All Comments (122)

Thank God for the beauty of kindness, living, working together of peoples no matter what religion.
One problem I have found with 'religion' is that man makes relgions out of the Love and WOrds that God gives.
Man makes religion but God made Love for God Is love. the kind of love that gives, sacrifices that others may have their needs, not slaughter them if they think or believe differently.
True lovers and believers of God know they are accountable for their words and actions and will face God one day and give an account of their life.
I'm a Christian missionary but some of the best people I've known are Muslims and Buddnists, Caholics, and others. Their religion doesn't form what they say and do, but what they say and do is their true religion.

Why does everyone always attack Islam? You know Al-Qaeda wouldn't have taken action on Sep 11 if it wasn't for the imperialistic US government, it was an act of self-defense.
The greatest threat to all peoples are the Zionists and their friends in the USA.The Jews do nothing but steal our money, kill, and destroy. There should be a united global effort by all countries to end the illegal state of Israel by peace or by force and send the Jews where they belong, back to Europe.

Much as I would like to agree with Mr. Patel, the fact is when enough number of people from any group or religion take up violence, it maligns the entire group. To say that we should blame the individual, not the religion, is too simplistic.

The violence spawned by Islam calls for reform. Today, there is a news item about pakistan. Bombs are going off in video stores because Islamic radicals believe videos are corrupting the minds of young people. No matter if some people are killed in the process. They are not worried about corrupting the image of Islam but they are worried that their idea of morality is not adopted by the whole world. Now, can Eboo Patel call a spade a spade and say this needs to stop. Blame the individual not the religion is a stretch. Why does Islam encourage the imposition of some idiots' idea of morality (by violence) on the rest of the world? Mr. Patel needs to wake up as does many of his Muslim brothers I am afraid.

It's not fair but that's the way it is unfortunately. Muslims

It's the zionist Jews we should all be afriad of.

Those who John warned us about,

THey say they are Jews but are actually mongoloid Asiatics.

I just watched the republican debate on CNN. I am worried that most of the republican party is bent on making islam the boogey man.
I was just wondering is it a really good for the political health of the country to force it into a islamophobia.
They talk about turning iraq into this lofty democratic country that they would have no fear of, but the truth is that they are teaching fear of islam to americans of other religion in that they will never trust anyone of islamic faith. There is a considerable percentage of americans that are not in favour of giving iraqis refugee status.
Is it really fair to form your opinions of a entire faith on the actions of individuals who committ crimes againt humanity and in my opinion abandone their religion when they do such acts.
So when the republican candidates keep repeating islam as a threat to the west they create a divide that will not do anything to win the hearts and minds any time soon. That does not absolve the muslim world of their responsibilties. They lack the leadership on these issues and are light years away from doing the right thing.

Saudi officials have arrested a man in Mecca for being a Christian, saying that the city, which Muslims consider to be holy, is off-limits to non-Muslims.
Nirosh Kamanda, a Sri Lankan Christian, was detained by the Saudi Expatriates Monitoring Committee last week after he started to sell goods outside Mecca’s Great Mosque.
After running his fingerprints through a new security system, Saudi police discovered that he was a Christian who had arrived in the country six months earlier to take a job as a truck driver in the city of Dammam. Kamanda had subsequently left his place of work and moved to Mecca.
“The Grand Mosque and the holy city are forbidden to non-Muslims,” Col. Suhail Matrafi, head of the department of Expatriates Affairs in Mecca, told the Saudi daily Arab News. “The new fingerprints system is very helpful and will help us a lot to discover the identity of a lot of criminals,” he said.
Similar restrictions apply to the Saudi city of Medina. In a section entitled, “Traveler’s Information,” the Web site of the Saudi Embassy in Washington states that, “Mecca and Medina hold special religious significance and only persons of the Islamic faith are allowed entry.”
Highway signs at the entrance to Mecca also direct non-Muslims away from the city’s environs.

NOW you consider manu law as valid deb?
how conveeeenient

Soja wrote:

"...and is even stricter than Christianity in that it does not even allow remarriage for a Hindu widow..."

Soja, this is where I disagree. Widow re-marriage was always a part of Hindu society (samaj). Manusmriti has ample evidences and strictures regarding when a woman can take another man besides her legally wedded husband, and lists those circumstances. Some of them are: (a) male impotence in giving birth (b) desertion by the husband, (c) if the woman is a widow and childless then remarriage is permitted ...

Societies where polyandry was practiced also found favor with Manu. The Hindu society, was recognized as evolving and dynamic and the rules were meant to accomodative.

"But in my opinion it goes without saying that neither becoming 'sex mad' nor living like tribals is considered a heightened state of spirituality in Hinduism, at least not in mainstream Hinduism."

Sex was recognized as conduit to respond to bodily needs. Just as one eats, sleeps, voids so also sex was considered as a bodily function. Kamasutra describes sex a pleasure primarily/conventionally between man and woman. (The Kamasutra also recognizes homosexuality.) But, the Kamasutra is not at the same rank as Upanishads, Brahmasutras, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, as many non-Hindus have erroneously thought. Thus, sex is not a part of spirituality of "mainstream Hinduism". The Bhagavad Gita (chapter 6, lines 15-17) states that moderation in enjoyment, maintaining regularity in meditation, enjoyment, food, sleep, etc., leads to spiritual emancipation. Someone who may overdo anyone of these shall not meet the golas and objectives.

In summary, mostly you are right except on the aspect of Hindu widow remarriage.

Errata: Hippies of course did not consider incestual sex to be right!

Deb

My understanding is that a rishi is a ‘seer of mantras,’ (hence by definition is not required to be celibate) but a sannyasi is one who has forsaken the world to attain God realisation. I don’t know if you are referring to married ‘rishis’ or married sannyasis. If a sannyasi married or had consensual sex with tribal women, I can’t think of it as being part of sannyasa. I'm sure you will agree that Ramayana, the love story and lifelong monogamous relationship and fidelity of Rama and Sita, is considered the marriage ideal for Indian society (and is even stricter than Christianity in that it does not even allow remarriage for a Hindu widow), NOT what one or the other sannayasi/rishi might or might not have done while living in the forest, out of reach of the rules and regulation of the normal Indian society. The main theme of Ramayana is about marital fidelity. I have found the psychological significance of Lakshman Rekha in Ramayana, that protects a marriage quite fascinating – that no one from outside can break into a marriage by crossing the Lakshman Rekha; the one within the marriage must step out of the protective Lakshman Rekha.

There is nothing, as far as I know, in mainstream Hindu Scripture to suggest taking sannyasa and then indulging in sex was what sannyasa was about. The Bhagavad Gita was after all written as the answer to such a dilemma, in enable the householder to attain God realisation. If the idea was to live in the forest and have a family like everyone else, or follow the morals of the Indian tribals, then the sannyasis might as well have remained in the world and lived a normal life or lived among the tribals like one of them. (Tribals as you are fully aware to this day do NOT belong to the Hindu fold at all and follow the same sexual morals as they always have, namely neither the men nor the women in their communities are any different from the hippies of the 1960s. I find it interesting that there are no double moral standards among the tribals, and the women are as liberated in their sexuality as the men.) But if the rishi/sannyasi married and lived in a monogamous relationship, after he had achieved God realisation, then it is equivalent to the Zen concept of "returning to the market place." But in my opinion it goes without saying that neither becoming 'sex mad' nor living like tribals is considered a heightened state of spirituality in Hinduism, at least not in mainstream Hinduism.

If you are under the notion that tribal sexual morality is a high place to be, I must share with you what I learnt when I visited a tribal village in Madhya Pradesh. When the Catholic nuns went to set up a mission station there, among other things they found the "glorious state" of sexual “liberation”. The tribals, most of them extremely poor, lived in one room huts and the whole family slept together. When some young girls came pregnant to the mission hospital set up by the nuns, it was impossible to know who the father of the child was – it could have been the father, brother, or after her marriage, apart from her husband, the brother/father-in-law, any male that shared the same hut! Since the tribals had no concept of sexual morals, they thought nothing about it. Would you ask the same question, “So what? Is that a crime?” If not, why not?

Soja wrote:

"I think the emphasis should rather be that sex is beautiful ...... just as celibacy was willingly chosen only by Hindu sannyasis who left society to live in forests, out of reach of normal society, while the ordinary temple priest always married."

I agree wholeheartedly. That many are turning away from Catholicism (and probably Christianity), is that it considers sex as sinful. If this trend continues, then Jesus Christ - upon his second coming - shall overrule the Vatican and have him plutoed to do menial jobs like driving cab in Baghdad, Iraq. Why ? Because I am sure that Christ would not allow his faith to flourish only within a small numerical minority who have obscurantist views about the flow of life that God gave us.

And BTW, many Hindu "rishis" (sages) also married and sired kids. Hey these rishis lived in forests too ! Some had good rockin' (consensual) relationships with local tribal women. So what ? Is that a crime ?

what are the products produced by evolution?
just curious.

Ralph,

You said: "That's also what makes Evolutionism the world's most dangerous religion. It is a religion that refuses to call itself a religion."

The difference is this. To believe in something without evidence is called faith. To believe in something (such as electricity) for which you have evidence is called science.

The difference between religion and science is EVIDENCE. Science now harnesses evolution in the same way that it harnesses electricity. You can study applied evolution at university and get a job using evolution to create new products.

Evolution is considered a law of nature, not 'just a theory' because it has already been harnessed to create new products. To deny evolution today is like denying the existance of electricity, and calling evolution a religion is like calling electricity a religion. You make yourself look silly with such comments.

To All Muslims,

I want to ask you a question. Please give your answer. Do you believe the following?

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 14:
From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent to them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what they have done.

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 51:
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.

Qur’an Chapter 3 Verse 28:
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

The above verses command you to hate Jews and Christians, so the question is: Do you believe these teachings to be true? Do you believe that you should follow these teachings?

Please don't start with the "out of context" argument because we all know that the koran wasn't written down in chronological order. It was written down in verse length.

It's a simple question. The koran commands Muslims to hate Jews & Christians, and not to take them to be their friends and protectors. Do you believe these teachings to be true and do you think Muslims should follow these teachings? Do you believe that these verses should continue being taught to Muslim children at school?

What is your answer?

Fate

Thanks for that suggestion. I am going to pop into a Lutheran church one of these days to check out what you said. Anyway I consider all Christians a part of the same body of Christ you know. There aren't that many Lutheran Churches as Catholic ones, so I couldn't go to any part of the world and attend a similar service - that is one great advantage of being a Catholic over being a Lutheran!

In Germany I was quite amazed to find that the Lutheran Churches looked almost exactly like the Catholic ones (I didn't attend any service though). I suppose it is because the Churches belong to the time of Luther.

Thanks for the info on the ritual of the Lutheran pastor kissing his wife at the end of the service, of which I was not aware (I will check that out too!). I think it is beautiful. It makes perfect sense for priests to marry, at least to be given a choice. It is my guess that the overemphasis on celibacy for the religious is one of the reasons Catholicism is unpopular. I think the emphasis should rather be that sex is beautiful and sacred in a committed lifelong relationship rather than putting the act of fighting legitimate biological needs on a higher pedestal than it deserves. Only strictly contemplative convents and monasteries should have mandatory celibacy, just as celibacy was willingly chosen only by Hindu sannyasis who left society to live in forests, out of reach of normal society, while the ordinary temple priest always married. To be exposed to all the worldly temptations on a day to day basis, have so little time to devote to personal prayer due to work committments, and yet be expected to achieve the almost impossible task of remaining celibate - any wonder that most people have trouble understanding the magnitude of the challenge, and the real merit of taking on such a challenge? Even the Hindu sannyasis who spent all day in deep meditation would agree how unrealistic such an expectation is. I have untold respect for those who genuinely achieve that level of transformation of the sexual energies as a Catholic while being exposed to the temptations of the world on a day to day basis, and yet I don't think of it as the highest ideal. Even as a Catholic I am convinced that to be a truly loving and faithful husband/wife, a caring father/mother to one's children, and to serve Jesus in the world through one's work that one does for a living and otherwise, is really the greatest challenge and the highest ideal. The world sorely needs more Holy Families!

Soja,

You may want to attend a Lutheran church. The liturgy is the same as Catholic liturgy. The only differences I've found is that there is no transsubstantiation (its just bread and wine being eaten in rememberance as Jesus asked) and after the service the pastor goes to his wife and kisses her, something that any catholic would take a second look at since they wear the same robes. Oh yea, and you don't go to hell for missing a service. As I have heard it said, Lutherans are just Catholics without the guilt. :-)

who are you referring to soja?
only FATE has expressed some bad experiences with catholics- and was commenting on anecdotal experiences about people, from what i saw-

the rest of us havent made any negative comments at all-

i think if you look at it again, you wont feel sad at all-

i know some absolutely stellar catholics in my life.

I feel really sad that those who have shared on this thread have had no good experience with Catholics. However I wish to assure you all that there are over one billion Catholics in the world. It is a pity that you haven't been fortunate enough to meet some of the loving, and most intellectual and radical ones who represent Catholicism too.

I have been very fortunate to meet some really fantastic (Jesuit and others) priests, Benedicitine monks and great nuns. One gets an idea of what the word Catholicism means only when one gets to meet some of the best Catholics. One would be shocked at the sort of ideas that are considered perfectly acceptable by the Catholic church. So a narrow minded view of Catholicism comes only from not having met some of the best Catholic minds.

If you had known Dom Bede Griffiths, for instance, you would have difficulty believing that he was Catholic - his vision was so universal. There are many Catholics with a great vision and intellectual and spiritual depth, that one would think many times before stamping the Catholic church with the labels that those who have shared their experiences on this thread has.

I can only repeat that I feel sad that those who have shared on this thread have had bad experiences. But that is not the end of the Catholic Church, considering there are over one billion members of the church worldwide. I consider myself a Catholic who represents the Catholic church too. I don't feel hemmed in and restricted and bound up with all sorts of rules and regulations. I think it is wonderful that I could walk into any Catholic Church in the world and feel at home because the liturgy is the same. It is a comfort to know that I have many things in common with one billion believers in the world, although I may not practise or believe every little thing as taught by the Church. I still feel sufficiently Catholic all the same.

May all who have shared on this thread meet some good Catholics in your life. That is my heartfelt wish.

that is a strange world view indeed- im form pittsburgh (which is on the appalachians) and mydad is retired and a rock hound- i guess by the reaoning of the priest, eventually the whole world will eventually be all mountains- i may be sitting on a baby mountain right now and not even know it- it LOOKS like a level street, but who knows what baby mountain nature lies inherent in it?

i can understand impausible explanations from mother church- and kids have l0ong memories, look how it impacted you.

im a muslim and certainly dont know everything about islam- but its congruous ith science at least-

possibly everything is alive in some esoteric as yet undiscovered electo-magnetic sense- but that is a stretch by any menas-
im looking at my geode right now, and feeling a smug superoirity to it- (i guess i really have to reach far down the chain of consciousness to find something to be smugly superior to- he he)

Victoria,

I remember in 5th grade a priest came into my catholic school class to answer any question we had. This was very unusual and I now understand that this was some sort of outreach the priests were ordered to do. Anyway I was interested in geology then. I used to buy those rock kits shown on TV. So I asked the priest where the Appalachian mountains came from. I knew the Rockies were due to the volcanos (a few years later they discovered plate techtonics). But there was no explanation I had heard of about how the appalachians formed. His answer startled me. He said "rocks grow". "EH?" I responded. Yes he insisted rocks grew, they just grow slow. You see, everything is "alive". I decided not to start a debate (you never won a debate with a priest or nun :). But it was a turning point for me. It showed me that these people, who demanded respect and claimed complete knowledge and morality were, in this case, not just uneducated, but he did not know just how uneducated he was. For the first time a priest appeared human to me. Once I saw that I started seeing it in everyone else. Nuns, other priests. My questioning began then and has not stopped. The type of response I heard from BIGD is typical. No real debate other than the bible says so and God is perfect so the church is perfect. It gets old but I haven't stopped the questions hoping that, one day, people like BIGD may realize that everyday people are running what he considers the most perfect religion which produces the most perfect law, rules, and way to heaven.

oh- good points fate- i was about 7 or so when vatican II kicked in- the doily veils came off the heads and lain was out (supposedly- it tooks years for many churches to comply)
as for confusion, i went to a very very VERY progressive catholic school- (also very very VERY poor- the principal left because she got pregnant, and we didnt have history, we had black studies-half the teachers brought their kids with them) and we had mass every morning for 2 years.(that i went)

i was an adult and was telling a priest about hearing mass in latin at this church in the early 70s.
when i told him the church he asked the name of the priest- when i told him that he laughed and laughed.
apparently, this priest had just come fresh from india, and his accent was so thick he was giving mass in english!
(alot of prayers were still in latin in my defense) but the point is- i didnt understand it in latin, and i didnt understand it in accented english so it was all greek to me anyway.

i guess that proves how easily young minds accept gibberish as spiritual guidance-
(obviously at some point i explored what i was hearing)

ive heard this point before and its well taken.

Victoria,

Eating meat on Friday (during lent these days) is a mortal sin if you know your doing it (i.e., you didn't forget the rule or that it was Friday). Look it up.

And I understand its not a burning issue in the church. I never said it was. My whole point has been that it is a canon law, a law made up by the church, not by God via biblical writings, and this law made by the church changes over time. It did not start with early christians or even when the church was formalized. When it was adopted it was EVERY Friday. Since 1966 it is now only during lent, in the US, with some countries not required to observe it at all.

I started out this thread by asking what a guy in hell for eating meat on Friday thought about all the catholics enjoying meat on Friday these days. The point, since I need to spell it out, is that the church makes up canon law and modifies it over time and applies it differently from place to place. That may be fine for stuff that would be considered venial sins, but mortal sin, well, thats a serious ticket to hell. If the church can impose its laws willy-nilly and in doing so send some people, but not all, to hell, it just seems like maybe a lot of what the church is doing is made up. In other words, the church, which represents the perfect God on earth, seems far from perfect, and can, on its own via modification of canon law or creating canon laws out of thin air, send people to hell. And God seems to have little to say about it and goes along with what the church decides, not because He says so, but because the people in charge of the church say so. So I ask, who is in charge of God's laws? It seems God is just a cop who enforces church law fater you die. The tail wagging the dog if I ever saw one.

Why blame anyone. Just be happy and ejoy what you did today to make it a better world.

FATE- that IS the churches position- it falls under appetites, and its a venial sin-
it seems to be your opinion that eating meat on a friday confers hell on one- but its not the position of the catholic church.
i surely didnt get the impression that bigd thought of himself as perfect, but eating meat on friday definitely isnt punishable by hellfire-

ive heard countless arguments on this inane topic- over the years-its really not one of the big issues in the church.

Victoria wrote:
---FATE- theres mortal sin and venial sin---

Yes, and catholics learn that mortal sin, not absolved, is a straight ticket to hell. Eating meat on a Friday I don't think meets you definition of a mortal sin but the church made it one. You can read my arguments about this with bigd, who is defending the faith, above. My passion for this and other religion topics is driven by the bigd's of the world who take their religious human institutions and consider them perfect because they represent the faith and tout themselves perfect. A perfect human is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

FATE- theres mortal sin and venial sin-

qickly, mortal is contrary to the ultimate achievement of the end(gods divine law and our placement thereof)and there are many varying degrees- i.e. sins of omission, intention etc-

venial- It does not avert us from our true last end, it does not destroy charity, the principle of union with God, nor deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and it is intrinsically reparable. It is pardonable; in itself meriting, not eternal, but temporal punishment.
It is sin at variance (not contrary) to HUMAN law, and things like appetite fall under this category.

While dbig? stated that dogma is unchanging- actually limbo is pretty widely recognized as coming into popularity, and crystallizing into dogma from dantes purgatorio- so it really wasnt a dogma before that, was for hundreds of years, and apparently is fallen out of favor.

as for transubstantiation- theres a church called lorenzo in spain, that has a piece of flesh and some blood, miracles that occured i forget when- validated by the church as such and considered proof positive- most catholics approach this (IMHO) more symbollically-

i never took such a hard stance against the OT- i felt Jesus(ata) was a practicing jew- and the OT was certainly his heritage and scripture- he didnt denounce any past wars or violence, but he certainly reinterpreted his own scripture in a most lenient way, and called to account those hardhearted who "pracriced the letter of the law, while missing it's spirit"

he was definitely an esoteric jew.
peace all, i found this interesting

ps- frank- islamic is an adjective and i,personally have a more noun-like nature

Brother Eboo,
Thank you for sharing that moving story. I think that this anecdotally answers the question that was posed. The message: we as individuals can choose and our faith traditions speak to those choices.

I have been reading many peoples' posts on this and other threads and a constant question keeps coming up: "If God is so great and loving, why does He allow all of these terrible incidents to happen?" The most basic and foundational answer is, "Because He allows us to choose."

One thing that countless people fail to realize is that the three Abrahamic faith traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all share an understanding that human being are meant to be in relationship with God. Now an honest treatment of those three faith traditions will show that the forms that this relationship takes are different, but the foundational notion of a human and divine relationship is present.

It is for this reason that God gives us the ability to choose, for no relationship would be truly genuine without the ability to choose. For example, if I created a computer that, whenever I turned it on, said, "I love you Nick" I would still be left feeling empty, knowing that the computer had no choice. It loves me because I forced it to do so. It has no other option. Such an interaction is not a relationship, but rather, a hollow gesture.

My relationship with my fiancee, on the other hand, illustrates a very different kind of relationship. Recently I had a conversation with her in which I revealed some parts of myself and my past that I am not proud of. At the end of it, she paused and said something that I will never forget: "I love seeing your naked heart and I love and accept you, warts and all". I cannot tell you how much that meant to me, knowing that she chooses to love me, even in spite of my mistakes. I think that this is the kind of relationship that God desires to have with us.

In my own faith tradition, Jesus tells us that, "there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance" (Luke 15:7). God already knows all of our faults and chooses to love us in spite of them. However, He will not force that relationship on anyone. We must, in turn, choose Him. In the end, God gives us exactly what we want in this regard: either life with Him or without Him. That choice is up to us.

What is clear is that there are those who choose a life without Him, even if they profess otherwise. There are countless actions by people of faith who are saying that they can fulfill this relationship with God by killing those who, according to them, are not. So the issue is not God, the issue is the choice of human beings. So the question we need to be asking ourselves is, "How am I going to choose to live for God today and how can I grow in my relationship with Him?" People of faith need to be reminded to put God first above their own agendas, because the failure to do so leads to the kinds of devastation that we see in Darfur, Iraq, and countless other places around the world. We need to know who we are in relationship with and live lives that reflect the nature of that relationship.

May God's hand of healing be upon each of us.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Price

Fate -

I have explained this several ways that I think most people can understand and find logical. You don't agree and that is fine - but it doesn't seem like you want to accept any of the legitamte arguments as you keep asserting things that simply aren't believed.

Yes it is transubstantiated and I believe there is more evidence for this in the Bible and in the early Church history then any other view. Quite certain I won't be able to change your mind though so I am not going to argue with you.

I think the Church would have died out after Jesus's death - if it wasn't true. Just me though.

I think you are unfortunately mis informed and you seem to be basing your beliefs on an elementary school education - just from your references that you keep referring to.

I wish you the best - I hope you actually look into the facts with an open mind and heart some day.

BIDG wrote:
---While the observance might have changed slightly I can commit a mortal sin against it just as easily today as anyone throughout history has -- so it does apply equally around the globe - through time. It is still a sin to break the precept.---

Yes, but you must consider that while all other mortal sins are pretty well defined this one is not. Penance is a general term. It can mean fasting any day. It can mean working in a soup kitchen instead of going to a ball game. Its something I admire the church for encouraging. But encouragement is different from making eating meat on a specified day a mortal sin. There are three problems:

1) Specifying an absolute penance.
2) The punishment being a mortal sin.
3) It is not defined in the bible as a sin.

What other penance does the church require which if broken results in a mortal sin? I'm sorry BIGD, I just do not understand why what should be an encouragement to be pious is on an equal level with one of God's ten commandments. And only in certain countries, at certain times of the year, can be waved by special dispensation, and it changes over time.

Look, I understand that the church is fallible and you seem to accept it makes mistakes. I think the church screwed up this canon law by making it a mortal sin, and once done, could not undo it. I don't know nor care, but having grown up catholic it is one of the main curiousities I came across and helped me understand that the church is a very human organization but those humans believe they are infallible and will use their power to maintain that image. I don't think they need to be so rigid and disciplined. I mean, is the communion host ACTUALLY transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ? You can believe this but my understanding of the Last Supper was that Christ used the bread and wine as a metaphor, equating his soon to be death with the sacrifice of a lamb whose meat is shared to seal a compact. Christ may well have said to "do this in rememberance of me" but he never said to do it because my body and blood will be present when you do it. As usual, my questions on this in catholic school were met with violence.

I think if you look at the catholic church's history you will find it would have died out had Constantine not spread it as Rome's national religion through war and conquering others. It was then maintained through strict controls, cherry picking the gospels, and eventually through the Inquisition. Today it is a relatively benevolent religion. It has matured. Maybe Islam is going through what Christianity did during its darker days, I don't know, but when you step back and look at christianity as a whole, with all its claims, its about as easy to believe as believing in the easter bunny, which by the way you cannot prove does not exist. I guess, in the end, my main problem is that if the church said black is white there is no way anyone could argue with a catholic that this is not correct. The requirement for strict belief with horrible consequences for even questioning the doctrine reminds one of a cult. I do not think the catholic church is a cult, but the level of control is very tight.

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE COMPASSIONATE AND MERCIFUL

The Prophet of Islam and the Jews: Basis of Conduct, Acceptance, Respect and Cooperation
By Faysal Burhan, Edited by Michael D. Berdine

Islam Denounce Violence -- Freedom of Belief, no Compulsion in Islam
Islam does not Command Muslims to Kill Westerner, Christians or Jews

Introduction
America is the land of opportunity, where people of different ethnicity and nationality together share a common land. Muslims and Jews have a chance here for better understanding of one another and for participating in activities that would bring mutual benefits to both communities.
Unlike the popular, Islam is not a hostile religion. Acceptance, kindness, respect and cooperation are divine Islamic principles revealed to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, (p) for conducting his affairs with the People of the Book (the Jews and Christians). These principles have led to the establishment of the constitution of the first pluralistic community known in history, in the City of Medina, in the Arabian Peninsula, in the year 622 CE. The Constitution of Medina is the first written civil and political law spelling out the freedom of worship, trade and speech, community defense against its enemy, promotion of justice and goodness, and the fighting of evil.
The city of Medina is where people of different faiths and nationalities, including Jews, Muslims, Ethiopians and Persians lived together in cooperation, peace and harmony.
This article addresses certain Jewish and Muslim historical events and Islamic principles relevant to the mutual benefits for both Jews and Muslims. Furthermore, the divine laws and the historical events are proofs that Muslim's relation with the People of the Book is based on acceptance, consideration and collaboration.
Although the subject of this book is about the Prophet of Islam and the Jews, Christians and other ethnic groups are treated in the same manner. A beautiful work made by Dr. William Baker, a Christian Scholar and archaeologist, in his latest book, More in Common than you Think, Bridge Between Islam and Christianity, I strongly recommend not only Christians to read, but every man and women of any faith.
Although, some hostilities and differences between the Muslims and the Jews occurred during and after the life of the Prophet (p), the causes were not that Islam changed its standards, but rather the breaking of covenants such as that of the tribe of Quraythah with the Prophet, as we will see later under the title: "Harmony is the Goal of Every Muslim." Recreantly, hostility between the Jews and Muslims is about the conflict in Palestine. As President William Clinton, Palestinian Authority Leader Yassir Arafat and Benjamin Netanyahu and others, are moving toward peace in the region, we hope that justice and peace will return to that part of the world.
Next is a focus on some of the universal Islamic principles relevant to the topic and which include Christians and others.

Conviction not Compulsion
Compulsion in religion is incompatible with the spirit of faith. This is certainly true in the Islamic Faith. Religious belief must depend on people's free-will and choice. Islam establishes that people's belief must come by conviction. A believer is one who willingly, through the signs of God in the universe and in himself, and through inner-self satisfaction, accepts the faith of Islam. The Holy Qur'an is plentiful of verses and examples on this subject. Since belief by conviction is not our topic here we will not discuss any of these relevant verses. Confirming the "no compulsion-in-religion" Islamic principle, however, the following Qur'anic quotations are considered:

"If it had been the Lord's Will, they would all have believed- all who are on earth: will you then (Muhammad) compel mankind, against their will, to believe?" Qur'an, 10: 99.

Another Qur'anic verse states:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error." Qur'an, 2: 256.

The two verses above basically establish the no-force, or pressure to be used or applied to force people, including Christians and Jews to be Muslims. This principle is clearly reflected in the life and practice of the Prophet Muhammad, and is reflected in the Constitution of Medina which guarantees the freedom of worship for all.

Qur'an Teaches Peaceful Dialogue
A Muslim is encouraged to carry out an intellectual dialogue with the People of the Book to establish and improve relations. Following are two examples:

"Say O people of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you that we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than God. If then they turn back, say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God's Will)." Qur'an, 3:64.

"Say: We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another." Qur'an, 3:84.

After all, it is an integral part of Muslim's faith to honor Prophets Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all other prophets of God, and follow their teachings.

Acceptance and Understanding
Islam teaches the Muslim to be kind, tolerant and understanding, and to establish fraternity among all people. The Qur'an tells us that God has made people into nations and tribes in order to know and deal with each other in kindness, and that the best of us is he who is more pious than others.

"O humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know and deal with each other in kindness (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God (is he who is) the most righteous of you, and God is Knower, Aware." Qur'an, 49:13.

Thus, Islam bases people's relational conduct on kindness. Hence, it condemns intolerance, prejudice and bigotry, and rejects discrimination based on color, creed, national origin or religion.

The Muslim acceptance applies to all elements of life and must reflect in all of the Muslim's affairs. The teaching of Islam towards proper behavior, anger control, patience, treatment of spouse, parent, neighbor, the young and the old, the friend, the enemy, the environment and specifically the People of the Book are evident in the Holy Qur'an and the life and example of the Prophet Muhammad (p).
In calling people to the Islamic Faith, for example, a Muslim must be wise, sensitive, humble and considerate. The Qur'an teaches:

"Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and discuss with them in ways that are best and most gracious." Qur'an, 16:25.

The Muslim's acceptance of the Jews and Christians, is even more intense and specifically addresses the Muslims to prevent any communication or approach that would lead to dispute, anger or negative implication between the two parties. Allah instructs the Muslims:

"And dispute not with People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury." Qur'an, 29:46.

The Prophet (p) also said:

"Let it be known, if any one (Muslim) commits injustice, insults, aggravates, mistreats or abuses a person of the People of the Book (protected, by the state or an agreement), he will have to answer me (for his immoral action) on the Day of Judgment." Izzeddin Blaque, Minhaj Alsaliheen, Page 106.

Mr. Patel,

Who should we blame for the destruction and death of the jews of medina, Mohammad or Islam ?

Who should we blame for the exploitation of 9 year old Aisha, Mohammad or Islam ?

Norrie Hoyt

Of course I was not referring to the goal of Islam today but of the times you mentioned in your post.

Norrie Hoyt

Your claim that Islam may have been more tolerant may be a bit biased. Remember Islam as a religion has political goals. Once they gain political power to rule the land (achieved through violence and forced conversions in many cases), then it is mission accomplished to a great extent. At that point, a ruler may choose to be lenient with people of other faiths, depending on his whim. Non-Muslims only need to pay tax, so it is good for the state koffer.

Fate -

I am not sure we are going to get anywhere but...

Let me try another example. You seemed to agree with the idea that penance is a valid idea in the Church. I assume you also know that the Church only has 5 Precepts that it asks believers to follow, one of which is this fasting. So there are only 5 rules the Church asks you to do on a regular basis - pretty simple.

So I also assume you know the reason for doing penenance and would agree that doing penance is supposed to be at least a small challenge.

So if in Spain they do not follow this penance but instead have another maybe its because not eating meat isn't much of a penance there since their diet is heavily fish orientated what penance would it be to eat fish on Friday? This is the reason it can change by country. To better suit the intended purpose of penance to a particular culture.

And through time the Church has asked for this to be one of the precepts. While the observence might have changed slightly I can commit a mortal sin against it just as easily today as anyone throughout history has -- so it does apply equally around the globe - through time. It is still a sin to break the precept.

...unless you're in Spain. God's law is not applied equally around the globe or through time. Again, what should the poor soul in hell think when his mortal sin is no longer a sin?

Fate -

This is the Canon Law:

Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

US Bishops (the Episcopal Conference) - adjusted the US observence to only Friday's of lent with other penance being acceptable the rest of the year.

As I stated the mortal sin is NOT from eating meat. It is for willfully disobeying the teaching of the Church without good reason. The Church teaches you should not eat meat on Friday's if you know this and do it anyway without good reason then its a mortal sin.

BIGD,

You have not answered all the questions. The main one now is why eating meat is a mortal sin in one country but not in another. You say the bishops make local practice decisions, but if those practices have mortal sin as a result of not observing the practice, then I have a problem with the church's cannon law which should apply equally to all men.

Its these types of things that used to get the nun to swat the ruler on my knuckles. I dared bring out the obvious inconsistencies or outright contradictions in canon law or the bible when all I wanted was an inconsistency cleared up. I quickly realized that God had little to do with anything associated with the church.

I agree, there is no point in banging our heads against a wall, but its not a wall I made. I enjoyed being a catholic when I was one. Its not the religion so much as the people who, for lack of a better term, ENFORCE it and its rules, which when pointed out as being arbitrary in some cases was met with violence. No religion should use or condone violence in anyway.

Norrie -

Well I am not sure how they are trying to take your freedoms away if not in the public political forum.

As I detailed the only issues they are trying to make non-believers listen to are where they see a grave injustice - in their eyes murder. Not whether or not you drink alcohol.

The Church does speak out and seek to outlaw actions it views as murder and I don't see how that is wrong or trying to take away your freedom. I wouldn't call it tolerance if a religion that believes something is murder didn't speak out against. Murder is still against the civil law not just the religous law.

BIGD,

I'm afraid your latest post at 2:48 pm isn't responsive to mine of 2:16.

My quotes do not say that I think the Catholic Church "does not have the right to express its opinions in the public forum."

I said I object to the Church's trying to take non-believers' freedoms away. There's a big difference.

A tolerant religion would allow other religious communities to do things their ways, rather than trying to enforce its beliefs on all citizens.

I noted earlier that in classic Islam, Islamic states allowed religious communities within the states to legislate for themselves on religiously sensitive matters, such the drinking of alcohol.

So it would seem that Islam centuries ago was more tolerant than the Catholic Church is today on allowing non-believers to follow their own consciences on social issues.

NORRIE - Quotes from you:

"My beef is with the Catholic Church as a political force, trying to enact its beliefs into law to the detriment of non-Catholics."

"Actually, most of my concern has to do with the Church's attempts to prevent freedoms"

"This isn't about "Catholic hatred" or license to do whatever I please. It's about keeping the Church from taking away fundamental human freedoms from those who don't share its doctrines."

In your last post on your issues against the Church you posted a series of your beliefs that you disagreed with the Church on. Then you asserted that they were trying to force their beliefs on you through politics. See the first quote above. These are just from this thread.

Fate -

I guess there is no reasoning with you. I have already explained all of these points. Unless someone else wants me to I am not going to just keep giving you all the information and you just keep ignoting them and posting your same response.

Of course I am sure you will take this as avoiding your question and we can start all over again.

BIGD,

Please show me where I ever posted that, as you say, I think the Catholic Church "does not have the right to express its opinions in the public forum."

Thanks.

Well, as I was taught, "serious" meant it went against God's/Christ's teachings. God/Jesus never taught to abstaine from eating meat or doing penetance on Friday. This is all made up by the church, with some reasoning I admit. But still, a MORTAL sin?

But a mortal sin it is, not because it meets any criteria but because it is so ordained by the pope and his bishops in the US (at least back in the 60s). And, of course, the pope is infallible in this even though other catholics in other places are not covered by the law. In fact, you can go to Spain and eat meat on Friday. But what other sin can you commit in other locations on the planet?

But regardless, why do people in hell for eating meat on a Friday before 1966 have to watch those eating meat on Friday today going to heaven? Extra punishment? Did the pope change his mind? Did God change his mind? Or my theory, the pope changed God's mind and those poor souls will be left to burn in hell.

I agree, the church defines its laws as God's laws. I just wonder how they can change them and God complies. Just who is in control here, man or God? I think you know my answer.

FATE -

If I profess to being Catholic and claim to believe what the Catholic Church teaches and I know that it teaches to not eat meat on Friday as one of its very, very few set rules. Don't you think that if I will fully disobey it - that it is then serious? What makes it serious is willfully disobeying what you profess to believe.

Church Law, God Law - I thought that was the point I made. If the Church is the Church of Jesus (you can debate that) then wouldn't it make sense that the Church Law is God's Law?

Norrie -

I did not respond to all the things you disagree with the Church on because I am not trying to change your opinion on specific beliefs of the Church.

You have asserted in several posts that you think the Catholic Church is a violent organization, that does not have the right to express its opinions in the public forum. I have simply tried to counter what I believe are false assertions. We can debate each of your grievances with the Church if you like -- but that is a seperate debate.

The Catholic Church isn't out to take away any fundamental freedoms. To use FATE's example its not trying to make everyone not eat meat on Friday. But in matters that the Church believes are not freedoms but in fact serious offenses against humanity (i.e. Abortion) of course its going to stand up and make its voice known. What kind of faith would it be if it believed something was murder yet stood by and did nothing about it?

If you want to debate the merits of the euthanasia argument we can do that seperately and I am happy to - I don't know if this is the place for it though.

Well, now that you bring up the three criteria lets look at them:
1: Serious matter that ruptures you relationship with God.
2: Deliberately doing the action.
3: Knowledge that it is wrong.

How does eating meat on Friday, a Canon Law, meet the first criteria? I was taught and all the references to this subject I can find say it is a mortal sin. Yet I see no way eating meat on Friday, which is never mentioned in the bible, can be a mortal sin.

And I understand the non-universality of the eating meat law. The Spanish never observed it from what I read. How can it be a serious matter if only some people are held to this law?

You wrote:
---So no the Pope does not dictate what God does, but IF the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established -- then if its followers willfully disobey a teaching of the Church without just reason then yes it can be a mortal sin and I believe God would hold the same opinion.---

So you "believe" God would hold the same opinion. But that's not what the church says. They say that Church Law IS God's law. On earth as it is in heaven BIGD.

Fate -

I won't keep arguing back and forth with you. I gave you the teaching of the Church and the very limited aspect that it believes in any sort of infallibility. It has always asserted that all people, even the Pope, are capable of making errors or sin.

In regards to eating meat. This could be a long discussion. I will try to make this a short response.

A Mortal Sin requires 3 specific criteria. So just because someone ate meat does not mean it was a mortal sin - but yes it could be. If you want me to explain this further I can but I'll let you decide.

The change in the observation of this actually is only a US change. The rest of the world (as far as I am aware) still follows this practice. Each country under the directions of its Bishops can make changes to practices of the faith - not to the faith itself.

You are correct obviously only God decides who goes to heaven or hell. But if you believe the Bible and understand it the way the Catholic church does Jesus specifically told the disciples that whatever sins they forgave on earth would be forgiven in heaven and whatever sins they held bound on earth would be bound in heaven. So no the Pope does not dictate what God does, but IF the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus established -- then if its followers willfully disobey a teaching of the Church without just reason then yes it can be a mortal sin and I believe God would hold the same opinion.

This is all contingent on your beliefs of course -- you very well may not believe most or any of this and that is fine. But if you understand it the way the Church does then it makes sense.