All Comments (66)

Twmd4L U cool ))

Twmd4L U cool ))

Twmd4L U cool ))

Drinking Milk – Moral or Sin?

If cow was my mom, I sort of idiot,
Why I forced my father to pull my cart ?

Since long, my mother’s breast everyone teased, squeezed,
Cruel God, when my mother will die in peace? released ?

If I suck your mom, will you love it ?
If I talk unwise, my milk, why you suck it ?

Leave us, why you all milk my Godly Mom, eat my parents bone?
Why you squeeze her breast ? For God sake, Please leave us alone.

Don’t Milk My Mom

Cunning or Opportunist , How human am I ?
Centuries sucked animals bones-n-blood, Why ?

Why innocent, weak animals should die, not I ?
For their taste-n-stomach, Why should I, not die ?

Who is more hungry ? They or I ?
Who is more greedy ? God you stare ? Why ?

Don’t eat the innocent weak

My companions in world, all animals-n-beasts,
Should I cut them, caring, curing them least ?

Think you are not human,
But animal in fact, indeed,

What pain you feel,
If you become animal’s feed?

Taste-n-Stomach, sake,
Greed-n-hunger, fake,

Superstitions-n-Myths, awake,
Animals-n-Beasts, sacrifice,

Pretending Moral-n-Ethics,
Human still pose nice-n-wise.

By Naresh Sonee
(Scribbled Jan 17, 2008 in between 12.10 pm – 12.30 pm)

Poet Naresh Sonee is an author of a non-mythological, non-religious Hindi book published in 1999. This capsulated book is based on author’s own authentic philosophy on spiritualism that offers, logical sacred verses ‘Brhmaand Pujan’ which means ‘Universal Prayers’. All sane religions should merge under ‘One Religion’ – Which should be called ‘Humanism’ is the aim or say the dream project of this awkward poet. Though his poems are very ethical or logical, but many of his poems are still forbidden as they corrupt the readers’ or religious mind. His self style verses in ‘Brhmaand Pujan’ has been reviewed positive by critics too and had has been praised by so many popular news papers of India time & again. http://brhmaandpujan-news-reviews.tripod.com/

But what do the author need to say here ? Could anybody help, explain, translate the above poems ?

Interesting use of sarcasm

Being a religous searcher most of my 50yrs, And jumping from one faith to another. I stumbled on on religon last year {via the net }That is very old and hardly ever talked about .or even known by many ..DEISM..Our Founding fathers were Deists .Ben Franklin.George Washington,Thomas Paine, etc. Deism is a growing belief system. Thanks to the internet. Many people are Deists and don't know it. I would like to hear more on the Deistic ways.. Google Deism defined..

Thank GOD, You found out something, that this world realy need. http://mike18movies.ifrance.com/

Henry James:
"Mr Arroyo has written the most heavy handed ironic post this site has seen, said America's greatest literary critic.

"But DOES he see the irony of his holding Hitchens to "rules of evidence" while defending his belief in a God for which there is Absolutely NO evidence.

I doubt it.

Sad.

ANS:
What is sad that there is a plethora of proof for God’s existence from reason and Scripture whose veracity is verified by historians, paleontologist, and anthropologist, and many don’t know it and don’t want to know it.

Here are links to six proofs of God by reason.
From Aquinas:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

From Aristotle:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm

IN REPLY TO:
HITCHENS ON RELIGION
“Best-selling atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote: ‘Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.’ Why is he right or wrong?
Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on September 26, 2007 1:14 PM”

ANS:
More so, it seems that Hitchens statement is more of a scurrilous harangue, than something that has any serious credibility about it.

Is Catholicism invested in ignorance, hostile to free thought, and free inquiry? That is another rant. Catholicism does not contradict reason or reality, it is in consonance with it.

Maybe Mr. Hitchens should read the biography of Copernicus, a Catholic prelate whose uncle, a Catholic Bishop helped his education, or read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. The poor scholarship by Hitchens makes his criticism mindless babble.

The Christianity was the vanguard of education and religion when this nation was founded. In the 13 Original Colonies, children learned to read from the bible and all schools were religious in nature. Moreover, the Catholic Church in America can boast of its many institutes of education, its Universities; its Middle and Primary schools are legion through out the world.

Next, the bombastic and delusional comment that the Church is contemptuous of women and coercive toward children is objurgated lunacy. I wonder if Hitchens has ever seen Boys Town or visited it. Christian orphanages are ubiquitous in the United States and throughout the world.

Who is the major defender of the unborn, of motherhood, of marriage, if not the Church? Who, but the Church, has elevated a woman above all Gods creatures? She is the Mother of God.

"When the Revolution broke out in France there were 426 houses of benevolence conducted in that country by the Sisters of Charity, and of these a large majority cared for orphans. They were suppressed, but many were reopened by Napoleon.

"When Christianity began to affect Roman life. The Christians founded hospitals, and children's asylums were established in the East. St. Ephraem, St. Basil, and St. John Chrysostom built a great number of hospitals.

"Justinian released from other civic duties those who undertook the care of orphans. In the Apostolic Constitutions, "Orphans as well as widows are always commended to Christian love.”

Hitchens might try reading about the nuns who ran orphanages that cared for children in South Vietnam. Both the nuns and children were executed by the Cong.

However, it would be unprecedented for troglodytes to search for the truth because their preconceived ideas are obstacles adverse to scholarship and truth. When Hitchens accuses Christianity of stifling free thought, he should criticize himself and not Christianity.

Hitchens might also look at the aid the Church has administered to AIDS patients. It could also look at Catholic Charities, which renders charity to over 200 million people around the world. Or, maybe Hitchens should check the Dream program in Africa’s Sub-Sahara that treats AIDS victims in the Dream Program. Dream has saved some 20,000 lives so far, irrespective of the victims religion, race. sex, or orientation.

In the end, Hitchens might take counsel in what Abe Lincoln once said, “Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”

IN REPLY TO:
HITCHENS ON RELIGION
"Best-selling atheist Christopher Hitchens wrote: "Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." Why is he right or wrong?
Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on September 26, 2007 1:14 PM"

ANS:
Hitchens’ major problem is he has no sense of religion, its purpose, or the purpose of humanity.

His second problem is he subjects religions doctrines and beliefs to the sins of its members. Religion is not a panacea for being saved. Since man has a free will, he must freely choose to do good, or be subject to the consequences that ensue.

Thus, in calling Mother Theresa a "thieving Albanian dwarf," he illustrates his ill-mannered temperament, his injudicious recklessness, his lack of fortitude, his arrogant imperious character, and that he is having a serious problem with himself. Apparently, it is he who is intolerant and not religion.

I am not going to speak for any other religion but the Catholic Church because the Church is the only one that is infallible in its teachings and its beliefs. Second because it is the only Church established by the Son of God, who is God.

Since God is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Perfect, He can not make an error. Therefore, Catholicism can not be irrational since it was established and guarded in its teachings and doctrines by God.

Apparently, Hitchens’ has another fault; he doesn’t believe in God, which is a reflection on his incapacity to discern between Good and Evil, since God is all Good, and Evil is the lack of Good. Therefore, he has little or no credibility in matters of morality.

Romans 1: 16cf.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel,,,.For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened.

"For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.

"Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves."--St. Paul--Romans

To proclaim that Catholicism is intolerant is ridiculous. Its founder, Jesus answered St. Peter’s question, “How many times should one forgive?” Jesus answered 70 times 70, meaning as many times as your Heavenly Father will forgive you. Thus, Hitchens’ displays his lack of knowledge of the Catholic religion if not all Christianity.

Are the moral principles of the Catholic Church embedded in the Ten Commandments repulsive to Mr. Hitchens? I dare say, if they are, then Mr. Hitchens is the one who is irrational.

His heedless accusation that Catholicism is allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry is an ignominious scandal of truth. That is not to say that its members may or may not be of the sort. It appears to be the error made by many of the critics of religion. Namely, they take the violations of some and makes them the teachings of the Church. That is a false assumption and violates the rules of logic, making Hitchens the one who is illogical, and not the Church.

One might ask Hitchens if he knew that Justice Thomas and Bill Cosby both graduated from Catholics Universities and of the many Black athletes that attended them. Now how could that be if these universities were racist? In fact, the Church was forced to create Black schools because the laws prevented Blacks from being taught with Whites.

I wonder if Hitchens knows of the many Black Bishops in the Church, or of Her many Black Saints like St. Peter Claver, St. Martin de Porres, and the Martyrs of Alexandria were canonized due to their heroic virtue of assisting plague victims and burying the dead. St. Maurice and his companions(6,000 soldiers ) were martyred by Emperor Maximian as they refused to sacrifice to the Roman gods.

http://www.nbccongress.org/black-catholic-sprituality/black-saints-in-the-universal-church-02.asp

The mandate of the Catholic Church, and I might say Christianity, of which the Declaration of Independence bases its claim that all men are created equal, is a direct refutation of Hitchens’ narrowminded thoughtlessness and his irresponsible statement that religion is racist.

IN REPLY TO:
Posted to Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo on May 15, 2007 6:48 PM

THE WOLSEY MOMENT
“Falwell gave religion a bad name among most of the people in the United States who do not believe in theocracy.“

ANS:
It would appear that the Founding Fathers believed not in a theocracy, but believed in a theocentric government that was based on a theocentric authority a.k.a. God, as opposed to an anthropocentric government based on an anthropocentric authority a.k.a. man. This is evident from the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

If anyone listened to what Falwell believed, they would know that he did not believe in a theocratic government; he believed in a theocentric government, and not an anthropocentric one. Falwell didn’t give religion a bad name, his critics did.

IN REPLY TO:
ANTHONY M. STEVENS ARROYO
"FAIR AND BALANCED HITCHENS"
Certainly, one can appreciate that Chris has made known the fitting targets of his moral indignation: Mother Theresa but not Vice President Cheney. Perhaps for Chris, the former is the threat to the world; the latter, only to duck hunters."

ANS:
Why would anyone appreciate Hitchens’ moral indignation and find it fitting, unless they were atheists, agnostics, or as Albert Einstein once said of atheists, brain-dead? From Hitchens’ assault on Mother Theresa, it is apparent he has little or no concept of morality or religion.

IN REPLY TO:
“Whether he is examining the good works of Mother Theresa, whom he characterized as a "thieving Albanian dwarf," or shutting his eyes to the contributions to human history from the religious art of Michelangelo, da Vinci, Rafael, Rembrandt, and Rubens, etc., Chris exhibits the same standards of judgment.”

As it is written in Scripture: "The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, nor knoweth Him.” .--John 14:17 To the foolish, what challenges and confuses them, they recklessly ridicule and insidiously assault, and Hitchens is no exception.

Mother Theresa was a poor nun who gave her whole life to God through her charity to mankind. Hitchens can not understand that because he can not understand the meaning of love or God. Mother Theresa was unequivocally personifiedd explication of God’s love for man.

Thus, St. Paul seems to have had Hitchens in mind when he writes, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Saint Paul also had Mother Theresa in mind when he wrote: “Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely, is not puffed up, is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil: Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth: Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.“ Mother Theresa was Charity personified.

“Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void or tongues shall cease or knowledge shall be destroyed. For we know in part: and we prophesy in part. But, when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.

“We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known. And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.” .”—1 Cor. 13: 1cf.

St. Paul’s Epistle personifies Mother Theresa. Hitchens in all his cleverness and all his sophistry is nothing more than a clanging cymbal encapsulated in a world of indiscretion and demagoguery.

Mother Theresa saw Christ in every human being, in the unborn, the dying, and in the sinner. Her Humility, her Charity, and her Love for all mankind, above all for children and the dying, were unrivaled by anyone existing in our contemporary times.

In a context of intense materialistic religions, Mother Theresa was honored by millions during her funeral procession through Calcutta. Hundreds of thousands lined the street giving her homage as her body was being motorcaded through the city.

The world gave her homage. She was the recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal and the Pulitzer Peace Prize. In a sense, she may have been a thief who stole souls from Satan's grasp.

In the middle of a hostile battle between Israel and the Palestinians, Mother Theresa marched her nuns into the fray to give aid to the wounded in refuge camps. The battle ceased until she had finished. Not even the Palestinians and Jews would trespass on her integrity, her mission, and her intense passionate love for humanity regardless of their religion, because they knew her presence was holy and benevolent and she was the visible face of God on earth.

For Hitchens to maligned one of the most humbly benign and esteemed women in the world, illustrates Hitchens’ lack of knowledge of God, Religion, and God’s Love. Hitchens’ villainy is not a display of brilliance, but portrays a lack of perspicacity and a scandalous and villainous atrocity that manifest his ignorance of the purpose of mankind.

IN REPLY TO:
“As far as whether Chris is right or wrong, I would not begrudge him the right to his own opinion. The right to his own facts, however, is a different matter.”

ANS:
Yes, anyone may trumpet the words of a fool to the highest heavens, but he who gives homage to a fool is a fool himself and wallows in his ignorance and pride.

IN REPLY TO:
ANTHONY M. STEVENS ARROYO
"FAIR AND BALANCED HITCHENS"
Certainly, one can appreciate that Chris has made known the fitting targets of his moral indignation: Mother Theresa but not Vice President Cheney. Perhaps for Chris, the former is the threat to the world; the latter, only to duck hunters."

ANS:
Why would anyone appreciate Hitchens’ moral indignation and find it fitting, unless they were atheists, agnostics, or as Albert Einstein once said of atheists, brain-dead? From Hitchens’ assault on Mother Theresa, it is apparent he has little or no concept of morality or religion.

IN REPLY TO:
“Whether he is examining the good works of Mother Theresa, whom he characterized as a "thieving Albanian dwarf," or shutting his eyes to the contributions to human history from the religious art of Michelangelo, da Vinci, Rafael, Rembrandt, and Rubens, etc., Chris exhibits the same standards of judgment.”

As it is written in Scripture: "The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, nor knoweth Him.” .--John 14:17 To the foolish, what challenges and confuses them, they recklessly ridicule and insidiously assault, and Hitchens is no exception.

Mother Theresa was a poor nun who gave her whole life to God through her charity to mankind. Hitchens can not understand that because he can not understand the meaning of love or God. Mother Theresa was unequivocally personifiedd explication of God’s love for man.

Thus, St. Paul seems to have had Hitchens in mind when he writes, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Saint Paul also had Mother Theresa in mind when he wrote: “Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely, is not puffed up, is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil: Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth: Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.“ Mother Theresa was Charity personified.

“Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void or tongues shall cease or knowledge shall be destroyed. For we know in part: and we prophesy in part. But, when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.

“We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known. And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.” .”—1 Cor. 13: 1cf.

St. Paul’s Epistle personifies Mother Theresa. Hitchens in all his cleverness and all his sophistry is nothing more than a clanging cymbal encapsulated in a world of indiscretion and demagoguery.

Mother Theresa saw Christ in every human being, in the unborn, the dying, and in the sinner. Her Humility, her Charity, and her Love for all mankind, above all for children and the dying, were unrivaled by anyone existing in our contemporary times.

In a context of intense materialistic religions, Mother Theresa was honored by millions during her funeral procession through Calcutta. Hundreds of thousands lined the street giving her homage as her body was being motorcaded through the city.

The world gave her homage. She was the recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal and the Pulitzer Peace Prize. In a sense, she may have been a thief who stole souls from Satan's grasp.

In the middle of a hostile battle between Israel and the Palestinians, Mother Theresa marched her nuns into the fray to give aid to the wounded in refuge camps. The battle ceased until she had finished. Not even the Palestinians and Jews would trespass on her integrity, her mission, and her intense passionate love for humanity regardless of their religion, because they knew her presence was holy and benevolent and she was the visible face of God on earth.

For Hitchens to maligned one of the most humbly benign and esteemed women in the world, illustrates Hitchens’ lack of knowledge of God, Religion, and God’s Love. Hitchens’ villainy is not a display of brilliance, but portrays a lack of perspicacity and a scandalous and villainous atrocity that manifest his ignorance of the purpose of mankind.

IN REPLY TO:
“As far as whether Chris is right or wrong, I would not begrudge him the right to his own opinion. The right to his own facts, however, is a different matter.”

ANS:
Yes, anyone may trumpet the words of a fool to the highest heavens, but he who gives homage to a fool is a fool himself and wallows in his ignorance and pride.

IN REPLY TO:
ANTHONY M. STEVENS ARROYO
"FAIR AND BALANCED HITCHENS"
“Consider also his profound grasp of historical change in concluding that religion is 'contemptuous of women'.”

ANS:
“His profound grasp of historical change concludes that religion is “contemptuous of women'?” What religion is he talking about, Roman paganism? Yes, Hitchens has a profound grasp, but it's not of religion; it's an obvious grasp of buffoonery and flippancy.

First, let’s set the ground rules for Hitchens' fairness. There are thousands of religions, some 26,000 or more of just Christian religions alone. One might find corruption, derision, and hypocrisy in their membership and even in their doctrines, and beliefs. However, Hitchens finds the faults of some and attributes them to all religion. That is injudicious irrationality.

Moreover, the Church must be judged by its doctrines and teachings, and not the acts of those who claim to be Catholic and disavow its precepts and doctrines, or choose to believe what it chooses to believe irrespective of their Church’s respective doctrines, a.k.a. John Kerry types.

So let’s talk only about the one true religion, Catholicism, since all other religions are man made religions and are subject to error, in part or in whole, in their doctrines and teachings. Namely, Catholicism is the only religion created by the Son of God, who is God the Omniscient. All other religions are in fault either in part or in whole in their doctrines and teachings because they are instituted by man who is fallible and all, in part or completely, contradict Catholicism, God’s instituted religion.

Catholicism is the only religion that is one in its doctrines from its conception, is Apostolic in its line of authority, holy in its founder, and catholic in its membership that is all encompassing. It is marked by the gift of infallibility in its teachings and doctrines, which Christ proclaimed to the Apostles.

Hence, Jesus told his Apostles:--Mt 16:19—“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Further, Matt. 28: 19cf “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Cardinal John Henry Newman, a former Protestant prelate, puts it quite succinctly.

"I am brought to speak of the Church's infallibility, as a provision, adapted by the mercy of the Creator, to preserve religion in the world, and to restrain that freedom of thought, which of course in itself is one of the greatest of our natural gifts, and to rescue it from its own suicidal excesses."—John Henry Newman
Position of my Mind Since 1845"

“Conscience to Newman was the inward revelation of God, Catholicism the outward and objective. This twofold force he set as an opponent to the agnostic, the rationalist, the mere worldling.

"She alone [the Church of Rome], amid all the errors and evils of her practical system, has given free scope to the feelings of awe, mystery, tenderness, reverence, devotedness, and other feelings which may be especially called Catholic."
Chapter 4: History of my Religious Opinions from 1841 to 1845”

God said in Gen.1:27
“And God created man to his own image: to the image of God HE CREATED HIM: MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM.”

Therefore, he created them equal in nature and dignity. Hence, the Catholic Church has never, departed from its fundamental teachings on the dignity of woman since its inception.

To the contrary, the Church has elevated woman over all Creation, when it venerates the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church moreover recognizes woman as a sacred temple of human life.

IN REPLY TO:
"Scholars might be impeded from such easy categorization if they pay attention to the protections to women’s status installed by religions at the time of their founding. However, Chris is not bound by academic rules of evidence or scholarship, allowing him to enrich public discourse with the unvarnished brilliance of his book-selling sloganeering.”

ANS:
If Hitchens is not bound by academic rules of evidence or scholarship, then he is an empty gong clanging in a chaos of irrational babble. Such intransigency prompts the question as to what is Hitchens bound by, preposterousness, and absurdity.

Moreover, not to be bound by rationality and logical scholarship is tyrannical, and mythically delusional. By no means is it brilliant. In effect, his despondency is more akin to eclectic babble. Hitchens may be profound, but that is because he is incomprehensibly and abysmally irrational. Further more, sloganeering is not only juvenile in respect to his character assassinations, it sounds a bit like sophistry and elitism to me.

IN REPLY TO:
ANTHONY M. STEVENS ARROYO
"FAIR AND BALANCED HITCHENS"
“Consider also his profound grasp of historical change in concluding that religion is 'contemptuous of women'.”

ANS:
“His profound grasp of historical change concludes that religion is “contemptuous of women'?” What religion is he talking about, Roman paganism? Yes, Hitchens has a profound grasp, but it's not of religion; it's an obvious grasp of buffoonery and flippancy.

First, let’s set the ground rules for Hitchens' fairness. There are thousands of religions, some 26,000 or more of just Christian religions alone. One might find corruption, derision, and hypocrisy in their membership and even in their doctrines, and beliefs. However, Hitchens finds the faults of some and attributes them to all religion. That is injudicious irrationality.

Moreover, the Church must be judged by its doctrines and teachings, and not the acts of those who claim to be Catholic and disavow its precepts and doctrines, or choose to believe what it chooses to believe irrespective of their Church’s respective doctrines, a.k.a. John Kerry types.

So let’s talk only about the one true religion, Catholicism, since all other religions are man made religions and are subject to error, in part or in whole, in their doctrines and teachings. Namely, Catholicism is the only religion created by the Son of God, who is God the Omniscient. All other religions are in fault either in part or in whole in their doctrines and teachings because they are instituted by man who is fallible and all, in part or completely, contradict Catholicism, God’s instituted religion.

Catholicism is the only religion that is one in its doctrines from its conception, is Apostolic in its line of authority, holy in its founder, and catholic in its membership that is all encompassing. It is marked by the gift of infallibility in its teachings and doctrines, which Christ proclaimed to the Apostles.

Hence, Jesus told his Apostles:--Mt 16:19—“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Further, Matt. 28: 19cf “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Cardinal John Henry Newman, a former Protestant prelate, puts it quite succinctly.

"I am brought to speak of the Church's infallibility, as a provision, adapted by the mercy of the Creator, to preserve religion in the world, and to restrain that freedom of thought, which of course in itself is one of the greatest of our natural gifts, and to rescue it from its own suicidal excesses."—John Henry Newman
Position of my Mind Since 1845"

“Conscience to Newman was the inward revelation of God, Catholicism the outward and objective. This twofold force he set as an opponent to the agnostic, the rationalist, the mere worldling.

"She alone [the Church of Rome], amid all the errors and evils of her practical system, has given free scope to the feelings of awe, mystery, tenderness, reverence, devotedness, and other feelings which may be especially called Catholic."
Chapter 4: History of my Religious Opinions from 1841 to 1845”

God said in Gen.1:27
“And God created man to his own image: to the image of God HE CREATED HIM: MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM.”

Therefore, he created them equal in nature and dignity. Hence, the Catholic Church has never, departed from its fundamental teachings on the dignity of woman since its inception.

To the contrary, the Church has elevated woman over all Creation, when it venerates the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church moreover recognizes woman as a sacred temple of human life.

IN REPLY TO:
"Scholars might be impeded from such easy categorization if they pay attention to the protections to women’s status installed by religions at the time of their founding. However, Chris is not bound by academic rules of evidence or scholarship, allowing him to enrich public discourse with the unvarnished brilliance of his book-selling sloganeering.”

ANS:
If Hitchens is not bound by academic rules of evidence or scholarship, then he is an empty gong clanging in a chaos of irrational babble. Such intransigency prompts the question as to what is Hitchens bound by, preposterousness, and absurdity.

Moreover, not to be bound by rationality and logical scholarship is tyrannical, and mythically delusional. By no means is it brilliant. In effect, his despondency is more akin to eclectic babble. Hitchens may be profound, but that is because he is incomprehensibly and abysmally irrational. Further more, sloganeering is not only juvenile in respect to his character assassinations, it sounds a bit like sophistry and elitism to me.

SCKershaw,

"I think the question that Mr. Hitchens should answer is whether he thinks that if the rise of Christianity had been the rise of atheism, would the world have been less violent?"

Religion was a necessary bridge to scientifc understanding. Civilization could not have developed without some moral framework based on some commonly held beliefs. As science progressed and one after another of the dogmatic beliefs were replaced by rational ones, religion should have dissipated. But its use as a convenient tool to control populations by govenments and churches has kept it prevalent. Isn't that not obvious?

"Whether he is examining the good works of Mother Theresa...or shutting his eyes to the contributions to human history from the religious art of Michelangelo, da Vinci, Rafael, Rembrandt, and Rubens, etc., Chris exhibits the same standards of judgment."

Just imagine what we might have learned about the experince of living in the age of these great artists had they been permitted to paint anything but religious scenes and patron's portraits under threat of poverty, imprisonment or worse.

The posts by Mr Arroyo and Ms Frietag in response to Hitchins display the utter bankruptcy of the superstition industry.

Tony,
You wrote:
"Believing or dis-believing in God is very much like a trial in our own minds, in which we must examine the evidence closely and then decide--and not like some theory of mathematics that can be proven true or false based on some axioms (axioms accepted on faith, by the way)."

I agree with most of your statement, but take issue with your parenthetical statement.
In fact, axioms in mathematics are not accepted "on faith" at all. Mathematics claims absolutely nothing concerning the truth of the assumed axioms. Mathematical theorems are ALL of the form "IF the axioms are assumed true, THEN the theorem is true".

There are many theorems in mathematics which could be taken with a grain of salt because of certain "controversial" axioms (look up "the axiom of choice" as an example - mathematicians normally assume it is true, but assuming it isn't true is a cottage industry in mathematics).

I know a few Mathematicians who will "argue religiously" about their mathematics, but what they are doing is very different from religion.

Tony, you're confusing grounds for an inference with evidence. A 1000 grounds for an inference does not equal one piece of evidence. Evidence is independent of our imagination and articulation.

"I have read his book on God"

No you havent. Goodbye.

'One can see, for instance, how he carefully considered the history of the Christians thrown to the lions during Roman times ... in concluding that religion is “violent.”'

"As a scholar of religion", you surely know that the Christians were thrown to the lions by worshippers of Roman gods?

Perhaps you don't accept worship of Roman gods as a religion with the same validity as your own religion; perhaps that's what the Romans felt about Christianity.

"I never met an atheist I could like" -- Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo

Thats like me saying: "I've never met a religious Puerto-Rican I could like"

What a ridiculously stupid statement, Mr Arroyo.

There never existed, and no athiest would advocate, a world order founded soley on denial of the supernatural. Their goal is mainly to cleanse the definition of goals an values from "divine revelations" (including creeds based on "Volk" or "dialectic") which refuse discussion or reconciliation in this world of multiple "one and true" revelations, most of which (if you look close) are quite obscure and do little but promulgate tribal mores, fantasies, or non-observes platitudes, but give politicians preposterous tools of censure, demagogy, and posturing.

Or does Sckershaw calmly assume that history proves the truth and virtue of (his) Christianity and not that of other faiths? Let him convince a mullah. Suddenly, he would learn the value of separation of church and state?

I have read Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s critique of Christopher Hitchens’ work and all of the responses to them and I am amazed that I have yet to see a responder address the actual points they make. It is Mr. Hitchens’ contention that the evil that the faithful do out weighs the good. Moreover, he believes that the evil he catalogs is an innate part of religion, not just the misguided behavior of some practitioners. It is on this point that Mr. Stevens-Arroyo takes him to task and questions his evidence. He is not addressing Hitchens’ faith or more correctly, his lack of a belief in God. Frankly, I believe that the strategy Stevens-Arroyo chooses is wrong-headed.

I think the question that Mr. Hitchens should answer is whether he thinks that if the rise of Christianity had been the rise of atheism, would the world have been less violent? If he does, then he should present the evidence. I cannot say that I have ever witnessed the broad based spontaneous development of self-restraint unaccompanied by religious commitment. Even should it happen now, its occurrence would still be inseparable from the ethic that currently prevails, an ethic that has been acutely informed by the Christian religions.

I have read Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s critique of Christopher Hitchens’ work and all of the responses to them and I am amazed that I have yet to see a responder address the actual points they make. It is Mr. Hitchens’ contention that the evil that the faithful do out weighs the good. Moreover, he believes that the evil he catalogs is an innate part of religion, not just the misguided behavior of some practitioners. It is on this point that Mr. Stevens-Arroyo takes him to task and questions his evidence. He is not addressing Hitchens’ faith or more correctly, his lack of a belief in God. Frankly, I believe that the strategy Stevens-Arroyo chooses is wrong-headed.

I think the question that Mr. Hitchens should answer is whether he thinks that if the rise of Christianity had been the rise of atheism, would the world have been less violent? If he does, then he should present the evidence. I cannot say that I have ever witnessed the broad based spontaneous development of self-restraint unaccompanied by religious commitment. Even should it happen now, its occurrence would still be inseparable from the ethic that currently prevails, an ethic that has been acutely informed by the Christian religions.

Mr. Arroyo

I see evidence that indicates that there exists not only a god but an Easter bunny, tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

Stevens-Arroyo balks that Hitchens "is not bound by academic rules of evidence or scholarship, allowing him to enrich public discourse with the unvarnished brilliance of his book-selling sloganeering." But, heavens to Betsy, isn't this exactly the practice of 99.9% of all religious propagation, pulpitry, televangelism, and faith media publishing? If it serves the goose, why not the gander?

The artists Stevens-Arroyo cites were attracted to the Church mainly as a means to finance their works, and religious topics were what the customer ordered. People who portray unorthodox topics are seldom welcome to embellish public spaces.

Some believers, perhaps 3%, are pacifists. Few, whether believers or not, relish war. But when it comes, most believers line up with their military and inflict mortal amounts of "brotherly love" against the enemy.

Yes, religion does promote one sort of peace (conformity) by invoking the wrath of the Almighty on anyone who challenges an established order. For every MLK or Bonhoeffer, there were thousands of clergy who are passive or actively opposed to dissent or any sort of "reform" other than rollback of changes.

It is interesting that this post is itself quite deceptive and self delusional. The Catholic Church prosecuted artists and scientists for more than 1000 years before the Pope and his hierarchy learned that they could use art as an instrument to promote their own interests, hence their support of Rafael and Michelangelo, this at the same time it punished Johannes Kepler and Copernico with excomulgation, and taking over 500 years to admit, that after all, the Sun is at the center of the Solar System. Since then the Church has not been interested in the arts, period. The Vatican is not the Guggenheim or the Carnegies and does no support the arts for their own sake. The early catholics were crucified and thrown at the Lions because they were a threat to the religion of the time, which supported the divinity of Ceasar. BTW, this is similar to what the medieval Vatican prescribed to those who question its authority, i.e. being burned at the stake. It is interesting that he metions Mennonites, Quakers and Jehova witnesses as examples of pacifism: none of them are major religions of today (Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism) except Buddhaism, which can only barely be called a religion as it is mostly an spiritual set of beliefs (even atheists can have beliefs) without invoking the supernatural.

sorry theists. you can discredit hitchens all you want (the guy is really reprehensible in a lot of ways), but that doesn't change the truth of what he's saying. atheists don't have popes. so you can't overthrow our ideas by besmirching our most vocal members.
now about that evidence hitch keeps asking for.....

Tony's satire--of himself--was superb. Of course, Tony's evidence was overwhelming. Like of course a loving, compassionate, omnisicent, and omnipotent god needed to have his son tortured to death to found a relgion to save us from our sins which we never committed. And if god is omnipotent what evidence is there that he would choose the idiotic rantings of someone like Tony to help spread his view. Tony makes it clear, I believe, why there are so many intellectually deficient religioius scholars--the so called discipline requires no intelligence or reasoning whatsoever--unless one calls proving a tautology an act demanding intelligence.

Mr. Arnold

an interesting disguised tirade but not in any way informative. i am sory that i wasted my time reading same.

an interesting disguised tirade but not in any way informative. i am sory that i wasted my reading same.

Agreed, Hitchens is an "entertainer" not a religious scholar....does he review books or movies?

As for calling him Chris...who cares....you atheists sure are touchy - perhaps you have found yourselves a human god to worship after all.

PS - Chris is also a neo con/trotskyite utopian lout. Quite the man about town!

I read Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's comments regarding Mr. Hitchens' guest piece and I am not sure what he was trying to say. Does he think Mr. Hitchens has his facts straight or does he take exception to them. And as much as I disagree with Mr. Hitchens view on the war in Iraq, it has little to do with his issues with religion. And as much as I dislike Dick Cheney, he is not guilty of hypocracy -- the very trait that seems to truely annoy and anger Mr. Hitchens.

And just a note to others, I have heard him called Mr. Hitchens, Christopher, and even Hitch -- but never Chris.

One can read and re-read anonymous's post without finding a scintilla of logical reasoning. None. Zip. Just a RANT IN CAPITALS that he or she thinks is somehow effective. Come now, anonymous, you can do better than that. Or can you?

Anonymous: feel better now?
I'm sure Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and probably Louise too would stand with you on your worthless rant.

"Big Tony" Arroyo tries to minimize Mr Hitchens by continually referring to him as "Chris" in the above article. Yet, Mr Hitchens signs his name "Christopher," and I have heard Hitchens correct debaters who try the Arroyo tactic and address him as Chris, rather than Hitchens' preferred salutation, Christopher.

For some reason, there are those who believe that such tactics diminish their opponents and - by extension and association - their arguments. It reminds me of the RW politicians like george bush and tom delay who refer to the Democratic Party as the DEMOCRAT party, knowing full well what they are doing. This tactic has also been taken up by the RW apologists who do the political talk show circuit.

Which brings me to turnabout being fair play, and my addressing our smiling columnist as Big Tony. Yet even with Mr Anthony's elevation to Bug Tony, I still get the feeling that he's out of his league trying to argue with Mr Hitchens. It's a little like a tee-ball player squaring off against Roger Clemens, and in this analogy, Mr Arroyo isn't the one playing the role of The Rocket.

A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -

X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .

Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths",

religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!

As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each,

respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.

Of course you can't *be* good to the damned and unbelievers, so you do us a kindness by pretending. The art of being sincere is leaning how to fake it. You want to be known for your self-flattering pretense, so let's play pretend. Let's pretend the Spanish Inquisition did not effect forced conversion through genocidal threat. Let's pretend Guadaloupe must wait her turn, as how Fatima was ahead of her in line. Let's pretend infallible leadership is a safe assumption. Transfigure nukes as your American idol.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! Talk about getting every hack under the sun to help flack your book, Hitchens! Geez, Louise! You make me upchuck! You CAN'T STAND IT that more people aren't fooled by your puerile, non-sensical (not to mention irrelevant) rants, and won't buy your silly book, so you gots to be BFF with Sally Quinn, who helps you out, once again, here on this website, and then other folk who will come forward and say how "thought-provoking" how this how that-WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP-AND HITCHENS, YOU KNOW WHAT? I THINK YOU KNOW YOUR BOOK IS MUCH LESS THAN MEDIOCRE, BUT IT DOESN'T STOP YOU FROM PUTTING ON OVER ON THE PUBLIC, NOW DOES IT?

This response misses the real point of Hitchen's work -- which is not that religion is essentially evil (except insofar as anything is which countermands reason). Rather, as his standing challenge to the faithful suggests, his point is that religion tends toward misogyny/xenophobia/homophobia/etc. (even Buddhism!) and is unnecessary to achieve good.

To add a bit of my own opinion: Reason suggests that any god with an ounce of goodness would choose not to be worshiped at all rather than inflict the pain for which organized religion has been historically responsible. That, rather than some play-acting on a cross, would be true self-sacrifice for a deity.

I'm pretty sure referring to him as "Chris" ranks just below religiously-inspired genital mutilation on Hitch's crudlist.

You join a long and hapless line of folks who have no answer for his challenge, issued repeatedly during his 'book-selling sloganeering' tour and again in his post. Instead your sarcastic and annoying contribution seems to reflect an expectation that Hitchens wanted to write a book about how religion is awesome and helps humans live in peace and fraternity. One look at the title (I doubt you read much further) should have dispelled the notion. It is a polemic, not a reasoned academic obfuscation - sorry, 'treatment' - of religion's glorious contributions.

Re: works of art, any reader of the book finds quite obviously that, while he abhors organized religion, Hitchens has little to no beef with religious art, music, and architecture and that, far from shutting his eyes, he even manages some token appreciation of same. Might want to reread and come at him with more than a critique of the Iraq war and a purloined Moynihan quote - don't think we're quite ready for a 'dialog' yet.

Oh and right on re: the book-selling sloganeering - we'll all be sure to purchase and peruse, per your request, your extensive documentation of religion's mistakes at the earliest convenience.

Regarding the pacificism of Jehovah's Witnesses, those interested in the actually history of such can read at the following website some little known biographies of three West Point graduates:

http://jwbookstore.bravehost.com/index.html

-- THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS WHO WAS ALSO THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE U.S. ARMY

-- THE CIVIL WAR CONFEDERATE GENERAL WHO JOINED THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY

-- THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS 5 STAR GENERAL WHO BECAME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

"As a scholar, however, I am bound by rules of evidence"

I amazes me that there are so many scholars of religion, yet there are hundreds of known mistranslations & misinterpetations in the bible that go uncorrected.

You have to thank the Post for giving both intolerant atheists and America-haters such wonderful places to spew their hatred.

Kudos to the Post for offerint the world this fountain of reason and tolerance.

"Scholars might be impeded from such easy categorization if they pay attention to the protections to women’s status installed by religions at the time of their founding."

I don't even know what he is trying to say. Sam Harris' essays on this site point to ample evidence of systematic cruelty to women in religious founding documents.

Never mind the silly anti-logical AND anti-empirical evidence based arguments made by Arroyo and parroted by Tony on this string. Let's talk about what there IS evidence of--millennia of sexual discrimination.

No comment on the irony which Arroyo indirectly refers that he supports a War started by a "believer" who has come very close on more than one occasion that God talks to him. The main fallacy is to take Hitchens seriously, something he has never done in his life.