All Comments (13)

I have seen Prof. Crosson on TV, and read his dissenting views on traditional Roman Catholic beliefs and teachings. He is a liberal/radical theologian in the mold of Hans Kung, Curran, Schillebeeckx, and others who formented dissent during and immediatly after Vatican II.
Though everyone is entitled to their opinion, I always thought it would have been a good idea if Prof. Crosson, as well as Charles Curran, Hans Kung, Jean Jadot, Joan CHittister,Janinne Grammick, Matthew Fox, Karl Rahner, etc. had been totally honest and renounced Catholicism and become Protestants (as their theological views reflect), rather than remaining Catholics for 40 years and spreading erroneous teachings.

the earth is the lord,s and all that is in it.
the world,and those who live in it.

1-the lord is the maker ,the initiator,the inovator,the shaper of the earth.

2-the lord is not never not part of the earth,nor the earth is part of the creator the lord.

3-the lord is the creator while the earth and all that is in is the creation.

4-jesus and his honorable mother are from this earth from this world of mankind from the descandants of adam and eve.

5-there is no difference between the miracle of the birth of jesus who came from a virigin mother with no father and the miracle of creating adam from clay or the miracle of the birth of any mankind from a sperm and an egg,all share the same clay foot title of mankind humankind,all share the creation but not never not the lordship ,the lordship belongs to the creator.

6-the miracle of the reesurection of jesus is no more no less than the miracle of any resurection of any mankind ,the creator lord who initiated mankind can much easier recycle and resurect any mankind any time any how.

Jeff, I like your comments on materialism. As a physicist myself, I have watched modern physics turn from intuitive 'classical' models to the "spooky resonances and probabilities" of quantum mechanics to even spookier concepts about "information" and quantum computing which are just recently emerging among academic circles.

The vatican also rails against 'relativism', staking their faith on the 'universal truths' documented in the Bible. But this is a condescending, self-centered attitude, in which they are the sole proprietors of 'truth'. The Roman Catholic God is limited to their interpretation of scripture and does not take advantage of what the human race has gained over the last 2K years. I like to think of various religions as different windows through which we can glimpse God (or 'transcendence', or possibly what you call 'wonder'). Like any window, the Catholic view is limited -- it has yellowed with age and has dirt and smudges and imperfections that prevent a clear view. I strive to find a better view of God. If that is what they mean by relativism, then I am all for it.

JWS Thanks.

I appreciate your clarifications of the definitions between belief and faith.

The site is, after all, called "On Faith," so there must be some implication that it's not a straightforward concept for many, if there are upwards of 20 or so regular panelists.

What you might call "transcendence," I would call "wonder." And I think that those of us lucky enough not to be more worried whether or not we'll be killed day by day, or starve, or survive another day of cancer, have a uniquely incredible experience when we sense "wonder."

And I admire your ability to enjoy the transcendent experience--Sam Harris has received lots of "flak" from the atheist community regarding his appreciation of the transcendent.

The only thing I do have concerns about, and probably the reason so many a-theists (like myself) post to On Faith are where we see "...without being held back by the limitations of belief" lived-out in the public sphere, and a better word in that sentence in the context I use it would be "reason."

I read something last night that struck me as true: it seems that the demonization of the word "materialism" usually is described in the context of selfish consumerism, or as a fixation on what can be felt by the hand. I was reading a commentary by a modern philosopher who suggested that, in general, those people who are the biggest champions of the free-market economy, the Adam Smith Invisible Hand market where individual (selfish) desires have an even-handed, smoothing effect and result of equalization of the workings of the economy, are generally mostly "vehement Christians." All in all, I would agree.

So it always strikes me funny when "materialism" is presented in a dialogue that also includes such vices as "amorality" or "spiritual void" or "problems with society."

I agree with Professor Chet Raymo on this one:
"Materialism is a worn out word that lost its philosophical usefulness at about the time the atoms of the physicists dissolved into spooky resonances and probabilities."

Att: Comrades, Vanguards, Inheritors, Reclaimer’s of O.U.R. Holy Cosmic Space Ship “1-Earth-Place”

From: 1-Earth-Place:

Hello Friends, Of Holy “Cosmic-Ship-Yard Made” Space-Ship Earth(s) via Momm/Poppa NEBULA:

Hello Friends, Of Holy “Cosmic-Ship-Yard Made” Space-Ship Earth(s):

Besides his mezmerising "Baratone-Voice', Sir Borack Hussain Obama is a smooth "Situational Liar!"

And his Oprah Winfrey , the vintriloquist et al, like Nation Of Islam etc.., is a beguiling Mass-Media “Mind control” Operator!

Nice try!

Yes Yes Yes, So INSTEAD,

VOTE: Hillary by the S.E.A.

Atten-Hut!

Salute & Vote:

The Commander-iN-CHiEF: Hillary by the S.E.A.

S..O-L-U-T-i-O-N’s!
E..X-P-E-R-i-E-N-C-E!
A..C-T-i-O-N!

Thank You!
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FRM CONEY ISLAND NEW YORK
Better my CLINTON Not BORACK!
Better my CLINTON than McCAIN!
Better me CLINTON Not BORACK!
Better CLINTON’S than OBAMA‘s!.....________________
Better the CLINTON's than the McCAIN's! Thank You ALL!

--
Vote: The Prophecy for 2009:

“A once in a life-Time Opportunity!”

Note: Hillary & Bill are GOG (TRUTH/Reality) 'NOT' Barack & Michelle, MAGOG (illusion/Delusion)!

Another thought, It would be interesting to know if the Pope shares my views on the difference between faith and belief. My suspicion is that he does not. The Roman Catholic church makes rules (based on their interpretation of scripture) which they expect their members to follow. If a member does not follow the rules then they may be excommunicated. That seems to me to be confusing faith with belief.

Jeff P, unfortunately, I have found many self-focused people who you could say advocate selfishness through their actions. For example, libertarianism, as I understand it has an element of 'every man for himself' (Sorry if I am offending any libertarians out there)

And I agree with you that there is much value in many of the tenets of secular humanism. But I would also caution that there are additional benefits to having 'faith'. And by faith I don't mean 'belief' which is often confused with faith. Belief is the practice of knowing physical 'facts' about the transcendent (e.g. anthropomorphic caricatures of God, born of a virgin, walks on water, etc.). Sometimes (but not always) beliefs are destructive to society. Faith, rather is the looking outwards (or inwards) toward the transcendent without being held back by the limitations of belief.

For me, faith is the underlying model I use to understand myself, my surroundings, and my community. As Joseph Campbell would probably say, it is my mythology -- the truth behind the fiction. In a nutshell, it is my relationship with God.

JWS:
Thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate your response.

Maybe Professor Crossan then could have used terms such as "selfishness," "discord," and I'm not sure what might be the opposite of "nonphysical" except "physical," which I would still have some difficulty with. Physical is what we live with for the most part.

And in that vein, I'm not sure who would be an advocate for the opposite of "generosity," or the opposite of "cooperation," although we get into some trouble with "non-physical." Because we can all agree on most of those things, and they need not be declared particularly and specifically from a religious leader.

Secular humanism won't hold the exclusive mandate for our species survival, but it will be an important component, and a method to agree on at least the supposition of basic human value and dignity and worth. History has shown that religion hasn't accomplished that for us as a species, and the gods don't give much support universal human value. And we might should not confuse the need for "faith," versus the need for "hope" which are not the same things.

Signing out, but thanks for your reply!
Jeff

"Finally, then, while the Pope looked outward and made several very accurate structural criticisms of society, he never looked inward and made similar criticisms of his own hierarchy."

Crossan is no more Catholic than Susan Jacoby.

Did he not see the major focus on scandal during the trip....perhaps his is blinded by his animosity towards his former religion...

Professor Crossan,

As usual, a great presentation of reality.

Below is what I consider the entire list of crises/flaws/lack of reality in our contemporary Catholic Church:

The inappropriate conduct of many priests, the emotional stress on the victims and the resultant billion dollars in lawsuits.

The lack of talent in the priesthood.

The lack of Vatican response to the historic Jesus movement.

The Church's continuing cling to original sin and the resulting subsets of crazy ideas like limbo.

The denial of priesthood to women.

The restriction of priesthood to single men (unless you are former Episcopalian priests),

The continued chain of Vatican "leadership" by old European white men.

Uncontrolled Catholic version of “birth control".

And uncontrolled suffering of the aged that need not be.

Thoughts??

You could also call the opposite of materialism, 'generosity'; and the opposite of individualism, 'cooperation'; and the opposite of secular, 'transcendent' or 'nonphysical'

These antonyms have a decidedly more positive spin than the ones you suggest.

While I do criticize many who practice 'religion' for what I perceive as hypocrisy. There are yet other NON-'secular humanists' (i.e. people practicing christianity or other religions) who in my mind have a lot in common with the ethics and worldview of secular humanism. So I don't think it is valid to say that secular humanism has an exclusive hold on moving our species forward.

"...Based on that completely correct principle, the Pope criticized materialism, individualism and secularism in the United States. That triad does not represent mere private problems for individuals but systemic and structural problems for our society."

Before I could meaningfully comment, I'd need to know what this quote meant?

Those are lofty terms that have been used and abused by clergy for any number of reasons, but most of which I've heard in the context of how sinful and fallen the "world" is ("the world" generally meaning anything beyond the confines of our worship community.) In this immediate context they are "problems for our society."

What would be the opposites? Immaterialism (spiritualism, supernaturalism?--have we had some history with that?), socialism or communism? (were those excellent political experiments?) , and theocracy? (just look on the map where theocracy exists, would you want to live there?)

I view any attempts at "interfaith" dialogue beginning with a realization that the only things we can agree on, and that can actually move our species forward (perhaps keeping us from blowing each other up) is a very secular humanism.

How am I wrong on this point?

Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

The pope, dressed in his fancy clothes and living in first-class accommodations (aka The Vatican) would do well to heed these words, and clearly has an image problem if he wants me to take him seriously. He is placed on a pedestal, which is completely contrary to how Jesus wanted to be treated.

It is not limited to the Catholic hierarchy either. In my experience, there are many protestants who also have this problem of being self-focused. I have been in churches that are too focused on arguing about the colors of the chairs, the version of the liturgy used, the grandness of their buildings, etc. while spending precious little effort and resources on serving the greater community around them.