Religious Bureaucrats Are To Religion As Military Music Is To Music

jblyIm U cool ))

jblyIm U cool ))

Great site!
25808814c0b37844d2b76ba384beb6f4

Jihadist, just a quick comment on what you said about logic,

"A = B = C therefore A = C - very logical

But put it words and it may turn out to be like this : I like chicken, chicken like chicken feed, therefore I like chicken feed.:)"

Yummy.

But that is not my argument on logic. Here it is as used by Greg Bahnsen in Pushing the Antithesis (in my own words):

Logic says that "A" cannot be both A and non-A. A bird is not a dog.

I did not equate A=B=C. That would be covered by the Law of Identity, that is A is A. That means that if a statement is true it is true. It cannot be both true and false simultaneously. A dog cannot be both a dog and a bird. A = dog; B = bird. A cannot be B.

My example was the Law of Contradiction. Stated logically, no statement can be both true and false in the same sense and at the same time. My car cannot be all blue and all not blue at the same time and in the same way.

The third Law of Excluded Middles states that "A is either A or not A." This law states that every statement must either be true or false exclusively, there is no middle ground. The example Greg gives is "something is either a chair or not a chair, it cannot be neither a chair nor not a chair. You are either here or you are not here, you cannot be neither here nor not here."

Hello again Jihadist and thank you for your spirit of gentleness. I recognize your sincerity. It reminds me of the verse in the book of Proverbs 15:1 "A gentle answer turns away wrath" not that I feel any wrath towards you whatsoever, however my name is Peter, and like the apostle Peter in the New Testament, I put my foot in my mouth and stir up anger in boldly speaking my mind. Then I have to rely on God's Word to turn away that anger.

Since I am working this weekend I would like to think about what you said and return to the discussion Monday or Tuesday after thinking more of what you have said.

By the way, thanks for the chat!

Jihadist, I have a couple more comments on your previous post in which you said,

"I have no problems with the beliefs of Christians as a People of the Book on God and the Prophets, and respect it as such, but, like all Muslims, the fundamental question remains for me - is the Nicene Creed really a necessary dogma for belief in God?"

If you understand that the reason for the creed was to address the schism created by Arius and that these councils were formed in order to combat false teaching and heresy, yes it was necessary. What is found in these creeds can be traced to the Bible itself.

TRADITIONAL WORDING

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Live,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

I understand your objections because it teaches what is contrary to the Qur'an. We have two competing views on God, although there are many similarities too. As I said before both cannot be right in their differences and I understand you think it is the Christian that is wrong.

The Qur'an teaches that Jesus is no more than a messager of Allah (Sura:171; 43:59), a forerunner of Muhammed (Sura 61:6). It teaches that Jesus was not crucified (Sura 4:156-57), that He is not God (Sura 4:171; 5:17; 5:72-73), that Jesus is not the Son of God (9:30; 19:35)

By the way, have you read the Old Testament or Jewish Scriptures? One of the central messages of the entire Old and New Testaments is the theme of mans rebellion and God's plan of redemption. On such ground the cross is central to both testaments. The sacrificial system and atonement presented throughout the Old Testament are also lessons of the price of rebellion and of God's only means of redemption. To get a better understanding read the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament, chapters 7-10.

The cross is foretold in so many ways. Since you say that Muslims have more in common with the Old Testament read Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53:1-12 or Deuteronomy 21:23 in conjunction with Matthew ch. 27 or Mark 15 or John ch. 19 & 20 or Acts 3:13-26 or Galatians 1:6-8 or 1 Corinthians 15:1-23.

Ask yourself how Christianity could have spread if those early disciples and apostles were preaching about someone who had risen from the dead when in fact they were lying about Him being killed and how amazingly they suffered excruciating deaths, along with many others while preaching such a lie. Do you think all these people would willingly suffer death to spread what they knew was a lie?

To squash the early spread of Christianity all the Roman officials would need to do is prove that Jesus had not risen by producing His body.

I would be interested to hear some of your thoughts on this.

The most important thing in the worship of God is to have an accurate understanding of who He is. Without it, you are worshiping something that is made up, an idol, a substitute. The Lord Jesus said, "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." (John 4:23-24)

As Christians we are warned about preaching a false gospel, and when we preach to preach the truth in love, but also with a spirit of boldness. (1 Corinthians 11:3-15 or Galatians 1:6-12; Acts 4:29; Philippians 1:14; 2 Timothy 1:7-8)

I hope you will read these passages before continuing. In return I will do the same with any that you direct me to in the Qur'an.

Hello Peter Huff

Thank you for your well considered and very thoughful response to my post.

Logic and reason can be messy as pointed out by a favourite teacher and the example he gave:

A = B = C therefore A = C - very logical

But put it words and it may turn out to be like this : I like chicken, chicken like chicken feed, therefore I like chicken feed.:)

Logical but not sound. That is why the sciences are easier recourses for some of those seeking the ultimate absolutely certainties of what they want to know and need to know.

Yes, one would expect that as a Muslim, I would be expected to say we cannot know anything as true except what God has revealed as being true.
Too simple by Muslim beliefs of God.

The Qur'an is quite specific that what we see here on earth is not proof and manifestations of God the Creator. It also encourage us to further investigate and discover all on earth (nature) and the heavens (cosmos) as manifestations of the God the Creator and source of life here on earth and in the cosmos.

When I speak of truth as being relative, it was in reference to claims by verious faiths that they have the ultimate "truth" on God. Speaking as a Muslim, the "truth", or rather the preffered word by Muslims is "belief" is very fundamental - There is no God, but God (meaning there is One and Only Creator).

As for "truth" at the temporal level, the Qur'an is very specific as defined by mortals on a given situation - credible witnesses are needed, and if witnesses said untruths about, say rape, the witness in turn is to be punished. Slander or untruths said by men, is one of the offences by men most hated by God as stated in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an is also quite specific that once a truth has been revealed, and we don't believe, than the disbelievers are condemned. Most would think this to be the truth revealed about God by words said about God, but in fact, it is also about seeing the manifestations of the work of a greater force, God, and denying that that is an ultimate Creator, an Ultimate Originator of life in the universe that is God.

Human understanding of and arrival at a "truth" is relative and subjective as it may change with new information and knowledge. The truth and proof of God is subjective from person to person. Truth is the objective we are seeking, but all paths to arrive at the truth are differently taken to arrive at.

Yes, it may seems that my "position" may seem to be that of "tolerance", but it is, for me, the most logical one in keeping one open the continuing discovery of the wonder of the work of the Creator to get closer to God here on earth and beyond in the cosmos.

As a Muslim, I regard Christians and Jews as People of the Book as they accept and belief there is God. Like most Muslims, I know Judaism don't regard Christ as the Messiah, and Christians don't consider Prophet Muhammad PBUH as a Prophet and Messenger of God. II accept Jesus as one of the greatest Prophets of God. But to let God be subsumed by any of his prophets in importance and in belief would belittle God, the God those Prophets from Moses to Jesus to Muhammad spoke of and for as the Ultimate Creator and Master of All Creations.

Thank you and best regards
J

To A Hermit, hello there,

From your quoted comments in your posts and below it sounds like you are an atheist in search of a god. That would explain why you are on an "On Faith" Forum.

"I won't back down from criticizing those who use religion or faith to justify evil and hatred, but I won't condemn all believers because of the bad behaviour of the view. And I certainly wouldn't use that bad behaviour to bash people of good faith and gentle spirit, like Jihadist or Victoria. I'll disagree with them, perhaps, but I'll do so respectfully and with an open mind and a willingness to learn, not with the arrogant and hateful attitude that you too often display."

How open is your mind? It's funny that you use judgment to distinguish the bad from the good, at least in you terms, but where do these value judgments come from in an atheistic, evolutionary, chance universe? Is it a question that science can answer?

By the way, I'm grateful that you do not condemn all believers. As a Christian condemnation is for God alone, but I point you to the only true God in the hope that you do not get lost in the marketplace of ideas, thinking that all worldviews are valid.

What place does truth have with error but to expose it trusting that God, in His mercy and grace may also give others a spirit of understanding that they may know Him.

Hello Jihadist,

For now I would just like to respond to the statements you made about truth quoted below in parenthesis,

""Truth" is relative and based on one's own experience, perception and interest...

"- There is no one "Truth" in religion. The Sunnis and the Shiites have their own versions on Hadiths and Islamic history, and consequently on aspects of faith. The Catholic Church, or rather the Pope/Vatican, thinks and says its version of Christianity is the true one and the most legimate on Christian "truths". And in essence, all other faiths and beliefs are 'untruths""

"I am with anyone who makes sense. Anyone who is rational in their beliefs and faiths. Or unbelief for that matter. There are some people who are "rational" on religion as a delusion who are irrational and wrong about everything else - from history to economics politics to global affairs to philosophy to science."

When you say truth is relative and that you are with anyone who makes sense, your statements indicate that you are not making sense.

Something cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same sense. Truth cannot be relative in the sense that it changes depending on the subjective beliefs of each person. It goes against logic and rationale. In order for truth to be true it has to be just that. And yet you are trying to use logic and reason to support such a view that depending on subjective outlook that it changes. Truth is not subjective, but objective. We discover it, just like we discover the laws or gravity or science or logic. We don't make it up as we go to suit our individual preferences. Logic says that "A" cannot be both a and non-A. A bird is not a dog.

My position is that your position is a guise for tolerance because no two religions say the same thing, so therefore cannot both/all be true.

To me, what you are saying is like when you come to a red traffic light you have to stop and when you come to a red traffic light you have to go, or claiming that no one can know anything is true while assuming that at least one thing is true, that no one can know anything is true.

As a Muslim, I at least expected you to say that we cannot know anything as true except what Allah has revealed as being true, because as a Christian that is how I come to my standard of truth; what the God of the Bible has revealed as truth is the standard for truth. It is not my standard, but a standard that is objective, ultimate, and absolute, outside of me and by which I can make sense of the world and know truth by - His Word. My faith does not rest on mans wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:5)

The God of the Bible (or Book) is not a God of contradictions. He tells me through the inspired Word to let my yes be yes and my no, no. (2 Corinthians 1:17-20) He tells me that a kingdom divided cannot stand (Luke 11:17); that no one can serve two Masters (Matthew 6:24); that with God it is impossible to lie (Hebrews 6:16-19); that He is unchanging (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17); that His Word is flawless (Proverbs 30:5), eternal (Psalm 119:89) and true (John 17:17).

From His revelation I determine the standard for truth. “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)

And without an objective reference point (God) everything becomes meaningless and absurd. It just becomes one person’s preference and bias against another person’s preference and bias.

When you say that you are with anyone who makes sense whether that be someone who believes or someone who does not believe you do not make sense. You see, there is an antithesis between belief and unbelief. They state two opposite things. It’s like saying, ‘That car is one color, red and blue’ or ‘the USA is located on the continent of North America and the USA is located on the continent of Africa.’ Both statements are not true because, for one, they contradict each other.

Both Islam and Christianity cannot both be true, because their claims are different/opposite, although both are steeped in religious tradition that trace their ancestors through Abraham and recognize the Old Testament, one says one thing and the other another; one believes through Ishmael and one believes through Isaac.

Judaism and Christianity compliment each other along these lines, in the belief that God chose and blessed Isaac and through Israel (another name for Isaac) the Messiah would come. The difference between Christianity and Judaism is that the Jews do not recognize Jesus as coming Messiah, through the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the One prophesied in the Old Testament.

To Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

You said,

"Contemporary NT scholars have reviewed the foundations of Christianity and found them flawed and have noted so in over 100 books"

The way you (or anybody) look at the evidence all depends on what your starting point is. I can also pick 100 books to favor my position. As for the evidence on the early church writings, have you ever read any of it? The key wording is "Contemporary NT scholars" and when you look at the list, a common theme is that these, for the most part are liberal scholars, influenced by the period known as the Enlightenment, who have their own agenda and bias. Nobody ever comes to evidence from a neutral standpoint.

The question is, and will always remain, how do you determine truth and what is your standard?

Without God you can not have a reliable one or know truth. Is your standard made up by the greatness of your own mind, or by the greatness of an infinite mind? Do you determine it from a myriad of minds that are subjective and molded or from an objective mind that is free of bias, sees the total picture and knows all things?

Because your starting point is there is no single sovereign authority by which we can know truth you become that authority as does every other person who believes that right is determined "in their own eyes" (Judges 17:6)

So what you do is you blur the distinctions that God has made in an attempt to justify your own belief. That is fine if you want to deceive yourself.

Tolerance is a funny thing when any view is tolerated except the view that does not tolerate every view. But in tolerating almost every view as valid there is a leap from logic and non-contradiction into the irrational and contradictory world of make believe in which even the most absurd view, as long as it is not Christianity, is tolerated. That is fine, but how do you make sense of the hard questions, or how do you justify why you believe what you believe? You cannot make sense of it whereas I can.

For instance, as an atheist, is a universe ruled by impersonal chance how do you get moral authority to determine "good" and why should anyone embrace your definition as being true? How does chance bring order or logic or rational thought or absolutes or objectivity? Why should the world function tomorrow how it functioned yesterday and today in a random chance process? Chance is just that. In such a process, what determines the way my genes function other than an impersonal random blind chemical reaction that is different from every other random, blind, chance chemical reaction? In a world governed by such randomness how can anything ever remain orderly and consistent?

As Nietzsche tried to do in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, you want to eliminate God only to replace Him by yourself.

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann (taken from Answers.com)

But as much as you try to deny God (as Francis Schaeffer once said) He is here and He is not silent.

"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20)

Hmmm, and the Jihadist continues with the "wishy wash Islamic speak". Seems that you also answer CCNL critiques any which way but direct!!!

A Hermit

Not joking about Nina Simone at all and everything else I stated I like in the arts. I do write my posts in a light manner to get points across.

As a person who really love Nina Simone, I am really glad to hear you like her too, especially since you are a musician. Nina seem to be more appreciated outside the US than in her own country.

As for Concerned the Christian Now Liberated, I prefer Canyon Shearer even when he tells me I'm going to hell for not accepting the salvation through Christ. He is always so civil.

I do drive Concerned crazy in not responding to his posts. When I do, it's my two cents' worth instead of a whole dollar. I'm that kind of banker with him.

Think of Concerned, in the analogy of music, as Black Sabbath in rock, or Wagner in classical music - heavy, portentous, assaultative and, at times, over-bearing.

Let's play Nina Simone's "Sinnerman" for Concerned. He'll love the irony. But then again, may not get it.

Best regards as always
J

"The followers of the koran have forced us to live in fear."

Bull.

Nobody can force you to live in fear. You have chosen to live in fear.

CC, more people in the US are killed in car accidents every month than are were killed on 9/11. Are you afraid to get into a car?

Outside of Iraq more people are killed by dogbites every year than by terrorists of any kind. Do you live in fear of dogs? You are thirty times more likely to die by tripping and falling down than you are of being killed by a terrorist.

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc530.html

Do you let a fear of falling down rule the way you live your life?! Somehow I doubt that.

Terrorists seek to frighten people into over-reacting; to behaving in ways which are disproportionate to the actual threat. When you choose to give in to that fear by letting them shape your opinion of Muslims you are letting the terrorists win; you are surrendering to terror.

It's also interesting to note that more people in America than in the most populous Muslim countries believe that the deliberate killing of civilians is sometimes justified:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

The myth of Muslim support for terror
By Kenneth Ballen

"The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries – Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.

Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers?

Hardly. Yet, far too often, Americans and other Westerners seem willing to draw that conclusion about Muslims..."

-----------

Sorry CC, but you have made a choice; you have chosen to look only at the worst examples of a small minority, you have chosen to embrace a stereotype, you have chosen to live in fear and ignorance which is way out of proportion to the actual threat.

For all your declarations that you are a follower of reason you are really just acting on emotion. Rather than looking at the facts dispassionately and listening to the voices of the moderate believers who post here you have decided that your fear is more important to you.

I hope your fear keeps you warm at night...

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit,

You asked "why I have chosen to live in fear". I haven't. The followers of the koran have forced us to live in fear.

This fear agenda supported by the blood money of Iran continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

Canada so far has escaped the koranic crazies. Considering its long borders and Muslim members of your population, this will not last.

CCNL, the problem of violence has roots which are much deeper and much wider than any one book. And contrary to your assertion there are many Muslims who are willing to stand up and denounce the violence and debate the meaning of the text. We should be seeking to engage those people instead of lumping them all together in this silly "axis of evil" rhetoric.

Frankly it doesn't matter much to me if someone believes their scripture is inspired by your "pretty wingy things" or not; I certainly don't believe in it myself, but what's more important to me is how they interpret that scripture and apply it to their lives. One can, as a Christian, focus on the judgment, the coming apocalypse and all of that or one can focus on the beautiful Sermon on the Mount, on the message of compassion and universal love. I won't accept divine inspiration on either case, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it in the latter.

And, believe it or not, I've met Muslims whose interpretation and understanding of their scripture also leads them to a commitment to compassion and forgiveness and real virtue.

I won't back down from criticizing those who use religion or faith to justify evil and hatred, but I won't condemn all believers because of the bad behaviour of the view. And I certainly wouldn't use that bad behaviour to bash people of good faith and gentle spirit, like Jihadist or Victoria. I'll disagree with them, perhaps, but I'll do so respectfully and with an open mind and a willingness to learn, not with the arrogant and hateful attitude that you too often display.

I'm, curious, CC; why have you chosen to live in fear?

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit,

Your views are well received but the problem of Islamic violence generated by the koran which is based on myths and embellishments is the issue. Unfortunately, no Muslim to include the Jihadist is willing to risk his or her life in criticizing their book of death. And the third Axis of Evil, Iran supports the death squads enforcing this "do not criticize our illiterate, warmongering founder". And with a barrel of oil being over $70, they have plenty of blood money to support this koranic-based terror.

By the way, CCNL, your previous comment about ""angelic" voices ringing from the mosques of the world" reminded me of an experience I had a number of years ago at a local music festival. The bass player for one of the bands there was a Lebanese immigrant, and during his group's set at one point he started up a rhythmic rumble on his bass and overtop of that, as the moon rose above the outdoor stage, recited, in singsong Arabic, the call to prayer.

Now it didn't make me believe in Gods or angels, and I would happily have taken the "no" side in a debate on the subject with him, but that performance powerfully evoked his heartfelt sense of wonder, awe and humility, of a desire to know peace and to live in harmony such that it remains one of the most profoundly moving experiences in my memory.

Your view of the world just seems too small to me, CC.

Regards

A Hermit

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated; Once again you over-generalize. You can't possibly have been reading Jihadist's comments very carefully, as it is quite evident she takes a much more enlightened view of her own faith than the one you are so quick to attribute to all Muslims. There are more than a billion of them in this world; do you honestly think they all share the same opinions on everything!?

I'm glad you have been able to let go of the superstitious aspects of your own faith; but now you need to learn how to let go of your fear and learn how to actually talk to people openly and honestly instead of blasting them with the same tired old propaganda posts which have little, if anything, to do with the substance of their comments. I get the feeling that a lot of your responses to people here have more to do with how YOU used to believe than with how THEY believe.

I would urge you to try to get past this generic, all-purpose Muslim Bogeyman you carry around in your head and start looking at the real, actual, individual human beings you encounter here. You might be pleasantly surprised by what you discover. We'll never all see eye to eye on everything, but in my experience that which we have in common is usually greater than that which separates us, and in my opinion we would all do well to spend more time looking for those commonalities than trying to tear each other down over the differences.

As Jihadist says in her recent comment, recognizing a diversity of views weeds out the bad ones. As a Canadian and an atheist I endorse that statement absolutely.

Regards

A Hermit

P.S. Maybe you could listen to a little Nina Simone sometime; it might help...;-)

A Hermit,

As a Canadian atheist, you must also have many misgivings about the foundations of the "Abrahamic" religions. Whereas Christians have and are continuing to address the foundation myths and embellishments of their religions, Muslims have not because they fear for their lives. Muslims fear even addressing the issue the simple problem of angelic visions. That is a significant problem in trying to eliminate the violent and flawed foundations of Islam i.e. fear of Muslim death squads many being funded by Iran's oil/blood money.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Jihadist,

I see you are taking another break from investing all that blood/oil money but still are not addressing the important issues concerning Islam.

To reiterate once again:

It continues to amaze non-believers how the Koran somehow contains the Word of God.

Mohammed was an illiterate Arab. How did this work? It is obvious he could not proofread the book of Death to verify his hallucinogenic messages from "mythical Gabriel". So are we to rely on the scribblings of scribes who obviously plagiarized from the all the ancient religions and then added their own agenda to justify the looting and pillaging of the lands of the non-believers?

Much of the same can be said of Jesus and the NT since he was also illiterate. The difference, however, is that his biographers promoted the "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Humankind" agenda.

And have you come to grips yet with those "angelic" voices ringing from the mosques of the world?????

Jihadist; I've been reading your comments and nodding my head a lot.

Anyone who has embraced the cult of the incomparable Nina Simone has shown great wisdom...or at least great taste and a certain style...as well as an enlightened and compassionate view of the world.

You were making a joke, perhaps, but there was truth in it. We are informed by the arts as much as by science; by honest emotion as well as by reason, and great artists have a way of bridging the distances between us all.

Yours in Nina

A Hermit

Paganplace:)

Good to see you again!

You noted: "Though it always strikes me how the assertions of two and a half religions out of thousands, and their rather idiosyncratic ideas get all this press. :)"

Well, we have among the most adherents of believers in our respective faiths and are the most querrelsome too - with one another, and between ourselves (especially Christians and Muslims). A global political, economic, social, religious and security mess we've created eh?

And all the bad press too of course, as the new delusional believers engaged in street brawling for control of the Truth main street, or staking parts of the streets like pimps and hookers and drug pushers that the religious bigots and faith supremacists are. We have yet to grow up, being new kids on the belief block. There's enough space in the streets for everyone.

Come on my friend, don't tell me Pagans don't have differences too, on matters related to their beliefs. I do read Starhawk and saw quite intense discussions among Pagans in Starhawk's threads. Some Pagans even vilified her and asserted that she does not represent all Pagans.

I love Starhawk's essays very much but dare not interject in Pagan "family" disputes in the Starhawk's threads. Only to ask small questions for clarification on specific aspects.

I know too little about Pagans to make any comments on your beliefs, but Terra Gazelle has been very effective and patient in explaining them to me. She is a very spiritual person.

Really, really got to go now and make money for my clients and protect their investments.

Best regards as always.
J

Oh, umm, btw.

Memes.

You're fighting over memes.

If I didn't mention that before.

Sorry. :)

Have to admit I'm awful glad to not be Christian, too, ...At the very least it makes those nagging past lives fit a little better into my reality. :)

Though it always strikes me how the assertions of two and a half religions out of thousands, and their rather idiosyncratic ideas get all this press. :)

Terra Gazelle my friend:)

I will always make time for you for a wee chat never mind that I'm "on the road". We all have to state what we believe in or otherwise here. This is, after all, "On Faith".

Peter Huff asked about "the standard of truth. Is it just gut feeling?". Meaning, he wants to know if I do consider my faith to be the "truth" in relation to other beliefs and faith.

I ignored his question as in gist:

- Muslims, in their standard daily prayers ask God to guide them to the right path, not the "true path". As we all know, what we think is the right path to pursue in our personal life and public sphere is not necessarily the path others think is the right one.

- "Truth" is relative and based on one's own experience, perception and interest. Akira Kurosawa's movie, "Rashomon" is a very telling tale about "truths" as recounted by different persons.

- There is no one "Truth" in religion. The Sunnis and the Shiites have their own versions on Hadiths and Islamic history, and consequently on aspects of faith. The Catholic Church, or rather the Pope/Vatican, thinks and says its version of Christianity is the true one and the most legimate on Christian "truths". And in essense, all other faiths and beliefs are 'untruths".

I am with anyone who makes sense. Anyone who is rational in their beliefs and faiths. Or unbelief for that matter. There are some people who are "rational" on religion as a delusion who are irrational and wrong about everything else - from history to economics politics to global affairs to philosophy to science.

On the whole, while I understand where my fellow Muslim posters are coming from, for those of other beliefs and faiths, I must say again that Pagan and atheist posters are the ones who make the most sense to me.

Of course there are Catholics/Christians like Viejita Del Oeste whom I really like and respect very much for her spirituality and clear-headedness about faith and life.

All the same, I would never claim I am "happy NOT to be a Christian" or a Buddhist or an atheist, even if I find my own faith meets my spiritual needs. There are many people who are happy as Christians and Buddhists, and atheists too. I just learned in the last few weeks there is "spiritual atheism". We all find what we are looking for in our respective faiths and beliefs.

I am really irked by chauvinists and bigots who claim they are the possessors of the" Truth" in any faiths or beliefs, especially my fellow Muslims who claim their strain of and interpretation of Islam is the one and only. I like diversity of views, as you do. It weeds out the bad ones.

As for this brawl on matters of faith, I'm up for it sometimes for fun. Not being a good Muslim in questioning the beliefs of others. As if my mind and free time is not full enough questioning and countering the more interesting variations of beliefs and actions of my fellow Muslims. And there's this global markets and general economic situation to be highly alert to.

Lastly, a small irreverent and obvious market tip - Ms. Turkey is really hot and sexy now, but too many suitors interested in her and showering money on her, making her a possible future high maintenance lady for the careless suitor.

Best regards as always
J

I am so happy to NOT be Christian.

As if the age of a religion makes it more real. So I suppose that early Christianity was worthless, after all Paganism has been around since man stopped dragging his knuckles. All of you are new comers..Goodness you're only a couple thousand years old...come back when you have become enlightened, or at least have stopped being school yard bullies.

You all want to be the Number One...I can see you all with the big rubber finger. Does that make you number one? Does saying you are number one make you so?

The Pope can say what he wants...and so can I..it don't make it so. We all are doing what is right for us as spiritual people. The pope can wear his big rubber finger and play with his big hat...

I can think that the smoke turned white at the wrong time. There is enough friction between religions...lets add more inter faith squabbles.
terra

To the Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

I browsed the website address you gave. I have some comments. Please check back in a couple of days.

To Jihadist,

Two of the "Anonymous" comments were mine. The first one I included my name and it did not take. The second I intentionally left anonymous.

Here are mine:

Posted July 22, 2007 8:17 PM

Posted July 22, 2007 11:49 PM

I thank you for responding to some of my questions. You somewhat side stepped the question on how you know you have the standard of truth. Is it just gut feeling?

I want to make some pints on what you did respond to but that will have to wait until more time is available.

Ahh, the Jihadist has returned and still "ducks" the questions about the foundations of Islam. Contemporary NT scholars have reviewed the foundations of Christianity and found them flawed and have noted so in over 100 books e.g. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Unfortunately, the same has not been done by Muslim scholars apparently due to their fear of Islamic death squads.

So Jihadist, returning to the Islamic foundations you were bred, born and brainwashed in and keeping it real basic: Do you believe in angels as required by the koran?? Keep in mind that you are now an intelligent 21st century homonid survivor and "pretty wingie talking thingies" defy rationality and science.

My dear Jihadist, the rule is, you can't ask atheists or Christians on their beliefs, but we can on yours. Christians and atheists awake, the Muslim tiger is baring her fangs.

Hello, hello,

I don't know if it is the same Anonymous or several different Anonymous/es here.

I really have no time for this with more urgent issues and productive matter to address at work, in life, in the public square.

This is my last post here. As the questions are from Christians/Anonymous/es to me as a Muslim, I will do so simply and without going into head-splitting theology. After all, I do post for personal comic relief sometimes.

Better for non-Muslims to know more about Islam and Muslims in reading the essays by Muslim clerics, thinkers and scholars from around the world in "Muslims Speak Out".

Anonymous (on God)

Believer to believer in God, you are asking me a question which Muslims are leery to respond if posed by Christians as it is on the core differences in belief on God and then some.

Islam is closer to Judaism on God and Muslim scholars, like Jewish scholars, spend a lot of time on legal and ethical issues. There is not much grappling on theology nowadays, but what I will call applied Islamic values in everything from governance to the economy.

The contradictions, or rather differences, in our respective faiths is that while we both believe in God, I don't quite take to the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity of God.

Nor do I take to the idea of Original Sin, or someone dying for my sin, or all are born sinful, and my salvation is dependent on or facilitated by someone else.

I do not quite take to the belief that man is created in the image of God, or Eve from Adam's ribs, or that Adam and Eve are responsible for the Original Sin. They just made a mistake and God forgave them. None of us is held responsible for that. I could go on on differences or contradictions as you call them.

We know that Islam came about 600 years after Jesus Christ died. That much is true and certain. To put it simply, like all Muslims, I believe in Adam to Abraham to Moses to Jesus as a continuation of the belief in God as the core of the Abrahamic faith.

I have no problems with the beliefs of Christians as a People of the Book on God and the Prophets, and respect it as such, but, like all Muslims, the fundamental question remains for me - is the Nicene Creed really a necessary dogma for belief in God?

Peter Huff

Easy on my friend Concerned the Christian Now Liberated. He's passionate and enthusiastic like all new converts and is lashing out at most things he believe in before. I have friends just like him, Muslim mirrors of Concerned the Catholic of Reality.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated has been expousing, again and again, in On Faith threads, the determinations of the NT/OT scholars, Jesus Seminar and JD Crossan among others, that is closer to the Muslim belief on Jesus. Do Christians really know this?

It would perhaps be easier for Concerned if there is no Nicene Creed decided by consensus and adoped as dogma that he is now shedding. Those who see Jesus as a teacher are now calling themselves either Crossanized Christians or Christian Humanists. As two latest mutations on the "cult" of Christ and God, the Crossanized Christians believe in God, but the Christian Humanists don't.

We are never truly "liberated" from anything. Even when we think we are free from one set of beliefs, we replace them with another and hold on to them as fillers in the mind, balm for the heart and armour for the soul. Until we displace some of them or all of them with another set.

And God knows how "unliberated" we really are from our material possessions or need of them, and commitments to ourself, our family, friends, workplace and society.

Peace be with you and
Best regards as always.

To the Christian Now Liberated,

Where did you ever get the idea that Jesus was illiterate? What were you liberated from? Do you believe that Christianity is just another mythical religion?

Jihadist,

I see you are taking a break from investing all that blood/oil money but still are not addressing the important issues concerning Islam.

To reiterate once again:

It continues to amaze non-believers how the Koran somehow contains the Word of God.

Mohammed was an illiterate Arab. How did this work? It is obvious he could not proofread the book of Death to verify his hallucinogenic messages from "mythical Gabriel". So are we to rely on the scribblings of scribes who obviously plagiarized from the all the ancient religions and then added their own agenda to justify the looting and pillaging of the lands of the non-believers?

Much of the same can be said of Jesus and the NT since he was also illiterate. The difference, however, is that his biographers promoted the "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Humankind" agenda.

Jihadist,

I'm glad to see we agree on somethings, such as without belief in God it is impossible to come up with any standard of ethics that can be made sense of.

The question I have for you is how do you know Islam and the god you worship is that standard?

You see, our faiths contradict each other in many important points. I believe the Christian God is the only true God and He has revealed Himself to man by the creation, but also through His Son and by His Spirit through His Word, the Bible, and no other way.

Your religion came 600 years after Jesus Christ. How do you know it is true?

Jihadist, what about the mutations of the religion virus? You now only reading "Muslims Speak Out" part of On Faith but not commenting anymore? The global economic and financial markets requiring your full attention?

Good question Anonymous.

These On Faith threads do irritate and exasperate sometimes. Not many have regard for economics and sociology in the discussion, only for science, theology and politics of religion.

In scientific inquiry and approach, religion is constantly looked at from a psychological and neurological perspective - that belief in God is a delusion and religion is a cancer.

Perhaps looking at religion as a virus will make more sense for the scientifically inclined. How the virus is spread, who is susceptible to it, who is not and why. Why are some strains of the religion virus benign, and why are some virulent and lethal. Why some antidotes seem to make the virus stronger and more resistant to being purged from the face of the earth.

Many seems not aware of the origin and meanings of ideologies and its manifestations too. No ideologies are "pure" anymore. For example, the economic beliefs of communism (or its variations like Maoism) in China and Vietnam is diluted by pragmatic adoption of capitalism, but the totalitarian governance in politics remain in varying shades.

The free domocracies of Europe flirted extensively in the last century with socialism in the name of nationalism and nationalising of specific sectors of the economy and services, a mild strain and variant of communism. The British Labour Party in the sixties and seventies are notoriously so in nationalising of key sectors such as transporation and health.

As for cults, too many seem not to realise everyone are members of cults by any defination given in any English dictionary.

Of course one don't call oneself a member of a cult group if one is in the majority or mainstream of a particular "cult" from beliefs to ideology to arts to fashion. The term "cult" is too often for minority beliefs and taste to diminish them as "invalid" in beliefs and practices. Especially if they are bizarre such as in Waco or Jamestown.

So, by any definations of cults in any English dictionaries, attending the temple, church, mosque for rituals and prayers is a cult.

Devotion to a supreme entity/entities is a cult.

Admiration of anyone or anything is a cult.

While one is at it, then admiration and devotion to Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha is a cult, a much greater one than the cult of Elvis. Then, there's the cult of Crossan, the cult of Einstein, the cult of Dawkins.

The list goes on and no one immune from it. Everyone is into cults whether they know it or not, whether they recognise it or not. A specific health fad fetish is also a cult, say, "The Scarsdale Medical Diet". Admiring the British sixties TV series, "The Prisoner" and all its inner language, meanings and insidously discussing them in blogs with other admirers is a cult. Believing in and admiring John Lennon is also a cult.

So, I am into the cult of God (not fine for non-believers), and Islam (not acceptable for many non-Mulsim believers) as they are into their own cults of God and faith quite different from mine. And, of course, I am into the cult of Nina Simone and MFK Fisher too. The list of cults I'm in is too long.

Of course, if one don't like Nina Simone, one always say those who do are wackos, and talks about the cult of Nina Simone by her admirers.

Anyone care to ask Tom Cruise if he thinks he is a member of a cult?

All the best.
J

E Favorite, the question should not be,

"John - Could you provide a list of atheist ideals and then describe the crimes committed in their name?"

But,

E Favorite can you show me why any atheistic ideals should have validity in a world devoid of an absolute standard? Since you as an atheist define the parameters of your own woldview and judge all worlviews by your subjective standard or the subjective standard of another why would I want to trust in your ideal standard or your authority?

When you say,

"Please do not include communism, nazism or fascism. Those are totalitarian ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology, it's the absence of belief in gods."

Why not include these totalitarian systems of thought?

Darwin and company gave these idealists the opportunity they were looking for, life without God, and under these regimes over 100 million people have died in the twentieth century alone.

Communism exterminated millions for the good of the State. For Hitler the reason was that Jews or certain undesirable minorities were not in the best interest of the his ideal Germany.

If we are just descendants of a lower form of life and survival of the fittest is in the best interests of the State, then why not eliminate whoever is opposed to your position?

You said,

"Atheism is not an ideology, it's the absence of belief in gods."

From the Philosophical Dictionary - University Press,

ideology

Any wide-ranging system of beliefs, ways of thought, and categories that provide the foundation of programmes of political and social action: an ideology is a conceptual scheme with a practical application.

Psychoanalysis under Answers.com

"Ideology

The word ideology refers to the study of ideas, a form of general or abstract discourse, immobilized thought (Piera Aulagnier, Sophie de Mijolla-Mellor), or any doctrine claiming to justify a collective activity of a political, religious, artistic, or other kind."

I would say atheism qualifies in both these definitions, since it is a system of beliefs and a religious/faith based worldview.

"pgr88:
Ms. Jacoby - why should we trust a declared atheist and one actively contemptuous of religious authority to tell us what a "real spiritual leader should be doing?" It's a ridiculous statement for you to make - like a vegetarian commenting on what meat one should have for dinner."

But aren't you a Christian telling an atheist what statements she should or shouldn't make?

Pot, kettle.

An open exchange of ideas is not limited to criticism within one's "group". Criticism and scrutiny should be judged on their merits, not on their sources.

There will be no Mosiach; Just wishful thinking on the part of a morally corrupt and desperate people.

Rather in indulging in the bla-bla linguistics of atheo-religio infighting may I remark on the vestimentary and other visible predelictions of the anointed ones. Now Diderot's incensed idol remains with us still garbed in all the trappings of Pontifex Maximus rather than plain Nazarene garb. Likewise, megachurch C.E.O.s wave their half-pound Rolex watches at the Walmart garbed congregations. All power to the Haredim sweating it out in Diasporic furs: may Mosiach turn up soon. Should I eschew magic underware, snakes, glossolalia, stigmata? Please feel free to add to these observed phenomena.

If anybody's wondering about 'Peacetroll's' comment - it's not just the kind of inscrutable private ramblings one sees from some of the more, ah, unusual regulars here, but refers to a idea (that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Central Asian Khazars, many of whom converted to Judaism around the 9th Century)widespread in hardcore anti-semitism - for example, the Christian Identity movement, etc. (It also showed up (much more innocently in Koestler's pop-history book "The Thirteenth Tribe"). There doesn't seem to be any actual support for this idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Alleged_Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim

If anybody's wondering about 'Peacetroll's' comment - it's not just the kind of inscrutable private ramblings one sees from some of the more, ah, unusual regulars here, but refers to a idea (that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Central Asian Khazars, many of whom converted to Judaism around the 9th Century)widespread in hardcore anti-semitism - for example, the Christian Identity movement, etc. (It also showed up (much more innocently in Koestler's pop-history book "The Thirteenth Tribe"). There doesn't seem to be any actual support for this idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Alleged_Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim

Augustine noted that Ms Jacoby has no belief nor respect for God and then said "shame, shame." But isn't that an absurd thing to say? Christians are not "superior" to, or better than, other people. Christians are not entitled to special treatment. Jesus did not say that. It is not in the Bible anywhere. So, this attitude of Augustine's shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Christian values. Whatever this person, Augustine, is promoting, it cannot really be confused or associated with Christianity, can it?

Susan Jacoby

Is an Ashkenazi fake-jew in truth khazar.

They are here only to cause disention and confusion.

Dark clouds.

Sorry about the multiple posts - a delayed posting error.

Well, it must be said that those appreciating an authoritarian approach to the most fundamental truths and revelations of Catholicism will certainly applaud Benedict as pope.....so say goodbye to any wiggle room in doctrinal interpretation or for that matter dissenting opinions on issues of ethics and morality.

You have your final authority in Benedict - you're in particularly good shape if you like your mass in Latin (which as far as I'm concerned might even be to his credit, since that was the church of my nostalgic youth - left at age 17 so the transition to the vernacular mass of Vatican II never affected me one way or another - in recent years I've gone back with my girlfriend a few times, but the proceedings remain largely a mystery (making that a mystery within a mystery!). She's from Ecuador and prefers tradition in all it's forms....much like most of Latin America.

Anyway, I'm also assuming that lots and lots of Catholics are ignoring virtually anything this pope says and continue to live by their own personal standard of right and wrong for better or worse - I wonder how much credibility the pope actually has in the American Roman Catholic church these days anyway. You'll note that the Church is paying much attention to South America of late, what with recent canonizations, etc. Evangelical protestantism is making alot of headway in Brazil and elsewhere, and to my mind Benedict was selected as pope to stauch the bleeding seen everywhere within the Church. Time to lay down the law - yet again, as only a true authoritarian can do.

And here I make my previous recommendation - if you like Catholicism read Elaine Pagels to track the early development of the authoritarian hierarchy and clerical takeover that we see so clearly manifest in 100-200 AD and made offical (and universal) by Constantine of Rome in 325 after his conversion. Those Catholics that like the form, structure and the ultimate authority vested in the clergy are quite possibly happy with Benedict's declaration of primary and unitary christian sovereignty for Roman Catholicism (while excluding all others as pretenders to the throne). That will make alot of members feel special, while perhaps alienating many others with more collegial aspirations toward other faiths (what would John the XXIII say??) As for me, I always recommend taking a good look at Gnosticism, the red-headed step-child of early christianity that was thrown out with the bathwater. These were the believers with a real mystical turn of mind - they wanted direct first-hand knowledge of the divine but were branded heretics. The short story is that any form of mysticism was branded
as heresy by the early church as it ran counter to the developing authority of the church and clergy - whose fully formed positions were later clarified through doctrine and dogma.

As a great Dzogchen master said, living in a relaxed manner without relying on an external authority in order to behave correctly ... is the goal - this level of self-confidence requires real wisdom and high spiritual attainment. Truthfully speaking, most would prefer to follow other appointed experts when it comes to matters religious, if you happen to be religious that is.

What Benedict is saying by implication is that by virtue of his titular position as Pope, he is really the ultimate authority in the world of Christianity because the Roman Catholic church is the one (and only) true church - if he could only get the Eastern Orthodox Patriach in Constantinople to come around to his way of thinking!! By the way, the Eastern and Russian branch of the Orthodox (Catholic) church both have a great mystical tradition via the heritage of the early Desert Fathers.

Well, it must be said that those appreciating an authoritarian approach to the most fundamental truths and revelations of Catholicism will certainly applaud Benedict as pope.....so say goodbye to any wiggle room in doctrinal interpretation or for that matter dissenting opinions on issues of ethics and morality.

You have your final authority in Benedict - you're in particularly good shape if you like your mass in Latin (which as far as I'm concerned might even be to his credit, since that was the church of my nostalgic youth - left at age 17 so the transition to the vernacular mass of Vatican II never affected me one way or another - in recent years I've gone back with my girlfriend a few times, but the proceedings remain largely a mystery (making that a mystery within a mystery!). She's from Ecuador and prefers tradition in all it's forms....much like most of Latin America.

Anyway, I'm also assuming that lots and lots of Catholics are ignoring virtually anything this pope says and continue to live by their own personal standard of right and wrong for better or worse - I wonder how much credibility the pope actually has in the American Roman Catholic church these days anyway. You'll note that the Church is paying much attention to South America of late, what with recent canonizations, etc. Evangelical protestantism is making alot of headway in Brazil and elsewhere, and to my mind Benedict was selected as pope to stauch the bleeding seen everywhere within the Church. Time to lay down the law - yet again, as only a true authoritarian can do.

And here I make my previous recommendation - if you like Catholicism read Elaine Pagels to track the early development of the authoritarian hierarchy and clerical takeover that we see so clearly manifest in 100-200 AD and made offical (and universal) by Constantine of Rome in 325 after his conversion. Those Catholics that like the form, structure and the ultimate authority vested in the clergy are quite possibly happy with Benedict's declaration of primary and unitary christian sovereignty for Roman Catholicism (while excluding all others as pretenders to the throne). That will make alot of members feel special, while perhaps alienating many others with more collegial aspirations toward other faiths (what would John the XXIII say??) As for me, I always recommend taking a good look at Gnosticism, the red-headed step-child of early christianity that was thrown out with the bathwater. These were the believers with a real mystical turn of mind - they wanted direct first-hand knowledge of the divine but were branded heretics. The short story is that any form of mysticism was branded
as heresy by the early church as it ran counter to the developing authority of the church and clergy - whose fully formed positions were later clarified through doctrine and dogma.

As a great Dzogchen master said, living in a relaxed manner without relying on an external authority in order to behave correctly ... is the goal - this level of self-confidence requires real wisdom and high spiritual attainment. Truthfully speaking, most would prefer to follow other appointed experts when it comes to matters religious, if you happen to be religious that is.

What Benedict is saying by implication is that by virtue of his titular position as Pope, he is really the ultimate authority in the world of Christianity because the Roman Catholic church is the one (and only) true church - if he could only get the Eastern Orthodox Patriach in Constantinople to come around to his way of thinking!! By the way, the Eastern and Russian branch of the Orthodox (Catholic) church both have a great mystical tradition via the heritage of the early Desert Fathers.

Well, it must be said that those appreciating an authoritarian approach to the most fundamental truths and revelations of Catholicism will certainly applaud Benedict as pope.....so say goodbye to any wiggle room in doctrinal interpretation or for that matter dissenting opinions on issues of ethics and morality.

You have your final authority in Benedict - you're in particularly good shape if you like your mass in Latin (which as far as I'm concerned might even be to his credit, since that was the church of my nostalgic youth - left at age 17 so the transition to the vernacular mass of Vatican II never affected me one way or another - in recent years I've gone back with my girlfriend a few times, but the proceedings remain largely a mystery (making that a mystery within a mystery!). She's from Ecuador and prefers tradition in all it's forms....much like most of Latin America.

Anyway, I'm also assuming that lots and lots of Catholics are ignoring virtually anything this pope says and continue to live by their own personal standard of right and wrong for better or worse - I wonder how much credibility the pope actually has in the American Roman Catholic church these days anyway. You'll note that the Church is paying much attention to South America of late, what with recent canonizations, etc. Evangelical protestantism is making alot of headway in Brazil and elsewhere, and to my mind Benedict was selected as pope to stauch the bleeding seen everywhere within the Church. Time to lay down the law - yet again, as only a true authoritarian can do.

And here I make my previous recommendation - if you like Catholicism read Elaine Pagels to track the early development of the authoritarian hierarchy and clerical takeover that we see so clearly manifest in 100-200 AD and made offical (and universal) by Constantine of Rome in 325 after his conversion. Those Catholics that like the form, structure and the ultimate authority vested in the clergy are quite possibly happy with Benedict's declaration of primary and unitary christian sovereignty for Roman Catholicism (while excluding all others as pretenders to the throne). That will make alot of members feel special, while perhaps alienating many others with more collegial aspirations toward other faiths (what would John the XXIII say??) As for me, I always recommend taking a good look at Gnosticism, the red-headed step-child of early christianity that was thrown out with the bathwater. These were the believers with a real mystical turn of mind - they wanted direct first-hand knowledge of the divine but were branded heretics. The short story is that any form of mysticism was branded
as heresy by the early church as it ran counter to the developing authority of the church and clergy - whose fully formed positions were later clarified through doctrine and dogma.

As a great Dzogchen master said, living in a relaxed manner without relying on an external authority in order to behave correctly ... is the goal - this level of self-confidence requires real wisdom and high spiritual attainment. Truthfully speaking, most would prefer to follow other appointed experts when it comes to matters religious, if you happen to be religious that is.

What Benedict is saying by implication is that by virtue of his titular position as Pope, he is really the ultimate authority in the world of Christianity because the Roman Catholic church is the one (and only) true church - if he could only get the Eastern Orthodox Patriach in Constantinople to come around to his way of thinking!! By the way, the Eastern and Russian branch of the Orthodox (Catholic) church both have a great mystical tradition via the heritage of the early Desert Fathers.

That's something we can all get behind! The marine band, a class act, all the way, consummate professionals. And all of the military ensembles. They play with heart and soul.

A little off topic, but...
I might interject that although I may agree with Susan's basic argument, I do take offense at the analogy- especially when you consider the shlock that gets passed off for talent today. We can argue the finer points of religion, but let's not disparage an entire group of outstanding musicians.

http://www.marineband.usmc.mil/

There, I got that off my chest.

Ms. Jacoby - why should we trust a declared atheist and one actively contemptuous of religious authority to tell us what a "real spiritual leader should be doing?" It's a ridiculous statement for you to make - like a vegetarian commenting on what meat one should have for dinner. You also obviously cling to some kind of ideology that forces you to throw aroun the adjective "far-right" too many times to make you believable.

Susan,

For all your pontificating, you must at least understand that someone who has no belief or respect for God....shame, shame..cannot put herself in the position of passing sentence on someone whose words and actions are predicated upon a belief in the divine truth. If you believed in God and his divine word, than you would understand that politics and personal feelings take a back seat to "truth". Pope JohnPaul II, one of the greatest and most popular pontiffs asserted that the holy scriptures prevented him from considering the ordination of women as priests. You may consider that extreme or politically incorrect; I consider it adhering to the inspired word of God...If the Church fails to be in communion with the Will of God...presented in The WORD...then it ceases to exist at all....

I wish Ms Jacoby had answered the question(s) being posed, instead of making up her own...

Hmmm...I phrased that badly..."Russia's tradition of obedience to religious authority" didn't make it the first to fall; it made the transition possible...

Sorry Dr. Vitkin...

"A fundamentalist Christian, therefore who forsakes all the teachings of Christ for the safety of fundamentlaist dogma is not really all that different than the Godless Communists, who do almost the same thing, and who regard their fellow man similarly."

Exactly. My old sociology professor, who grew up under Stalin and Kruschev, maintained that it was Russia's tradition of obedience to religious authority that made it the first to fall to Communism. In his view the Russian people just exchanged their Orthodox saints for new Bolshevik saints.

A Hermit said:

"The problem isn't Christianity or religion, it's human hubris, pride and stubbornness wrapping itself in the armor of divine revelation."

And it is also lust for riches and power, and the assertion of supremecy over others and maintaining that supremcy.

Both Communism and Nazism of the past, and "Kim-Il-Jung-ism" of present day North Korea are, indeed fundamentalist movements, that are from a psychological point of view, indistinguishable from Southern Baptism, or Mary-Cunningham-Catholicism.

People who have fallen into this psychological state are totally and completely sealed off from useful conversation and dialogue, for they must maintain, as their bargain for peace of mind and tranquility, the unbending and rigid dogma of their creed, the exact nature of which, is actually not important. A fundamentalist Christian, therefore who forsakes all the teachings of Christ for the safety of fundamentlaist dogma is not really all that different than the Godless Communists, who do almost the same thing, and who regard their fellow man similarly.

A Hermit said:

"The problem isn't Christianity or religion, it's human hubris, pride and stubbornness wrapping itself in the armor of divine revelation."

And it is also lust for riches and power, and the assertion of supremecy over others and maintaining that supremcy.

Both Communism and Nazism of the past, and "Kim-Il-Jung-ism" of present day North Korea are, indeed fundamentalist movements, that are from a psychological point of view, indistinguishable from Southern Baptism, or Mary-Cunningham-Catholicism.

People who have fallen into this psychological state are totally and completely sealed off from useful conversation and dialogue, for they must maintain, as their bargain for peace of mind and tranquility, the unbending and rigid dogma of their creed, the exact nature of which, is actually not important. A fundamentalist Christian, therefore who forsakes all the teachings of Christ for the safety of fundamentlaist dogma is not really all that different than the Godless Communists, who do almost the same thing, and who regard their fellow man similarly.

People like Mary Cunningham just don't "get it." To me, she is just like all the people she condemns.

Paganboy:

One more small thing: where di you get the bizarre notion that Attila the Hun was an atheist. Unbelievers really didn't exist in the 5th century. Everyone believed in some sort of supernatural being or beings. Attila was a Pagan. He believed in the god Mars among others and thought he had discovered the Sword of Mars which he believed gave him the power to conquer and rule the world.

People on this blog are mostly pretty sharp, and you need to do the research before you post.

I think it is weird for people to whip out the 'pride' accusation when we are not accusing human beings but rather institutions. In fact, it is not really possible to accuse an institution, rather, it is a legitimate questioning of underpinning values. Is it what sells, that drives this language, or, is it dialogue. If it is dialogue, then, as you say, you don't have to be a Christian to recognize the great value that can be gained from refraining from harassing language and putting all of the cards respectfully and honestly out on the table.

An institution is not owed the honor that God's creation is owed in terms of respect, to the extent that mortals run it and make the decisions, we can consider to what extent mortals have any real say or are in reality being driven by ideology or the bottom line.

There is no question that some terminology will incite anger; I think it's safe to say that we can all agree that this is counter-productive when it comes to a subject matter that encompasses a wide diversity of tenets which are legitimately close to our hearts, believers and nonbelivers, all.

best, maggie

Paganboy:

I hate to break it you, but very few corporate leaders are atheists. Almost all are Christians and Jews. I work in a Fortune 50 company, and being an atheist is no issue up to SVP (where I am), but atheists have virtually no chance beyond that. This has been true for my entire work life, and I'm 60. Many of my atheist friends and acquaintances have been hiding out in Unitarian churches for decades to protect their careers.

Paganboy

If you don't like science, stop availing yourself of modern technology and medicine. See how long you live.

Secondly, as Paganplace noted, all those Atheist Hooligans you decry were not out to spread atheism; they were about consolidating power. Read some history. Many of their political enemies involved members of organized religion who used religion to consolidate their own power. However, religious extremists often use political power to impose their religious views on others.

Frankly, Paganboy, these 'atheist' regimes so often used to vilify atheists weren't so much about atheism as setting up the state and a 'king' figure as a *rival* religion, ...if you look at how, say, North Koreans treat Kim-Jong Il, it's anything but atheist.

It's the religion of Kim Jong Il. Miraculous cures and prayers to him and all.

Same goes for Stalin and Hitler and all the other red herrings.

Ms Jacoby,

Just remember too that just like the Pope, radical Jews, or Muslims Religion can be a force for much wickedness and evil.

But so too is science and atheism. Whether it is the athiesm of Marx and the social experiment called communism or the evil of athestic scientists that make bombs and bullets and napalm or the atheistic corporate goons who make millions and profits and then withdraw benefits from workers or ship American jobs to the third world.

Remember that self professed atheists and those who claim to be free of religion have also contributed to the evil and degredation of this planet.

Atheism, Religion of all stripes are the products of flawed humanity. Pointing fingers at who you dislike means that you avoid and give comfort to the wickedness of those with who you degree.

Atheists like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Attilah the Hun, were evil and they were far far far from being Religious.

Ms Jacoby,

Just remember too that just like the Pope, radical Jews, or Muslims Religion can be a force for much wickedness and evil.

But so too is science and atheism. Whether it is the athiesm of Marx and the social experiment called communism or the evil of athestic scientists that make bombs and bullets and napalm or the atheistic corporate goons who make millions and profits and then withdraw benefits from workers or ship American jobs to the third world.

Remember that self professed atheists and those who claim to be free of religion have also contributed to the evil and degredation of this planet.

Atheism, Religion of all stripes are the products of flawed humanity. Pointing fingers at who you dislike means that you avoid and give comfort to the wickedness of those with who you degree.

Atheists like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Attilah the Hun, were evil and they were far far far from being Religious.

We're not all "incensed" Maggie; some of us are just amused at the sight of this ecumenical spitting contest.

And then we have commenters like Daniel, who shame me into remembering that the silly infighting is not representative of all Christian faith, and that I should be careful not to get into the habit of taking a mocking tone here. The problem isn't Christianity or religion, it's human hubris, pride and stubbornness wrapping itself in the armor of divine revelation and those who indulge that pride do not speak for those whose faith is humble, thoughtful, confident, kind-hearted and open-minded.

Thanks for not letting that other voice be shouted down, Daniel. I may not share your faith, but when expressed as you have here I respect and even admire it.

Regards

A Hermit

I find Ms. Jacoby's comments to be, generally, more appealing and sensible than the comments of most other panelest who routinely appear here. She is, in every way, respectful and thoughtful.

If she says things that I do not agree with, I can accept that and live with that. After all, this is an exchange of ideas, not a war. If she says that she is an atheist, then I have no problem with that, since the beliefs that she holds in her own heart and mind are hers; they are her beliefs which cannot hurt or harm me.

I find almost all of the Christians who comment here to be very dissapointing, with their overt hostility, mean-spirited sarcasm, and often, much worse. These are, none, Christian traits.

Each sour and bitter Christian, and I mean you Mary Cunningham, who comes here to bash atheists, please consider this, that the problem with atheism is not in the atheists, but it is inside of you, inside of your shakey, incomplete, and insecure Christian beliefs, that you feel threatened by the existence of anyone who believes differently.

I find most of the Christian commenters here to be mainly interested in religious political institutions and church religion, and very little interested in the true teachings of Christ, nor how to lead a Christ-like life.

Anon,

After 6000 years of repetitive bible (OT and NT) thumping/brainwashing, getting the truth out about these flawed documents is indeed necessary and requires repetition.

The press never hestitates to judge or condemn anyone and expects everyone else to do the same and follow suit.

It confuses its approach with legitimate attempts by institutions to ascertain where its truths are.

Institutions are interested in this impartial endeavor whereas the press is interested in getting people angry and stressed out about everything, without the peace of resolution or even respectful dialogue.

The fact is, the words, 'The Pope', sells. It's a basic fact. For Pope haters everywhere, for anti-religionists, for everyone, 'incensed'...you can exect plenty more of the same from this context!

Re: Concerned the Christian

I wish somone would take the needle off his record! It is clearly broken.

The delusional sense of self-importance, indicated by the CONSTANT repetition of everything he/she posts is SO BORING!

Ms. Jacoby shows us just how easy it is to aggravate a religious person! Though short on accurate quotes and long on exaggerated negative characterisations, she reveals that an institution need not consider two thousand years of tradition in crafting its dogma to be authentic and reflective of the beliefs of the vast majority of its faithful. According to her practice, it is acceptable to just cut right to the big curse out!
Given that this is a reflective sample of the way in which matters of faith, home and hearth are generally discussed in our illustrious american media, the Vatican's model of restraint and its careful consideration of stating the faithful's authentic beliefs is a model of excellence we should all employ in celebrating our diversity of faiths and cultures, it can only lead to greater respect, peace, harmony.

Anonymous - Come to the side of the secular humanists.

I believe Jihadist is already a secular humanist; she is raping and pillaging the financial markets as we speak.

One definition of a religion:

A cult with delusions of grandeur.

I second E favorite.

Jihadist is the most engaging and rewarding conversant on this site (next to me, of course).

You must have been reading her too quickly, anonymous, whoEVER you are.

go back and check it again.

peace
henry

Papal!!!!

You think one can only write "On Faith" if one thinks Faith is a great thing.

Wake up, Papal.

this is a *discussion* on faith. NOT an apotheosis of Faith.

Biased, you say. In addition to your delusions about the existence of a God, are you deluded enough to think YOU have no biases???

You packed a lot of nonsense into just one sentence. Congratulations.

Why is a biased, atheist writing for On Faith. She thinks so poorly of Catholicism.

By Far-right Catholics Susan means pro-life catholics.

Anonymous - ho, ho, ho - if anyone goes back to read that conversation, you'll see that Jihadist asked respectful questions, which I proceeded to answer. If there was a ripping good time being had. I missed it.

Perhaps you have a broader, more comprehensive definition of secularism and humanism that you'd like to share.

Yes Concerned, I wish Jihadist's here too. She's a hoot, and seem to have had a ripping good time questioning E Favorite's narrow definations of secularism and humanism in Jacoby's previous thread.

Jihadist, you supernatural believer, you! Come to the side of the secular humanists when you get back here. Give us your defination of a cult.

Susan
I love you!!! are you married.?

though i was gay when i was alive (though no one knew, including me)

i think you and I could be very happy together.

you are, as usual, RIGHT on, as we used to say in the 60s. the 1860s.

Jihadist,

Something to ponder while on your trip to invest Islamic blood/oil profit money:

One definition of a cult:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader

e.g. 1 )Muslims and their Mohammed, and the clerics, ayatollahs, imams and "angel freaks" who follow the illiterate, warmongering, hallucinating Arab's koranic ways 2) "Jesus Freaks" like Bob Jones' followers 3) "Latin Mass /Catholic only/"angel loving" Filiciders brainwashed by the likes of B16 and the previous, all white male, "celibate, "aarpie", mostly European "charismatics" called popes.

We await your commentary on your return.

Daniel to Mary C: "Huh? could you repeat that?"

Fear not Daniel, she repeats it at every opportunity, whether relevant or not. Ms. Cunningham is deathly afraid that the Jacobins are coming to get her with a loaded guillotine...

I find Ms. Jacoby's remarks a little lacksadaisical. To use this forum to complain about 'Anti-Semitism' instead of responsibly and interactively monitoring the first site is just lazy.
For a free-thinker, she certainly is very predictable.

So I'll give her the same half-hearted attention that she puts into her own efforts.

Not much more than a year ago I managed to reach Ms. Jacoby at her NYC phone number, and enjoyed a brief chat. I had just finished her "Freethinkers." I then emailed her my essay on
Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment, to which she responded with complete approval (anyone wishing to read this
may request it of me at jejphoenix@westelcom.com). Not long
afterwards, though, my emails were rejected by her address,
for whatever reason

As a lifelong freethinker, but one who is also a classical concert
organist and therefore very well acquainted with churches in the US and western Europe, I have often been asked how I can reconcile my comfortable disbelief with such a commitment to the great music of the Christian Church. My response to this is another question: who does not admire Parthenon on Acropolis and yet has no temple to the Greek gods in his bedroom closet?

Observing the Pope's readmission of the Latin Tridentine into usage wherever Catholics desire it, I am struck mostly by the
focus of objection to a prayer in the Good Friday service asking
for the conversion of the Jews. Yet, what sensible cleric, perhaps
in collusion with his congregation, would not simply omit the passage? Having done so, there seems to be no legitimate
remaining objection to the use of the Latin Mass where wanted,
or at least I have heard no complaints against the content of the
orders of service for the other 364 days of the year.

The strongest argument for its optional use is aesthetic:
it is a ritual of great drama and beauty, and for many religious
people a far more effective rite with which to celebrate their beliefs. So, I must ask, lose the Good Friday prayer, and after
that, where's the beef?

Before ending this, I should opine that I do not believe Ms.
Jacoby's latest essay title, "Religious Bureacrats Are To Religion As Military Music Is To Music," is at all well considered. For if
this were so the musical repertoire would have to be purged of
countless wonderful pieces.

James Johnson, WIlliams College BA 1964
Yale Doctorate of Musical Arts 1978
Organist in Adolphus Busch Hall at Harvard University 1971--1991

The basic problem is the Catholic pope "cult" culture that has grown over the centuries i.e. only the pope "talks" to God and the pope cannot error in matters of dogma.

Hmmm, well history and realism are catching up with cults of any kind.

One definition of a cult:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader

e.g. 1 )Muslims and their Mohammed, and the clerics, ayatollahs, imams and "angel freaks" who follow the illiterate, warmongering, hallucinating Arab's koranic ways 2) "Jesus Freaks" like Bob Jones' followers 3) "Latin Mass /Catholic only/"angel loving" Filiciders brainwashed by the likes of B16 and the previous, all white male, "celibate, "aarpie", mostly European "charismatics" called popes.

Then there are the foundations of this pope "cult" culture.

What reality and history now conclude:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and pagan sects. These embellishments also include all the scriptural references to papal authority and Rock foundations.

e.g. See Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus:

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16

Miss Susan, don't you think the Bible being a proved hoax sort of 'terminates' anything worth our time from Bible based religions?

It's up to people like you to come up with a FAITH that is not Bible based so we can continue to go to our, "churches, temples, synagogues and mosques and pray" as our fearless leader, W directed us to do. What? You mean all those places of worship are based upon the Bible? Crapolla! What's a minister to do?

Raking in the big money leading the multitudes to hell as the Bible directs, doing interpretation #1501, imitating Moses, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is about to become a crime? Holding the GUN of HELL to folk's heads and demanding 'protection' money is a bit of a crime. Don't you think? W is the chief law enforcement officer?

Here is the question: "How does the Pope's reiteration that the church of Christ exists fully only in the Catholic Church strike you? How will this affect ecumenical relations? Does anyone care?"

(I felt like I had to state it because almost no one refers to the question here).

The answer to question number one: It stinks!

The answer to question number two: A lousy effect.

The answer to question number three: No one.

The Catholic Church continues to isolate itself, and systematically disconnect itself from any relevance to the people and the lives they lead in Europe, and North America.

Mary C:

Huh? could you repeat that?

There is the atheism, the anti-clericism of the Voltaire and Rousseau, and the narrow definition of "absence of belief".

The atheism of the Enlightenment was a real anti-Christian movement and contemporaries understood it as such. Read Edmund Burke's: "Reflections on the French Revolution".

Anyway, must go.

Ms Jacoby: The finish of your last piece: "No one should pay the slightest attention to any pronouncements from this *pathetic* representative of a *credulous, conformist* past that preceded the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment and the separation of church and state in the West" was Pope-bashing at its worst & bound to cause offence. Yelling "anti-semitism" afterwards is barely credible. Anyway, you want to find real anti-semitism visit an militant islamist website.

E Favorite: You define atheism narrowly and then disallow the Communism, Nazism & the Jacobism period of the French Revolution because they were "ideologies." How do you define ideology?

My definition says:

" meaningful *belief* system: a set of beliefs, values, and opinions that shapes the way a person or a group such as a social class thinks, acts, and understands the world"

Thus an ideology,like a religion, *has* certain core beliefs. Atheism for Communism and Jacobism was one of their core beliefs. Now you can dispute the atheism of communism and jacobism, but for that you'd need some knowledge of them both, and somehow I don't think you have enough. But just redefining ideology and atheism to suit your purposes is intellectually lazy, isn't it?

E Favorite: You posted "Could you provide a list of atheist ideals and then describe the crimes committed in their name? Please do not include communism, nazism or fascism. Those are totalitarian ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology, it's the absence of belief in gods."

Granted that atheism is not an ideology, but if you exclude those who applied it all you have left is nothing.

John:

I read Susan's essay as her way to clarify her beliefs. She has as much right to "stake her claim" to her spirituality in atheism as you do to Catholicism. It doesn't make her a bigot. Bigots don't think much about their positions, and Susan clearly has given this a great deal of thought.

I've found that atheism and religious belief mainly disagree on how one comes to "morality".

Religions suppose that we cannot see what's wrong and right without religious guidance, and atheism and agnosticism generally believe that humans are able to come to that realization themselves without the dogma.

John:

Ms Jacoby is not being bigoted when she disagrees with the ideas and behaviour of the Pope, or other religious believers. No where has she said that others aren't entitled to their opinions.

Having a different opinion is not the same as being intolerant. We should, as you say, be able to "agree to disagree" and to openly and honestly discuss the reasons for our opinions without being accused of bigotry.

Regards

A Hermit

John - Could you provide a list of atheist ideals and then describe the crimes committed in their name? Please do not include communism, nazism or fascism. Those are totalitarian ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology, it's the absence of belief in gods.

Thanks

Common Susan, if I said some of the things you have said about Catholicism regarding homosexuals, you would be castigating me as a "homophobic bigot."

In your case, you simply are a "theophobic bigot" who is in denial of that fact.

What the pope essentially said is the Catholic Church cannot negotiate on the core truths of the Catholic faith for the sake of some sort of amorphous "unity"?

Liberal secularism is based on the narcissistic notion of we can only have peace if we believe truth is relative. I would be what you could call a "fundamentalist" Catholic, but I deeply respect my "fundamentalist" Jewish brethren for what we share in common in terms of our moral values. I will agree to disagree with them on the divinity of Christ, and they pray that I will give up my idols. Should they get away with that in your opinion because they are Jewish?

What ever happened to the old adage of agreeing to disagree? The bigotry and intolerance today is coming from self-righteous atheists such as your self whose claim to tolerance is pure hypocrisy. As far as you are concerned Susan, people have the right to pluralism, only as long as they believe the way you do.

Atheists have as much blood on their hands, committed in the name of their ideals as do religionists. Get that through your head, Susan.

Common Susan, if I said some of the things you have said about Catholicism regarding homosexuals, you would be castigating me as a "homophobic bigot."

In your case, you simply are a "theophobic bigot" who is in denial of that fact.

What the pope essentially said is the Catholic Church cannot negotiate on the core truths of the Catholic faith for the sake of some sort of amorphous "unity"?

Liberal secularism is based on the narcissistic notion of we can only have peace if we believe truth is relative. I would be what you could call a "fundamentalist" Catholic, but I deeply respect my "fundamentalist" Jewish brethren for what we share in common.

What ever happened to the old adage of agreeing to disagree? The bigotry and intolerance today is coming from self-righteous atheists such as your self whose claim to tolerance is pure hypocrisy. As far as you are concerned Susan, people have the right to pluralism, only as long as they believe the way you do.

every religion has the right to say they are the only path to heaven. every individual has that right too. as long as no one person or organization forces others to agree - no problem.

so why dont you just start your own religion and then you can run it like you want, and others can say how you are wrong.

and that settlement - how do you know it was to prevent testimony? maybe it was to save the victims from having to testify and giving them money. if they did not want the money they could have rejected it and demanded to go to trial.

no, they took the money and then said that they wanted to go to trial.

and for the church - what a horrible decision they made. they failed to protect the children under their care and in the end damaged the church even more.

child abuse is pure evil and the last place to accept it should be the chruch. but keep this in mind. during this period all the leftists were telling us that doctors could fix the problem, that molesters could be cured. well they were wrong and we did not know it for decades.

i hope the church will just pass on reports to the police and stay out of it from now on.

The Catholic Church says that all OTHER churches are false; that all OTHER churches spread false messages about Christ; and that the promises of eternal life made by all OTHER churches should be treated with great skepticism.

Atheists say that ALL churches are false; that ALL churches teach falsehoods; and that the promises made by ALL churches are worthy of great skepticism.

Who says the gap between believers and non-believers cannot be bridged? It sounds like the Catholics and the atheists are about 80% in agreement -- so Susan, I don’t know why you would want to pick on the poor Catholics. You’re allies now.

As somebody who left the Catholic Church I firmly though respect the pope for what he did.

To be a member of a group you must have a shared belief with what the group means. The group as defined by it's leaders (in the Pope's case God as communicated through himself and the Catholic church) define what it means to be a member.

Why is this so hard to understand? YOU don't get to decide what it means to be Catholic. Stating you are a Catholic when you disagree with the Church beliefs means you are NOT a Catholic. Within the Church your personal beliefs or interpretation of scripture when put up against the Church's interpretation by definition of what it means to be Catholic means you are wrong.

It may be uncomfortable, but this is what it means to be part of organized religion with a defined hierarchy of authority.

Hmmmm....before I leave,

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

You are making us blush in telling us how a discourse in your thread should be.

Good and honest essay, but you don't have to be defensive or to apologise on what you wrote. Cal Thomas, for one, never did and he vexed me more that anyone here in On Faith with some essays that even some Christians would roll their eyes up towards heaven.

And yes, some of us believers do vilify you too much on your ancestors and former beliefs instead of going over what you wrote. Cheap shots, low blows and crackpot blows on your ancestors and former beliefs are easier than to rebut on what you wrote:)

A Hermit

I read Susan Jacoby's essays for her objective and impartial take on all beliefs. Certainly, she do make some errors in her essays. When pointed out by readers, graciously acknowledged and corrected them.

What I find interesting in her threads is how insecure, how uncertain, how uncomfortable some believers are in their own beliefs. Not to say bigoted.

For many believers, belief in God, Great Goddess or any supernatural being is a personal spiritual experiece and is different for all. Likewise for non-belief, where atheists relate why they don't believe in a supernatural being or organised religion.

Atheists are right on how some believers do unthinkingly accept dogmas and tenets of beliefs without considering how, why and when. Pull one "dogma" brick out in the house of belief, and the faith of some believers collapsed?

Looks like some believers do feel their house of belief is under seige by the "godless pagans" and "atheistic barbarians" at the gates and lost their heads and hearts completely. It seems that we believers would not see the trees (dubious dogmas, tenets and practices) that is rotted and rotting and infecting and poisoning the whole forest (organised religion).

I never dispute y'all's points that some believers can be real whackos and be after people within their own and other faiths and beliefs who don't agree with them. I do have some of them as friends, colleagues and NGO adversaries. They are everywhere in our respective communities and no where in their beliefs, but never underestimate their commitment and enterprise.

Best regards as always

I love the musical analogy...I hope your detractors will come to understand that honest criticism and differences of opinion do not constitute persecution. As someone who struggles (with mixed success, I think) to express myself clearly without giving offense I greatly appreciate your comments here.

Regards

A Hermit