All Comments (46)

Justin
Your complaints are accurate. I think it is probably a sign of progress that there are so many people out here who call ourselves Catholic but disregard much of what the Vatican has to say. Yeah, we're bad Catholics. But which is worse, disobedience or abuse of power?
I'm a little off track. The point is that I am not ready to let the hierarchs take my religion away from me.

My family is Catholic on both my mother and father's side. Many of the people of the Catholic Church are good individuals. That said, the Catholic Church as a whole is a corrupt institute. It has been mostly a force of evil for many centuries.

It has been lead by a succession of dozens of popes claiming to be infallible and worthy of worship (Pope Benedict seems untroubled by the absurdity of overturning the "infallible" doctrine of Limbo recently). It is a dominionist institute that shamelessly tries to control the politics of any given nation of the world. Most recently, it denied John Kerry communion and threw the US election to Bush. It has threated Mexican Legislators who legalize first trimester abortion with excommunication.

The coverup of child abuse and pedantry by Cardinal Law of Boston and Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angelos is an excellent example of the corrupt ways of the Church. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127266,00.html

The Catholic Church absurdly considers birth control to be evil and has contributed to high birth rates in the poorest of nations. The policies of the CC are hellish for women having to endure ridiculous numbers of birth. My own Grandmother almost committed suicide due to postpartum depression after her seventh pregnancy at age 49. These are the predictable consequences of the CC's policies.

It is time to stop pretending that this Church is a respectable institute. To hell with political correctness. I do not care if I offend anyone, including the devout Catholics of my family. The CC seeks to control the politics of the United States and the world and push its theocratic dominionism on everyone. It is time that this menace to human rights and democracy is exposed.

Dear PAGANPLACE,

“Human sacrifice? What's a witch-or-heretic-burning but a ritualized way of killing someone so as to try and appease the wrath of a God?

How bout all the baying for blood after 9/11? What people do when freaked out hasn't changed all that much, really. We just have TV now.”

Yes, absolutely. I try not to remodel the religious crimes of the past, be they Christian, Moslem, Christian, Atheist, or “Pagan”.

As to the propaganda, yes, there is some from the Romans who had their own crimes, including sadistic mass executions, that dwarfed those of the Celts. That said there is no real doubt as to the human sacrifice among the Celts. A few citations from bbc.co.uk on British Prehistory:

Bodies from the Bog by James M Deem (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998)

City of Sacrifice: The Aztec Empire and the Role of Violence in Civilization by David Carrasco (Beacon Press, 2000)

Earthly Remains: The History and Science of Preserved Bodies by Andrew Chamberlain and Mike Parker-Pearson (British Museum, 2001)

Dying for the Gods by Miranda Green (Sutton, 2001)

The Archaeology of Death and Burial by Mike Parker Pearson (Sutton, 1999)

Lindow Man: The Body in the Bog (eds.) by Ian Stead, JB Bourke and Don Brothwel (British Museum, 1986)

The Highest Altar: The Story of Human Sacrifice by Patrick Tierney (Viking, 1989)

Bog Bodies: New Discoveries and New Perspectives edited by Rick Turner and Rob Scaife (British Museum, 1995)

Through Nature to Eternity: The Bog Bodies of North-west Europe by Winand van der Sanden (Batavian Lion, 1996)

The Romans, as mortal enemies could have easily been highly biased, but the Hellenistic writers, who were from a culture not chronically at war with the Punics of Carthage record practices of the Priesthood of Molek that would curl your hair.

The point here is not to single out the Pagan religions. The point is that if you go back far enough every antecedent tradition has human sacrifice in it. The story of Abraham and Issac seems to record the transition from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice among the Hebrews perhaps between two and four thousand B.C.

Isn't religion fun>you can use it to hate everyone that doesn't believe in your delusions and fantasies.

The important point:

There is no religion in the Spirit State aka Heaven. The Gate is open to anyone of good standing with or without the assistance of B16 and/or Latin Masses.

It is okay to have an opinion or a conviction in your heart but God is love and that has not changed and does not change ever. If my salvation were depended on me or you then I could not say that but because my salvation is dependent on God alone, I know that I do not have to defend God nor His Holy word. In the strictest since of language and understanding by hearing the Word of God comes faith. Languages can be learned and so can fear. This board is full of our fears, our insecurities and yet the message is still God's message, which draws into a loving personal relationship with Him. He knows us and He understands us better than we understand ourselves sometimes. Stay at peace with God, look to God in all you do and say. Stay blessed and move forward knowing that we will never fully understand God if we continue to put Him on a shelf or in a box. God is more than undescribeable and unphanthomable than I could ever know that is why it is so easy to recognize that part of my history is a failing not on God's part but on the part of myself, which did not take the time to let God guide my footsteps and in everything prepare the way. Preparation and patience are two necessary gifts of God whenever change is taking place in our lives, our churches. For those who are able to receive these gift, let His life be blessed and pleasing to God. Amen.

This is o stupid and dumb ass funny. This dumb ass pope thinks Latin should be the language of prayer? Why is it, because dog can understand it better? Then these dumb ass morons are offended by the prayer. Thes folks should be offended that this dumb ass pope considers himself infallible. This dumb ass pope, makes all these dumb ass pronouncements about faith etc, etc. Those are the ones that are offensive. The notion that this peddler

The point there, Moderate, is that these atrocities you point out, (and, no, there's no evidence 'Druids were regularly doing human sacrifice' at this time,) is part of the same thing as Christianity takes so much credit for dispelling: in fact, what Rome did didn't stop when the Empire became officially and oppressively Christian... Slavery even, didn't go away until relatively recent in history, all with Christian powers' approval.

Human sacrifice? What's a witch-or-heretic-burning but a ritualized way of killing someone so as to try and appease the wrath of a God?

How bout all the baying for blood after 9/11? What people do when freaked out hasn't changed all that much, really. We just have TV now.

There's a tendency for popular history to really *telescope* Christianity-related events and hundreds of cultures across thousands of years, to take credit for anything 'good' in the world: like there was a unified Pagan world full of all the worst reprts, until these people suddenly heard about Jesus and stopped it. Not how this happened. And not how it was.

Not saying everything was peachy-keen, but pointing out it wasn't that simple.

"To continue the discussion, I believe that it is not God (The Gods if you prefer) that were primitive and murderous, but Mankind."

See, you got it right there.

If there's anything I take as 'Gospel,' well, Lady's mouth to our ears, that's why She says she demands nothing of sacrifice. Sometimes used to say that we're selfish, but it's not about that. :)

It's about: The Gods don't demand sacrifice.

Even the things modernly termed 'sacrifice' ..usually demanded of others.

People do.

" We like to think we have made progress but we are primitive in comparison with what we will be three thousand years hence, I hope."

Three years would be better. Thirty's problematic.

DR FOO, I could have sworn that was the apostles Peter and Paul with the virgin Mary that pronounced "the ants are my friends and they're blowing in the wind"

It's summer time and the chicken is greasy
shuck your corn and paaaass the tater pie

Dear PAGANPLACE:

“I'll point out that the 'Mycenean Greeks' were well before this Jesus' time, and the fall of Troy was possibly in the 1190s BCE: 'Homer,' if there's one such man, which is unlikely in itself, was compiling stories from the oral tradition likely no later than 900 BCE... hardly a documentary depiction of the practices Jesus supposedly had to do with abolishing.”

Absolutely correct. The post the Tarra was reacting to was about the horrifyingly violent entry of the the Exodus Jews under Moses into the land of Canaan, where they conducted a Holocaust against the Canaanites living there. The part of the passage that I have always found horrifying is:

“6. Moses sent them the thousand from each tribe to the army, them along with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the kohen to the army, with the sacred utensils and the trumpets for sounding in his possession. 7. They mounted an attack against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. ... 15. Moses said to them, "Did you allow all the females to live? 16. They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor, resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord. 17. So now kill every male child, and every woman who can lie intimately with a man you shall kill. 18. And all the young girls who have no experience of intimate relations with a man, you may keep alive for yourselves.”

So yes, the date is conventionally given as contemporary with Ramses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, around 1280 B.C. Careful study of the histories and the archaeological studies actually suggests that Jericho, and Ai were sacked perhaps four hundred years earlier than the reign of Ramses II. So there is now a significant minority opinion that the Exodus was perhaps 1600's B.C. rather than 1200's.

That is why I responded to Tarra's comment:

“This is why I am not a Christian...
this is in the OT...the OT is what all three religions have in common.

terra”

Allowing the uncertainty in the dates for the Exodus and the Holocaust the Exodus Jews committed against the Canaanites, I gave examples from various Second Millennium B.C. time frames. Your are right that “this Jesus' time” was far off.

The short summary for this period is:

Phoenicians: Molek worship involving incineration of infants.

Greeks: Still doing human sacrifice. e.g. Agamemnon's Daughter, Iphigeneia.

Celts, including Druids: Still regularly doing human sacrifice.

Conclusion: The murderous Hebrews of the Exodus were no worse than their Pagan contemporaries.

Later the Romans would line the Via Apia with crucified slaves who had participated in the Spartacus rebellion in the name of the secular Res Publica that lived on slave labor.

Perhaps sixteen hundred years later this Jesus guy would die trying to bring a new level of ethics and charity to the human race.

My point is that hanging the OT crimes on Jesus or contemporary Christians is as silly as hanging Molek on you today.

To continue the discussion, I believe that it is not God (The Gods if you prefer) that were primitive and murderous, but Mankind. We like to think we have made progress but we are primitive in comparison with what we will be three thousand years hence, I hope.

In support of Dr.Johnson's paraphrased statement above, I offer the following:

1. His Holiness the Pope's Comments on Buddhism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tenzin Trinley

On the whole, I had the pleasure of reading His Holiness Pope John Paul
ll's best selling book, CROSSING THE THRESHOLD OF HOPE. The book is very
interesting and enlightening with matters pertaining to Christian faith.
When I came upon reading a seven-page chapter called "Buddha", I was terribly
disappointed with the Pontiff for calling Buddhism "atheistic", "negative"
and indifferent to the world." The Pope writes, "The enlightenment
experienced by the Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad"
and "To save oneself means, above all, to free oneself from evil by becoming
indifferent to the world." Further, the Pope writes that the "doctrine of
salvation in Buddhism and Christianity are opposed" and that the Buddhist
doctrines are "fundamentally contrarary to the development of both man
himself and the world"

I find it very difficult to believe that such a religious leader of his
stature is not well informed about the most fundamental principles of
Buddhism and presents in his book a very simplistic and mistaken views of the
most profound teachings of the Buddha. Buddhism is about becoming detached
from greed, hatred and ignorance--not from the world. Many great Buddhist
practitioners make a deliberate effort to constantly remain in the world in
order to help others. A great Buddhist Saint in the 11th century, Shantideva
wrote in one of his many great writings, A GUIDE TO BODHISATTVA'S WAY OF
LIFE,

May celestials bring timely rains
So that harvest may be bountiful.
May the kings act in accordance with religion
And the people of the world always prosper.

For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama always concludes his teachings by reciting these
prayers.

As a result of the controversial comments made by the Pope, they have caused
some disunity between Buddhists and Christians of all places in Sri Lanka,
a country torn apart with internal strife and conflict where the Pope
visited on the last leg of his Asian pilgrimage. Just hours before departing
from Sri Lanka, the Pope sought to defuse the growing interfaith conflict by
saying "I voluntarily take the occasion to assure followers of the Buddhist
religion of my deep respect and my sincere esteem."

In this book I also find it offensive that the Pope characterized
another globe-trotting spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama of Tibet, as
"stirring up" interest in Buddhism in the West. The Pope concludes his
chapter on Buddhism by warning Catholics about "the return of ancient gnostic
ideas under the guise of the so-called New Age."

Today, all the leaders of the great religions of the world have a
special responsibility to create a true sense of harmony, understanding and,
above all, mutual respect in each others tradition and to create a pleasant
situation for diversity of means with uniformity in purpose.

Despite what has been said, as Buddhists we should practice patience and
maintain our sincere respect for the Pope as a great religious leader.

Sharpa Tulku, Madison, Wisconsin
January 25, 1995

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

Professor Gimello,

I'll let you two Professors of Buddhist Studies at Columbia and Notre Dame duke it out over the finer points of how many angels it takes to screw in a cosmic lightbulb in the Seventh Heaven or the Bardo of Becoming.

I'm only a lay person, concerned with the minor matters of life and death, and the horrific conundrum of being incarnated.

I will however, undertake to paraphrase Doctor Johnson:

"A Catholic Professor professing Buddhist Studies, Sir, is like a dog walking on his hind legs. It is not done well, but one is surprised to find it done at all."

Regards.

Professor Gimello,

I'll let you two Professors of Buddhist Studies at Columbia and Notre Dame duke it out over the finer points of how many angels it takes to screw in a cosmic lightbulb.

I'm only a lay person, concerned with the minor matters of life and death, and the horrific conundrum of being incarnated.

I will however, undertake to paraphrase Doctor Johnson:

"A Catholic Professor professing Buddhist Studies, Sir, is like a dog walking on his hind legs. It is not done well but one is surprised to find it done at all."

"It is fine to be enthusiastic about one's own tradition, in ant language."

I agree with Prof. Thurman, religious traditions are best in ant language. If the Bible (OT & NT) were translated into ant pheremones, it would be harder to fight over the literal inerrancies of such poetic language. Or at least maybe ants would ust have an easier time reading a message of peace without turning it into an excuse to torture and kill other people.

As the Rev. R. Dylan said, "The ants are my friends; they're blowing in the wind. The ants are blowing in the wind."

Right on, ROBERT M GIMELLO: You got it. The gun of hell to you head is now a permanent fixture. I know you're as stuck as a bug on flypaper but just how sure are you that gun is real?

Jesus died so everyone could be with Her father, you know, the being in the fire Moses made the deal with. That's known as "knocking one's self out" to achieve the easiest of goals, buying a ticket to hell.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul tells us who the "heavenly father" of Jesus is and the promise made to those who follow. And it comes directly from the Bible. Awaiting your evidence the finding is in error.

Calling Devil God does not make Devil God but does make Devil happy. Sale of soul to Devil brings the big money but only to those who lead the multitudes to hell any more. The road to hell is paved with the loftiest of good intentions, getting to heaven.

However did Constantine make out? He attacked his three fellow co-emperors and won with the help of the same being, the one Moses made the deal with. "The better class of people" is determined by how well they do taking that which belongs to others to hold unto themselves. By that standard Constantine did well.

The mighty Roman Empire fell less than 100 years after becoming a Christian nation. The USA became an official Christian nation, 1956. How's things been going ever since? Just which "higher power" did W consult with before attacking Iraq?

Thinking about what that hoax buster fellow has found is making the pope's head hurt. People like me saying things like he should return the plundered Aztec and Inca gold used to make the sacred articles, monstrances, chalices and all used to hold the precious body and blood of Jesus isn't very soothing either. Don't you think? Remember, some thoughts will make your head hurt so caution is advised.

Right on, Professor Gimello!

One might have expected greater measures of discrimination and scholarly prudence from the Jey Tsong Khapa Professor of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia than he displayed in his ill-informed and absurdly condescending recommendation that Pope Benedict XVI “re-read James Carroll’s “Constantine’s Sword” and in his implied suggestion that the Pope should perhaps rescind his moto proprio accordingly (lest he be guilty of a “human rights violation”!). Those inclined to accept Thurman’s opinion that Carroll’s book is “an excellent work of scholarship” would do well to read, among other things, the review of it by Prof. Eamon Duffy of Cambridge University published in the July 5, 2001 issue of The New York Review of Books (which journal, by the way, is hardly a vehicle for traditional Catholic apologetics). Carroll is yet another disaffected “Catholic” of sour sixties vintage, with a strong personal distaste for the essentials of Catholic faith (e.g., the belief that Christ’s death on the cross redeemed mankind) and with a predictable preference for the likes of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross over the likes of St. Anselm. His nearly interminable screed is a mere pretense of scholarship, a series of “cherry-picking” raids on the work of real historians in which he shamelessly distorts the history of Christianity and — worse — appropriates the true tragedy of anti-semitism to his own sophomoric “theological” agenda. I doubt that Prof. Thurman would tolerate this sort of thing in his own field of Buddhist Studies. Why, I wonder, does he allow it — even recommend it — apropos of Christianity. This is all the more puzzling in view of the fact that Thurman clearly has not read any of Benedict’s ample writings on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Nor (as other respondents have noted) does he seem to know what he’s talking about when he refers to the text of the Tridentine mass. And yet none of this has dissuaded him from ready pc pontification. I’m both astonished and dismayed!

Robert M. Gimello
Research Professor of Buddhist Studies
Depts. of Theology and of East Asian Languages & Civilizations
The University of Notre Dame

We people are truly lost in the prisons of our mind.
I think we should all individually go back to the old form before the Latin Mass.
Back to the time of Jesus.
We should stop inventing forms and follow the example of Jesus.
How many of the above have gone into the mountains to rest in solitude for 30 days.

Religion just won't get it without the practice!

Pretty funny Frank - that comment about a day when people will be selling computers without keyboards. I agree because the letter "F" on your keyboard and everyone else's keyboard offends me. If they would sell keyboards without the letter "F" then this should be an approved PC keyboard. Frank, if you type something here on this web site that offends some dude (i.e. harms him) in Islamabad or Iran, does that warrant not only a banned keyboard but a fatwa and a death sentence? If so, then you should consider a voluntary keyboard-sectomy.

TIM, are you a member of "the better class of people" or do you suggest that violence be used to get what God wants in cases of unprotected sex, abortions, homo sex or just plain sex without the approval of God's representatives?

((((((((((THE BIBLE IS A PROVED HOAX)))))))))))

Jesus was a woman with a wife. She claimed to be "the son of God" just like the Bible says. Any story can be told to fit the desires of the teller with a little editing. That's how "the better class of people" justify getting what they want even if it means killing.

DAVID ELLIS:

Acceptable violence is that which is necessary to gain and hold what "the better class of people" want. The great civilizations, Egypt, Persia, Greece and Rome all used that rule. So the problem is moved one logical step, not about commandments or philosophy concerning violence but rather to determine, "the better class of people."

"The better class of people" is defined to be the "groups" that have the physical power, the God given right to get what they want, "by right of conquest" the right to take anything one has the power to take, (Aztec and Inca gold for example). So the logic shifts to a supernatural being, the one that authorizes the use of violence.

It's a two stepper. First, how can we tell that "the better class of people" actually are "the better class of people"? It's very simple. Step 2, those who worship the correct God and/or make the proper sacrifices to God, (in cases where both sides have the same God, Iraq!!!) shall win the fight to determine who shall have what they want.

So "the better class of people" have faith. That says that faith is the key to acceptable violence. It is not their greed, their willingness to violate God's commandments but their faith that determines who they are and they are by their ability to get what they want, "the better class of people." People without faith are just a bunch of non believing atheists that must be kept out of positions of authority,, for fear they will actually enforce God's law.

Welcome to the funny farm called planet earth and the United States of America, home of the insane,, "better class of people" because they have faith or is that because they have the physical power to get what they want.

I trust this clears it up for you. If not I can tell you about hell, where the "less than better class of people" that must be killed to get what "the better class of people" want, (hint: Aztec and Inca gold) are sent,, so they won't be "laying in wait" in the next world for "the better class of people." It's a shame everyone must die, "the better class of people" too. Screws up the whole affair. Thank God for hell otherwise "the better class of people" would have a problem.

http://www.hoax-buster.org for the rest of the story of how "the better class of people" justify getting what they want when it belongs to others.

David Ellis I am not being argumentative as I agree with what you have said but ... Under what conditions and what are those conditions that harm a person? Does having sex when you have AIDS harm a person? Does having an abortion harm another person as you kill them before they are born? Does having pre-marital sex hurt anyone? Does being a homosexual harm the other person you try to seduce? Is telling a white lie even when done with good intentions more harmful than just telling the truth since this might help a person?

In each and every example there seem to be many different opinions on what harms a person and the list of questions could go on almost forever. Even knowing the right answers would not preclude us from unintentionally harming someone. And the $64,000 question that comes up every day is this: will it do more harm to leave Iraq than to stay in Iraq? Sorry, I know that I should not have brought up Iraq :)

I make no judgments here. The point is this: a doctrine of do no harm is subject to personal interpretation of what doing harm means. Some things are obvious but many are unclear. Some things that appear at first to do no harm can eventually cause major hurt. Like adultery. We need to provide freedom where there is not clarity. And it seems reasonable to recognize that that a doctrine of do what you will as long as you do no harm puts the person a the center of making judgments about what does harm and what does not do harm.

Do not judge is a good thing for us to acknowledge and understand. When you have God's commandments and laws you don't need to judge for God has already rendered judgment on many important issues and it is best to just obey. Try to obey god's laws and may I suggest that we may end up doing the least harm to others the closer we come to obedience to Christ. In this sentence "try" is the operative word. And yes one of those commandments is to turn the other cheek and this is a tough one indeed. If you achieve this, then my hat is off to you.

Here's the thing -- if Jewish leaders who were upset about this had gone directly to the Pope and said something, the whole issue might have been resolved quietly and nobody would really have cared. Instead, they made it into a big public issue, which probably means that it can't be changed because the Pope would be seen as caving in to politics.

Let's face it, this has been overhyped. There is no suggestion here that Jews are evil. As anonymous points out, it is actually a prayer for the Jews. Let's also remember that, despite this prayer, Catholics have quite a lot of respect for the Jewish faith in this day and age.

Ultimately, the Catholic Church's position is that it is THE religion for the world. If you disagree with that, you aren't Catholic. Catholics pray for reconciliation with all people, but that does not mean that we wish to do it by force. This whole thing is just about getting attention.

ok lets have every religion be pc.
i propose that every religion submit their holy books as well as the forms for celebration, including the preaching, on the internet, so that ANY who is offended can just strike the offending word or words.
this should apply equally to all religions.
hey, lets apply it to political parties and political speach!
no lets go further, lets apply it to thought - all thought. we can have a place on the net where the approved words are posted, subject to being struck by anyone offended by the word or words.
and in the end - people will sell computers without keyboards - because every word or letter will offend someone.

The pacifist doctrine is the only doctrine that is defensible using the rules of reason and logic. If you say that, under certain conditions, it's OK to kill someone, what are those conditions? It's ironic that all the major religions teach pacifism: Moses said "Thou shalt not kill" He DIDN'T say, "Thou shalt not kill unless thou art really pissed off." Christ taught us to turn the other cheek, even when assaulted. The Koran says the same thing in several places. (although I don't have a copy nearby to find those places for you all.) Once you start tryiong to define acceptable violence, you fall down as logical hole for which there is no exit.
I'd also like to mention that pacifism is the ultimate form of courage. It's the willingness to die for a moral principle, that of never harming another man, no matter what. It's a tough pill to swallow, though, in this world of violent cowards.

The pacifist doctrine is the only doctrine that is defensible using the rules of reason and logic. If you say that, under certain conditions, it's OK to kill someone, what are those conditions? It's ironic that all the major religions teach pacifism: Moses said "Thou shalt not kill" He DIDN'T say, "Thou shalt not kill unless thou art really pissed off." Christ taught us to turn the other cheek, even when assaulted. The Koran says the same thing in several places. (although I don't have a copy nearby to find those places for you all.) Once you start tryiong to define acceptable violence, you fall down as logical hole for which there is no exit.
I'd also like to mention that pacifism is the ultimate form of courage. It's the willingness to die for a moral principle, that of never harming another man, no matter what. It's a tough pill to swallow, though, in this world of violent cowards.

Sigh. The prayers referred were said on Good Friday, the only day of the liturgical year without a Mass. They actually weren't part of the Mass itself and the pope clearly didn't roll the clock back for the Easter Triduum, when the prayers are said.

Hi,

The author is an idiot, from the evidence alone of what I have read in this piece .

He is a man who has not taken a minute to learn about the respect that this present Pope has for our Jewish brethern or to learn about the respectful dialogue that he has made with a Jewish Rabbi.

He is stuck in a bygone era with bygone feelings about a bygone concept.

I pity him, and anyone of his ilk who is stuck in the past.

Dominic.

Greetings yourself Jacob:

The reason the UFO occupants do not speak to us is because they are only here to observe. They do contact individuals, you for example? You're not one of them?

Apocalypse is near and "observers" want to see what happens? What happens here will happen to them later and they want to be prepared? I thought so.

One telltale sign of the occupants is their lack of command of earth language. But they can learn. You're getting better. I almost understood what you wrote this time. The title is enough. Got it. Religion, all religions are operated for the benefit of their operators, don't do much for the sheep, tithes, threats of hell, lists of dos and don't dos, boring services...

A Japanese-American guy once told me that growing up in a Buddhist household was a lot like growing up Catholic: You do things that don't make sense to you just to keep your mother happy. He also pointed out that the big difference between Buddhist and Christian parables is that the Buddhist ones all end with a question, and a choice of different reasonable paths. The "lessons" were all about asking the right questions and recognizing the possibility of more than one solution.
The professor could answer better, I'm sure.

The Moderate:

I'll point out that the 'Mycenean Greeks' were well before this Jesus' time, and the fall of Troy was possibly in the 1190s BCE: 'Homer,' if there's one such man, which is unlikely in itself, was compiling stories from the oral tradition likely no later than 900 BCE... hardly a documentary depiction of the practices Jesus supposedly had to do with abolishing.

There are in fact mythic stories of why human sacrifice wasn't done: the reason it's heard about where it did happen is in fact, largely through the indignant eyes of other Pagan civilizations, often in the course of justifying wars and the like, just like it's been claimed against Celtic peoples on only the words of Julius Caesar, who obviously had some interest in making it seem like he was doing a great thing in Gaul and Britain against strange and merciless foes.

This isn't to say the Pagan world was everywhere a Utopia, ...Carthage is believed to have had a priesthood that actually had some pretty nasty practices, including child sacrifice, for instance, ...certainly one can see a religious institution out of control there, if so...

...But neither was the Pagan world (really many Pagan worlds) this compilation of lurid tidbits cherrypicked by propagandists from whatever source, including myth and storytelling (would you want your civilization judged as if it really were about the content of some of the movies out there today? ) ...and rhetorical hyperbole *of the time.*

Just to speak of discernment. :)

Buddhist seem to be very fervent in their belief(s). I have a question along that line.

The three great faiths hold the Gun of Hell to the heads of their children threatening them with the greatest terror possible, being set on fire and left to burn forever. The gun is held until it becomes a permanent fixture of the mind. In simple terms, it's mind control based upon fear, terrorism.

Do Buddhists do anything like that, gun to the heads of their children forcing them to believe, have faith? Maybe the professor could answer?

That idea of justice, love and the true God (what you call pacifism) conqured the greatest empire in ancient history - despite the horrible oppression against Christians by the Romans- and then went on to spread across the world and is still thriving today.

To Tim,

In fact Tim, Jesus's teachings are not without faults. For one, Jesus was a dedicated pacifist. While pacifism is an excellent way of life in theory, but in practice pacifism leads to being conquered and probably oppressed. Another issue with the NT is that it contradicts itself on whether to be effusive about one's faith or not. Certain passages say the strongest faith is a quiet faith and that one ought to gain converts merely by a person's actions. Other portions say that one should loudly proclaim their Christian faith and actively try to recruit new Christians. Another issue is Christianity's focus on the after-life. In the past, and in some sects even today, Christians have focused so much on the after-life, that they use the excuse of saving people's souls to persecute and harm/kill non-christians.The NT does say that the only way to heavan is through Jesus and thus that condems billions of good-hearted, and sometimes ignorant of Christianity, non-christians to an eternity in hell. That doesn't sound like a loving god to me. Then there is Revelation which, while its author wasn't working from the messages Jesus had preached while living, is full of violence, catacylsim, and suffering. However, that's not the bad part about that book. Revelation has spawned many cults waiting for the end of the world (like the Branch Davidians at Wako). These cults often end in suicide for their members and while in existance are means for Hitler-esque type personalities to dominate and control vunerable people. Thus Jesuses words have caused much pain and suffering and haven't been without faults.

Singling,

not sure this will satisfy you, but at least people have tried to explain:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

I don't promise to have a link for every controversial OT passage, but I happen to remember about this one.

This prayer is for Anonymous #1:

“Let us pray for the Catholic Christian people, not the first to hear the word of Buddha, that they may grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his dharma.”

“O Lord Buddha, long ago you gave your teachings to all peoples. Listen to us Buddhists as we pray that the Catholic Christian people may arrive at the fullness of enlightenment in accord with your teachings.”

This should be recited only once a year.

Maybe Jesus didn't speak Aramaic after all?

http://www.hoax-buster.org PAGE 2.

The "return to the past" by the Vatican is a smoke screen. Reviewing the hoax buster web site and thinking about what it says makes the pope's head hurt.

You may be on to something big professor, "ancient languages are wonderful" and they have the **real history too. It's a shame so few read the actual language of Moses, Jesus and all the other 'bit players' in the Bible. Don't you think?

Speed123 is correct; we Christians have the pure, wonderful words of Christ in the NT that no one can fault, even 2000 years later. This alone is proof of his claim to be Divine. All other Prophets, need to have some of their words or even most of their words interpreted mystically to conform to a civilized world without stoning for adultery. We Christians can interpret Jesus' words literally in today's pluralistic world and without any problems trying to somehow deal with a contradiction like "go kill the unbelievers." It must be really hard to deal with things in so called Holy books that are unchangeable (because supposedly they are from God) but clearly in error. That is a problem Jesus did not leave us and truly a blessing.

The author says: "And if the Latin Mass is to be recommended for the sonorous beauty of the ancient language, well and good; but still its message should be cleansed of any anti-Semitic statements."

"Cleansed" is an odd word to use as it has so many negative connotations. And the author is worried about using the word Jews in a prayer about salvation. I don't like the word cleanse or cleansed as in cleanse the nation of Germany of all the Jews. The athor needs to reconsider his choice of words :)

Dear Tarra,

The OT was compiled over the first and second millennia B.C. three to four thousand years ago. The People of Israel were no worse than their contemporaries. At this time:

The tribes of Israel did indeed conduct their own Holocaust against the people Canaan and recorded it in their sacred histories, and used their primitive understanding of their God to justify itself.

Molek was a major Pagan God at that time, and demanded the incineration of infants to appease him.

The Mycenaean Greeks still practiced human sacrifice and recorded it in the Illiad.

First Millennium A.D. the Moslems would conduct Holocausts against the Infidels and conquer a vast empire murdering as they went, all in the name of Allah.

Early in the Second Millennium the Christians would respond with Crusades.

The Celts practiced human sacrifice and internecine wars at this time.

Jesus was a great reformer who died trying to bring a new level of ethics and charity to the human race. There has been a great updating of our understanding of the words and intent of God (or The Gods if you prefer). Continuing this discernment is the task of today for all religions.

Terra,

Just to let you know, Christianity focuses almost entirely on the message of Jesus Christ and that message is from the NT.

Want the OT? Stick with Evangelical Christians, Judaism or Islam.

This is why I am not a Christian...
this is in the OT...the OT is what all three religions have in common.

terra

It's amusing to see how only ONE tradition gets singled out for a media onslaught. If you were to look closely at both Jewish and Muslim scriptures/liturgies, you would find
many more, and more egregious exhortations to violence
agains the out-groups/infidels. For instance, in this week's Torah reading (read by orthodox Jews on the sabbath) - here is this beauty (taken from BaMidbar):

Chapter 31
1. The Lord spoke to Moses saying, 2. "Take revenge for the children of Israel against the Midianites; afterwards you will be gathered to your people." 3. So Moses spoke to the people, saying, "Arm from among you men for the army, that they can be against Midian, and carry out the revenge of the Lord against Midian. 4. A thousand for each tribe, a thousand for each tribe, from all the tribes of Israel you shall send into the army." 5. From the thousands of Israel one thousand was given over for each tribe, twelve thousand armed for battle. 6. Moses sent them the thousand from each tribe to the army, them along with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the kohen to the army, with the sacred utensils and the trumpets for sounding in his possession. 7. They mounted an attack against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. 8. And they killed the Midianite kings upon their slain: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, and Balaam the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9. The children of Israel took the Midianite women and their small children captive, and they plundered all their beasts, livestock, and all their possessions. 10. They set fire to all their residential cities and their castles. 11. They took all the booty and all the plunder of man and beast. 12. They brought the captives, the plunder, and the booty to Moses and to Eleazar the kohen and to the entire community of Israel in the camp, in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
2nd, Portion
Chapter 31
13. Moses, Eleazar the kohen, and all princes of the community went out to meet them, outside the camp. 14. Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had returned from the campaign of war. 15. Moses said to them, "Did you allow all the females to live? 16. They were the same ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam's advice to betray the Lord over the incident of Peor, resulting in a plague among the congregation of the Lord. 17. So now kill every male child, and every woman who can lie intimately with a man you shall kill. 18. And all the young girls who have no experience of intimate relations with a man, you may keep alive for yourselves. 19. And you, encamp outside the camp for seven days; whoever killed a person or who touched a corpse shall cleanse himself on the third and seventh day, both you and your captives. 20. All garments, leather articles, any goat product, and every wooden article shall undergo purification." 21. Eleazar the kohen said to the soldiers returning from battle, "This is the statute that the Lord commanded Moses. 22. Only the gold, the silver, the copper, the iron, the tin, and the lead 23. whatever is used in fire you shall pass through fire and then it will be clean; it must, however, [also] be cleansed with sprinkling water, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through water. 24. You shall wash your garments on the seventh day and become [ritually] clean; afterwards, you may enter the camp." 25. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 26. "Take a count of the plunder of the captive people and animals, you, together with Eleazar the kohen and the paternal leaders of the community. 27. And you shall divide the plunder equally between the warriors who went out to battle and the entire congregation. 28. And you shall levy a tax for the Lord from the soldiers who went out to battle: one soul out of every five hundred, from the people, from the cattle, from the donkeys, and from the sheep. 29. You shall take from their half and give it to Eleazar the kohen as a gift to the Lord. 30. From the half belonging to the children of Israel you shall take one part out of fifty of the people, of the cattle, of the donkeys, of the sheep, and of all animals, and you shall give them to the Levites, the guardians of the Mishkan of the Lord." 31. Moses and Eleazar the kohen did as the Lord had commanded Moses. 32. The plunder, which was in addition to the spoils that the army had spoiled, consisted of six hundred and seventy five thousand sheep. 33. Seventy two thousand cattle. 34. Sixty one thousand donkeys. 35. As for the people, of the women who had no experience of intimate relations with a man, all souls were thirty two thousand. 36. The half that was the portion of those who went out to battle: the number of sheep was three hundred and thirty seven thousand, five hundred. 37. The tax to the Lord from the sheep was six hundred and seventy five. 38. Thirty six thousand cattle, of which the tax to the Lord was seventy two. 39. Thirty thousand and five hundred donkeys, of which the tax to the Lord was sixty one. 40. Sixteen thousand people, of which the tax to the Lord was thirty two people. 41. Moses gave the tax which was a gift to the Lord, to Eleazar the kohen, as the Lord had commanded Moses. 42. And from the half allotted to the children of Israel, which Moses had divided from the men who had gone into the army. 43. The community's half [consisted of] three hundred and thirty seven thousand, five hundred sheep. 44. Thirty six thousand cattle. 45. Thirty thousand five hundred donkeys. 46. And sixteen thousand people. 47. Moses took one part out of fifty from the half of the children of Israel, the people and the animals, and gave them to the Levites, the guardians of the Lord's sanctuary. 48. The officers appointed over the army's thousands, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, approached Moses. 49. They said to Moses, "Your servants counted the soldiers who were in our charge, and not one man was missing from us. 50. We therefore wish to bring an offering for the Lord. Any man who found a gold article, be it an anklet, a bracelet, a ring, an earring, or a body ornament, to atone for our souls before the Lord. 51. Moses and Eleazar the kohen took all the gold articles from them. 52. The total of the gift of gold which they dedicated to the Lord [amounted to] sixteen thousand, seven hundred and fifty shekels; this was from the commanders of the thousands and the commanders of the hundreds. 53. The soldiers had seized spoils for themselves. 54. Moses and Eleazar the kohen took the gold from the commanders of the thousands and hundreds and brought it to the Tent of Meeting, as a remembrance for the children of Israel before the Lord.

I won't bore the readers with many other examples from other middle-eastern traditions.

How is this to be explained away?

To those defending the Pope, did you read the Pope's offensive statements reported in the news yesterday. Every other Christian faith is declared to be in error and not providing an opportunity for salvation, etc. etc.

These views are erroneous and harmful to any reconciliation

Isn't it amazing how people feel free to dump on Catholics? "The last socially acceptable predjudice." just about gets it. The Catholics need their own Antidefamation League for people like this.

1. Pope Benedict is not "bringing back" the Latin Tridentine rite. It has been said by exception of the local ordinary (archbishop or bishop) for decades now. Benedict simply made it easier for priests to gain approval for celebrating it.

2. In the last missal for the Latin Tridentine rite, published in 1965 by Pope John XXIII, the words "perfidis Judaeis" were removed. It is this missal which is currently used by the Church.

3. The Latin "perfidis" translates to the English "faithless", a reference to Judaism not believing in Christ as God. Too often it has been mistranslated as "perfidious" in the popular media, which is not well versed in Latin. And moreover, as the previous contributor points out, it only occurred in the rite once a year, on Good Friday. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Prayer.

I hope to have corrected any misconceptions Professor Thurman may have had.

“Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.” The following prayer is this: “Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.”

These are the exact prayers said ONCE a year ....anti-semitic, eh?

Give it a rest!