Liora

CCNL writes to me:

Proceed onward now in your clarification of Judaism as you understand it vs. the understanding of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis.

Thanks for giving me direction. I have just got off the phone with the CEO of JPS and have spoken with USCJ. I am and will continue to post for awhile on Susan Jacoby's site.

I don't know how to tell you this, but you have been seriously misrepresenting both ETZ Hayim and the 1.5 milliom. I posted to you a few times on Susan's site, partially apologizing for on point. You appear to be conveniently ignoring my posts, but my points are being made.

At any rate, all of this has proven very enlightening and instructive to me in some very positive ways. I hope what I post later on Susan's site will be enlightening for you.

It would be helpful if you actually read what I write, though.

Jihadist:

You are more than welcome. More than anything I would like to see a real exchange of information among atheists and persons of all religions, including of course IsLam. Then there are so many varieties these religions.

I'd like, too, to see some real secular sholarship discussed. Not what CCNL puts out with his 30% authentic. Personally, I've had arcaheology and history up the wazoo as far as the Tanakh is concerned, but I have no problem going through it with the NT.

Still, I'd rather get to text: the Q writer for the NT, E. J (with Bloom included), etc., for the Tanakh. The reasons so much of Josefus has been tossed. I'd like CCNL to proceed with his understanding of it. Oh, and the Paul/Saul controversy, which is becoming less and less controversial.

I don't know enough about the Qu'ran to make any statements about secular scholarship.

But I think it would be best if the discussion started with religion, its moral applications to specific issues. (That, you see would be a Jewish perspective! Maybe peresons of other religions would put the matter differently.) I would very much like to know more about Islam. I know so little.

Victoria:

You are correct about all you say.

Liora

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Expounding upon Reality for those that have not seen:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this Islamic muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

halozee- liora was right-
read her whole paragraph- the (over 200) different versions of bibles- variety of translations, translations of translations- and inclusion of books are not the same- as what christians call the old testament-

as the original text in hebrew- (or its one time translation to english or whatever language)

the term old testament implies something new to replace it- which is exactly what the new testament does- (for christians)

even some of the jewish writings that christians based their faith on were writings that were rejected by jews- and the christians in turn, rejected some of their own writings as apocryphal-


i'd much rather lsiten to liora expound on what she knows-

A religious journey does not require the use of the feet, but of the soul. The individual soul. The responsibility of obtaining insight and uninon with God is not a corporate or communial affair. It is an intimately private affair.

What is a corporate affair is passing around the money plate, and accumulating church property purchases and paying the middle management. In a word: wealth-mongering.

Still, let the faithful pray together, purchase together and be fleeced together in peace. I'm all for it. Such crowds and masses will never find God in numbers, no matter how much they sweat in the arenas and stadiums. But they will discover (or at least the top layer CEO's ) economic profits. And, perhaps, in truth, this is what the Pope is insinuating. After all someone has to pay for the law suits and the higher price of Vatican heating oil, so let's gather the masses.

Always, always follow the money: where it comes from and where it goes. Just think, if finding God is a truly individual affair, and if all peoples looked to their own path to God and shunned the corporate religions, then such religions would have to sell their outsized pimped-up church properties, and fire the middle management.

To those who concern,

Tanakh means;

Torah(Books of Moses,The Law)
a
Nvi-im(prophets)
a
Ktuvim(Writings)

Torah/The Law is the First Book of Tanakh,so *The OT is not part of Judaism* is not correct statement.

Hello Liora,

It was me, not CTCNL.

Thanks for the clarification and for all your posts. I learn a bit more from them on Judaism.

Best regards

"J"

Hello Liora,

It was me, not CTCNL.

Thanks for the clarification and for all your posts. I learn a bit more from them on Judaism.

Best regards

"J"

Liora,

It should read, "Jihadist writes to CCNL". Proceed onward now in your clarification of Judaism as you understand it vs. the understanding of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis.

Jihadist, Jihadist, Jihadist,

And yet again you fail to address the flaws and errors (some would say muck and stench) of crumbling Islam.

Once again the "fems" of your hallucinogenic-based religion:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Male Islamics to include imams and clerics having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

CCNL writes to Jihadist:

"Jews and Christians share the OT"

Point of clarification for those interested in textual relations between said religions.

The OT is not part of Judaism. Catholics and Protestants have OTs, but their OTs are not the same.

The Tanakh, which is the basic text of Judaism excluded some texts, which the OT of the Chritians contains. Said OTs are translated from the Greek, which was translated from the Hebrew and the Aramaic way back in the day.

Jews read the Tanakh in the orignal Hebrew, or, in desperation, in translation from it. The Tanakh is not read in isolation. The Torah ("the way," "the principles") is not read in isolation, but with commentaries by authorities offering different interpretations, across centuries, with respect to key passages. Rashi is generally considered normative.

There are other inaccuracies in CCNL's post, as usual. No time to get to them all now.

...and oh, pussycat, a repasting of my post from the previous main thread to return the favour of your reposting same stuff here and there:)

--------------------------------------------------

And now, to Islam and Muslims pre-101
(Part I, Paragraph 1.1.1)

* How do you spell the Muslim holy book?

* How do Muslims regard satan?

* Is there a belief or theology on "demons of the demented" in Islam?

* Is there a practice of exorcising the devil among Muslims?

* Is there a Muslim belief on "limbo"?

* Can the Muslim clergy marry?

* Is there baptism in Islam upon conversion of a non-Muslim as Muslim?

* Is the "flying chariots" from the Muslim holy book and Hadiths or from the Bhagavad Gita, or from Erich Von Danniken's "Chariots of the Gods"?

* Do Muslims believe that Moses met God in the form of a "burning bush'?

* Do Muslims believe God parted the Red Sea for the Isrealites led by Moses escaping Pharoah's troops?

* Was it a dream or a reality that the Prophet PBUH got onto a steed to go to heaven?

* Was the "Night Journey" to Jerusalem or to heaven?

* What is the difference between an ayatollah and a mufti?

* How many Hadiths are there?

* Is there more on Mary in the Bible or the Muslim holy book?

* How many Suras are there in the Muslim holy book?

* What is the difference between Hudud and Shariah?

* What is the difference between a mufti, a kadi and an imam?

* Is there a difference between what a Sunni means by imam, and the Shiite defination?

* What is a mujahid?

* Who ordered the compilation of the Muslim holy book?

* In what order is the Suras?

* Why do Muslims speak of the "Right Path" instead of the "Truth"?

* Why is theology a more important pursuit for Christian clergy than for Muslim ulema?

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Hello pussycat.

A bit wrong to think the Abrahamic faiths are all the same in form and content as you do in you posts, and even language. Muslims don't speak of "Truth" but the "Right Path". Some other wee differences:

* Jews and Christians share the OT but not the NT. Muslims don't and there are variations on the stories of the prophets, from Adam to Abraham to Moses to Jesus.

* Jews and Muslims have more similar belief on God than with Christians.

* Jewish and Muslim classical scholars are more into the legalistic and ethical aspects (Shariah, Torah) rather than theological aspects like Christian scholars.

You : "And still you cannot come to grips with flaws, errors, muck and stench of Islam preferring always to comment on everything but."

Ahhh...like you I comment on what I like and whenever I like in On Faith threads.

And to repeat - as there are many "experts" in On Faith threads pointing out the "flaws" and "errors" of Islam and Muslims, including your goodself, I really don't have to, do I?

And, as I've said before, I am "returning" the favour by throwing in my opinions on other faiths from the perspective of an "outsider" of the said faiths, as non-Muslims do on Islam and Muslims. But I won't ever call another belief a "stench" or a "muck" as you do.

Much more interesting to read what others say about Islam and Muslims. Besides, to really discuss on Islam and what to do to move forward, I find is better done in workshops, seminars, conferences, blogs, organisations etc that are 100% Muslim. More impact and effect, and Muslims more freer and open in discusssing among ourselves.

By the way, as for that "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi you quoted often, perhaps it has not occured to you that Muslims really personalised their faith apart from all Muslims, from Sunnis to Shiites, agreeing to and adhering to the Five Pillars as basic tenets of faith.

It is the Shariah that is really mucky in interpretation and implementation and which engrossed Muslims, specifically in current public applications.

As for the Qur'an, there is a tradition of Muslim ulema abrogating certain Suras that are seemingly in conflict. They do take some Suras that are clear recording of events and what is said and done by people stated in there as "revelations" of God.

That is only their opinion and they can be challenged, as some Muslims are, for example their ignoring the "No compulsion in religion" Sura with their tired reasoning that later Suras cancelled it out.

Muslim knows the Suras are in the order of length, not sequence of revelations. Muslims knows that we are to be just, humane and compassionate towards others. No need for imams to come up with a list of "to do's" or "to be's" as in the Seven Deadly Sins etc.

....and now to remind as a return of your reminders to me:

Islam and Muslims pre-101
(Part 1.1.1.1)

- All Muslims, regardless of schools of jurisprudence and sects agree on the Five Pillars of Islam as core articles of faith.

- All Muslims regard the Qur'an as a primary source of reference, and Hadiths as secondary.

- All Muslims regard the Prophet as a Messenger of God.

- All Muslims, regardless of variations and shades of personal belief, will close ranks when the Qur'an is deliberately defiled by non-Muslims, and the Prophet PBUH is deliberately slandered by non-Muslims, even if by a Pope.

Been a pleasure having another wee exchange of baiting banters with you:)

I got to go.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

The Singularity is a great contemporary name for Zeus, Allah, Jehovah et al being something uncommon or unusual or a point in space with infinite volume and density. The latter sounds like a great place for gods, spirits and souls to roam without detection.

And still you cannot come to grips with flaws, errors, muck and stench of Islam preferring always to comment on everything but.

But I guess if I lived in fear of the local imams/clerics and their koranic enforcers, I would also keep very quiet about the obvious malodors seeping from the koran.

Hmmm, the Five Step program for freeing yourself from all those years of Islamic brainwashing with a good dose of reality and history and a desire to jump ship next time you are in the USA is still free of charge. I have posted another copy below:

Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related koranic verses and prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the koran and Islamic beliefs.

"1. Belief in Allah"

"aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added to your cleansing neurons.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gib Gnab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "creationist".

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels/"pwtfft"s to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.
Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Hello pussycat.

You : : "God will judge in private. And we don't need to record our support and assistance to our fellow personkind. The Singualarity if it exists will by definition know."

Yes, God the Singularity, or God the Singular One will judge in "private".

But, I'm not too sure what you meant by "we don't need to record our support and assistance to our fellow personkind".

Personkind?

I can now never decide if you are a feminist male, or being politically correct on gender, or is really a woman. After all, you highlighted gender biases and sexism in organised religion, the clergy, the workplace on your own in your posts. No man would really do that unless asked.

And why still use the term "Singularity"? It is what scientists calls the thing or impetus that started the Big Bang. Rather odd conflation of religion with science methinks. Just call it God. :)

--------------------------------------------------

As for the question,

Nahh... treating religion as a private matter would not led it to lose its soul as Pope Benedict 16 opined. We have been keeping priests busy with baptisms, confessing our transgressions, to ask on what is good and evil, what is sin, how to wash it away, to repent, to atone etc. As if they have the power to forgive and cleanse us of wrong-doings.

Better for priests in churches and imams in mosques to focus on humanitarian activities to help fellow men. Oops! I mean personkind. Just to be in line with what they are teaching and to lead by example in guiding and helping others towards a just, compassionate, humane and peaceful society as God reminds personkinds.

After all, individual beliefs is now increasingly personalised by believers of all faiths, and organised centralised religion can't afford to have independent minded flocks who would make up their own minds regarding them as "men of God" and what they are saying and doing in the name of God and religion.

It would seem that the Pope is pulling believers back in line with the "lost soul" threat if religion is treated as private matter - for the benefit of the faith group they controlled in form and content, and to mobilise for action in the public square on issues of concern for them?

Soul is individual, not a collective. The Pope may be talking about losing "souls", as in individuals, from organised, institutionalised, centralised religion. Herding souls, lost and found, is the objective of proselytising faiths into their fold for collective action of a faith group's benefit?

I do find it interesting that the Pope implied that that one's faith if practiced in private, is not good enough, one must make a show of piety in public, one must assert my beliefs in public, and one's beliefs must prevail on issues.

Faith, spirituality and belief is really personal.

Cheers
"J"

Pope Benedict said "any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted...To the extent religion becomes a purely private affair it loses its soul". Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I would have to say the Pope is exactly correct. All that remains private perishes. There must be constant dialogue between man and man in the world of religion or religion perishes. This in fact is true no matter the subject, topic, objective.

And I have to say this question concerns me deeply. I had a nervous breakdown over Christmas and a relapse two months later and I have been in deep depression ever since (worse than my usual depression). Life would be so much easier if I could just become spiritual, have faith on my own, but a man alone is the proverbial sinking ship.

In short it would be nice to live in a more spiritual community but I live in Washington D.C.--an America in which religion is quite private no matter how much I am told America is a religious country. I have no one but myself to sustain me in my faith, and having only myself becomes more difficult with each passing day.

In a sense my spirituality is like the dilemma I am having with my writing (I am a writer). I write but no one reads it but myself and my writing is destined to just be thrown out when I die. Such is a spirituality which exists alone, which exists with no reinforcement.

I can stand alone before God and try to have faith--I want to have faith--but everyone around me seems to recognize more a dog eat dog world. Just read the Washington Post newspaper (no offense against the Post, just remarking on the news in general). Our outlook is distinctly unspiritual and more than one person suffers from it.

The only problem I can find in not having religion private is that when religion permeates all aspects of life--becomes public--it has a tendency to congeal and not grow further, not allow a rebirth of itself out of the private visions of individuals. In this sense we can say a purely public religion has a tendency to lose its soul as much as a purely private one. The old story of the individual before society, just cast in the religious sense.

But perhaps the saddest and deepest question of all is whether or not finally getting it right between the individual and society--the correct balance between the two--results in something of the immolation of the individual no matter how much we want to preserve faith or perhaps conversely, call for freedom.

This is a deep philosophical question. I would have to say as an individual though that I feel cast out of the religious world--that whatever faith I have is a faith I must sustain myself--and the question is whether this is because I live in a society in which church and state are separated or because religions no longer have the force of community.

but again, the deeper question: what does it mean to become an individual? Must it constantly pass through what in the religious sense is called purely private religion? But what if one cannot make one's private visions public nor return to the fold of the conventional?

Such is the dilemma I am having, and I am just as far from the Pope as having the courage of a faith I live with by only myself.

Religion a Private Matter

Since Benedict’s comment is in regards to religion and he claims to be a follower of Christ, I would not be out of harmony with his thinking. If the word “private” is used to mean “restricted to the individual” then treating religion as a private matter would be out of harmony with what Jesus taught and would not be appropriate for a Christian.
As organized religion loses its grip on the masses, it is hardly surprising that so many people would formulate their own personal religion. But, is "private religion" the answer?
Can private religion truly stand up under the scrutiny of our "power of reason," one of the greatest gifts that humans possess? (Romans 12:1).
The reasoning mind tends to reject what is self-contradictory. Yet, in a survey of private religion in Sweden, it was concluded that people often "rather spontaneously combine different (and possibly logically incompatible) life philosophy elements into their own philosophy."
For example, only 2 percent of those who claimed to be "Christian in their own way" mentioned Jesus, even as a historical person. Yet, belief in reincarnation was mentioned frequently. It is inconsistent to label oneself a follower of Jesus Christ while ignoring his life and teachings—and even embracing doctrines diametrically opposed to those of Christ.
Our power of reason also tends to shy away from things that seem hopelessly vague and undefinable. However, when asked whether they believed in "God or a divine power," most people interviewed answered that "Something" of that sort might exist. One said: "I believe in something supernatural but not necessarily a God figure." Those who did believe in God felt that he "played a rather insignificant role in their life." The report thus described private religion as a "diffuse conceptual world," and it concluded by quoting one of the most common answers: "I believe in something, but I am not sure what."
A study of private religion in Canada showed similar results. The magazine Alberta Report observes: "We now see a high level of belief in almost anything imaginable, but there's no rhyme or reason to it. And when we then try to measure the sort of guidance these private beliefs play in people's lives, there's really nothing there. There's no ultimate moral authority. So it really doesn't add up to anything." The magazine spoke of "the fragmented god" because those espousing such beliefs are "grasping bits and pieces of the traditional creed." Does it strike you as sound reasoning to base religious beliefs—even a hope for the future—on such vague, tenuous, and fragmentary ideas?
Fellowship, brotherhood, and solidarity have long been cherished by religious believers. (Acts 2:42, 46) But since private religion is just that—private—how can it fill these needs?
Private religion, with "every man his own church," only multiplies and deepens the religious divisions among people.
Providing children with religious values may be considered indoctrination. Yet, it can be something good and may be the only way for them to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. The current plight of young people suggests that private religion has done little to unite families on the basis of solid values that can be passed on from one generation to the next.
Private religion cannot offer reliable, consistent answers to life's questions, nor can it unite people or fill mankind's need for moral guidance. It’s been said, "When 'faith' contains everything, it contains nothing. And when freedom never needs to be defined, it is weakened."
Clearly, in many respects private religion falls short of satisfying the spiritual needs of people. Really, how could a person reasonably expect to fill such needs by simply selecting beliefs from various traditions, as if picking the most enticing dishes at a buffet table or smorgasbord? It also seems clear that organized religion has failed to fill such needs. Where, then, can we turn?
IFerrar Fenton, a translator of the Bible, called it "the only key that unlocks the Mystery of the Universe to Man, and the Mystery of Man to Himself." The Bible answers questions about the past, the present, and the future. It tells us where we came from, what the meaning of life is, how we can find happiness, and what the future holds for us. No other book in history has been as influential as the Bible; nor has any other book survived so many virulent attacks. Yet, this unique book answers life's questions.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

You noted: "without an intercessor, both earthly and spiritual in order to approach the god-
there is no need of popes or priests-"

Is there some reason you did not say "without an intercessor, both earthly and spiritual in order to approach the god- there is no need of popes or priests or rabbis or ayatollahs or imams or clerics???"

As noted many times, it is time all of these spreaders of myth and voodoo be "pink slipped".

"Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted . . . To the extent that religion becomes a purely private affair, it loses its very soul."

to treat one's religion as a personal matter, does not make it(religion) lose its soul- but its power and control over individuals.

without an intercessor, both earthly and spiritual in order to approach the god-
there is no need of popes or priests-

"Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted . . . To the extent that religion becomes a purely private affair, it loses its very soul."

to treat one's religion as a personal matter, does not make it(religion) lose its soul- but its power and control over individuals.

without an intercessor, both earthly and spiritual in order to approach the god-
there is no need of popes or priests-

Oh, and, one more thing. The Father is often equated with God the Creator, which wrongly suggests God's separateness from man(kind) and the universe.
God is outside the constraints and properties of the universe, including time. So, one could easily say that we took part in creating the universe; we just haven't done it yet, i.e. we haven't reached a point of total transcendence, including transcending time, space, matter etc.

Ps. I meant "misery", not "mystery" - typo.

A look back at history, a glance at the present will demonstrate the contribution of organized religion, to humanity, providing the bloodshed doesn't prove too distracting.

A turn toward secularism, a true division between church and state in this country, would be salutary,
particularly for women, who are generally the concessions government makes to churches.

The danger would be that organized religions "cults" and the like would multiply apace. Religion, particularly, three of its manifestations are fraught with anti-modern impulses, corrupted by fear, and its seeds have been sown.

Ps. I meant "mysery", not "mystery" - typo.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has a good essay on this.
(can't post a link to it - it's on his site address, slash 1759. Title is 'The Spiritual and the Religious: Is the Territory Changing?')

Unfortunately, while the analysis of the situation is quite thorough and conclusive, the argument for God and organized religion is not that good.
Bono is a really bad example, as he is clearly quite successful both personally and in charity ('heaven on earth' etc.) for someone who has only a personal relationship with God.
Also, is not a case of 'us - organized' vs. 'them - personal', as the very arguments that are invoked in defense of God and religion are of the subjective/personal nature.

The major reason for the rise of 'personal spirituality' is the notion that it flounders in organized religion.
So, a much better argument would have been 'we (in the church) do have a personal relationship with God' (assuming this is true).

To me, that argument goes apriori with Christian theology (but this is my own understanding of Christian theology, and not necessarily the church's understanding):

People are part divine, part intelligent animals. The division/disconnectedness between the two is the original sin. Baptism (whatever form it may take) reconnects the two and makes people whole again, i.e. father(divine, mankind) and son(human, man) become one. The holy spirit is emergent from the divine and manifests itself as symbolic interconnectedness.
A personal relationship with God is, therefore, a personal relationship with the divine in others, and the divine in oneself.

The disconnected divine can be diabolical, because it does good by any and all means and causes(unholy interconnectedness and causality).
For instance, Bush's actions do us good, by raising the price of oil, which makes alternative sources of energy economically feasible, and destroying the credibility of unilateral 'I know best' world action. But the price is the pointless sacrifice of hundreds of thousands dead. So it is a zero sum result that doesn't reduce total mystery in the world.

All this implies the need for reconnecting the divine - to others, to oneself, in others.
This is a personal connection, not an organizational connection, and the organization must be viewed as helping that personal connection, rather than replacing it.

test

God will judge in private. And we don't need to record our support and assistance to our fellow personkind. The Singualarity if it exists will by definition know.

Jesus said: Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all the world. That's not religion, that's the truth - religion is the rules, regulations, agenda, and of course costume that man puts on top, before, and above that statement. Perhaps "Religion" should be kept in the closet, that is the "RELIGION" of the false prophets of politics who claim "Religion", not Jesus, in order to proclaim their personal agenda.
Mack - Largo, FL