All Comments (198)

4/26/08

Dear Ms./Mrs. Jacoby:

I saw yu again on "After words" this evening. I agree with a lot of what you say, especially about putting a television in a baby's room above his cib, and not watching t.v. and trying to read/study at the same time.

Thank you

MAurelius:

--"If religion inherently brings with it violence and bloodshed, it seems logical that the removal of religion from the public sphere would lead to less violence. Yet the atheists of the French Revolution lead the bloodiest purging Europe had ever seen."

Funny, but I don't recall them shouting "Vive la Revolution and there is no God!" Bloodier than the Albigensian Crusade? The 30 Years War? Were all of the revolutionaries atheists? How many were Christians? How many of these atheists did not also believe in pixies? Could their non-belief in pixies explain their blood lust?

--"Sadly, their bloodshed paled in comparison to the bloodshed of the atheist régimes of the twentieth century. The atheist régimes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao can claim far more atrocities then any church or government before them."

Those were political regimes headed by people who also didn't happen to believe in god(s). Again, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were a-pixieists...etc., etc.. True though, one can only imagine what the medieval popes might have been able to accomplish with tanks and machine guns.

--"The worst régimes of history, religious, agnostic, or atheist, have committed their greatest crimes outside of religious and moral reasoning."

The problem for the Christian theist, however, is that they claim to be intimately and continually guided by an omnipotent, omniscient Holy Spirit, until they screw up. If the fruits of the worst of atheist and theist philosophies are essentially identical, of what use is the Holy Spirit? Judging from the results, it's almost as if it doesn't exist!

Sixtus IV actually issued a bull condemning the excess of the inquisition in Spain. Regrettably, he withdrew the bull after Ferdinand threatened to leave Rome to the conquest of the Turks. Sixtus’ choice was morally wrong and was clearly man’s choice, not God’s. His choice was not in line with the belief system he preached, but instead, with the political world he lived in (though it was hardly more abhorrent than the choices of many of own secular leaders today.)

The other side of the coin goes something like this. If religion inherently brings with it violence and bloodshed, it seems logical that the removal of religion from the public sphere would lead to less violence. Yet the atheists of the French Revolution lead the bloodiest purging Europe had ever seen. If we are to credit the Pope with the inquisition, we should credit Robespierre and the other leading atheist thinkers of their day with the Reign of Terror. Sadly, their bloodshed paled in comparison to the bloodshed of the atheist régimes of the twentieth century. The atheist régimes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao can claim far more atrocities then any church or government before them.

The point is not that atheism or religion leads to slaughter. Most (though not all) secular ethical systems reason against such actions, just as most religious systems do. The point is that men, being flawed, driven in part by the will to power, and acting imperfectly in the political world that they live in, are capable of great atrocities whatever their religious beliefs or lack there of. The worst régimes of history, religious, agnostic, or atheist, have committed their greatest crimes outside of religious and moral reasoning.

Paul says: " But secularism is a much more dangerous religion than fundamentalist islam"

fear not - secularism is not a religion. It means lack of religion.

For instance, the US is a secular democracy. The government allows freedom of religion, but does not include religion in the Governmental structure.

The views of this "secular" author seems slanted against the church or of any religion. I am a catholic ....and it disgusts me to read the views of a person so opposed to religion. I admire and have many muslim friends. But secularism is a much more dangerous religion than fundamentalist islam.

TO JUST A COMMENT:

You wrote, " That is because once you belong to an organization you share the principles and some part of responsibility for the past, present and future of that organization.".

What you write here does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

As far as belonging to an organization, I guess you could say that one of the organizations that I belong to is the United States of America since I was born in the USA.

Am I responsible for everything that the USA has done, is doing and will do, or am I responsible for what I do?

I was drafted and sent to Vietnam, am I responsible for everything that went on there or am I responsible for what I did there?

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith, am I responsible for what all of the people that call themselves "Catholic" have done, are doing and will do and what the Catholic Church has done, is doing and will do or am I responsible for what I have done, am doing and will do?

Personal responsibility is just that taking responsibility for one's own actions, is it not?

I cannot live anyone else's life and no one else can live mine.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It is true that the activities of Catholic organizations in various nations are geared towards conversion. In India where Protestant faiths have a minimal presence the Catholic Church is best known for its charitable activities such as Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity and for the Schools run by various Catholic Orders of Nuns and Priests which are popularly known as Convent Schools. The latter have made themselves known for their administration of good discipline and a good standard of education. As a result Catholic Schools are well regarded and are indeed emulated by domestic faiths that till now have been sadly lacking in the educational field. Due to their assimilation into the local culture Catholic organizations are generally well tolerated. The Church missionaries target the economically disadvantaged and socially oppressed for conversion since an escape from Hindu caste based oppression represents an attractive reason for adopting Christainity.

Pope Sixtus IV fully approved of the Inquisition headed by Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic, appointing the notorious cleric Torquemada to head it. Other torturers and murderers were secular and regular clergy.

The church also had its own Inquisition primarily dealing with matters of heresy.

MAurelius:

"Claiming that Catholicism is responsible for the state run Spanish Inquisition and protestant Christianity is responsible for the extermination of the American Indian carries about as much logical validity as blaming atheism for those slaughtered (many because of their theistic beliefs) by Marxism and all of its variants."

In that the Catholic Church appointed the Spanish Inquisitors, conducted the trials, determined when torture was necessary to extract evidence, rendered final judgment and delivered the guilty over to the state authorities to be punished...in what conceivable way was it *not* responsible? Could there have been an Inquisition without the church's complicity? Why did it stop when the church finally said it should? If the Catholic Church wasn't responsible for the Spanish Inquisition why did the last pope apologize for it?

OUTLAWTORN103:
So I think your criticism is accurate, it would just be more accurate if it was of all of Christianity and other major religions. After all, the Church was responsible for the Inquisition, but other forms of Christianity helped out with the conquest and near-extermination of the American Indian. They all have atrocities on their hands, just depends on which century is your example.
----------
A common but flawed argument. Claiming that Catholicism is responsible for the state run Spanish Inquisition and protestant Christianity is responsible for the extermination of the American Indian carries about as much logical validity as blaming atheism for those slaughtered (many because of their theistic beliefs) by Marxism and all of its variants.

To Thomas Baum

You wrote "Besides the fact that I have no worldly power whatsoever and definitely don't want any, I am not here to even try to legislate or tell anyone else how to live, I am just a messenger, I am here to do the "job" that God chose me to do".

Reading several of your old posts I could sense that you say what you truly think. I have no doubt that your intention is only to disperse a message. And nobody should have a problem with that.

If to disperse the message you affiliate to a religious organization and contribute with money and time, then that is when unintended consequences start to pop-up. That is because once you belong to an organization you share the principles and some part of responsibility for the past, present and future of that organization.

If the organization to what you belong and support tries to tell the rest of the world how to live, then you are part of that.

There is more, you as a concerned citizen vote to carry forward or to stop legislations. So yes, you have some worldly power, not that big, but the same that the base of a country have.

But then again, if when you vote your decision is based on the golden rule without influence of the battle of God versus satan, then what I just said has no bearing.

Your question: "What do you think is better; knowing the Truth and not following or not knowing the Truth and yet following?". I think I don't have a definitive and clear answer, but I hope not to have to confront such an almost irresolvable disjunctive in matters critical for my life.

Peace and best wishes to all,

JAC

Thomas, the god talker, and Moses of the NT Baum,

As with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the basis of your faith relies on hallucinations. There are no "pretty/ugly wingie thingies" and no sitings or meetings with god other than in your brainwashed mind.

TO JUST A COMMENT:

You wrote, "But if you take that "reason for us having reason" as a basis to legislate and try to tell everybody how to live, that is when problems start. At least half the world population will not agree with you, Even your many of your fellow christians will not go along with you on this."

Besides the fact that I have no worldly power whatsoever and definitely don't want any, I am not here to even try to legislate or tell anyone else how to live, I am just a messenger, I am here to do the "job" that God chose me to do.

Jesus forced Himself on no one and He never asked anyone else to force themself, Jesus or Jesus's teaching on anyone, that is not what being a "Christian" is.

You know what, God doesn't look at labels and maybe we would be better off if we look at the person and what they have to say, then at what label they put on themself.

I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith, but there are some things I hear from both the clergy and laity of denomination and non-denomination alike that make me want to throw up.

Question: What do you think is better; knowing the Truth and not following or not knowing the Truth and yet following?

God is real whether people believe it or not and is a Being of Pure Love.

I have written the following statement many times and I think that it is pretty straight forward, is it?

God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack there of and also that it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

One day, all will know that God is nothing like what some people that know His Name think that He is.

Take care, as I have said before, God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO ARMINIUS:

You wrote, "Perhaps the bible can lead people to God. It did not do that for me. After I came to know that God IS, and is with me, I came back to the bible. My search continues."

Actually, the bible did not lead me to God either, life did.

After I had met God and had met satan and had some other experiences, it was then that I had a dream that I knew was from God in which I was told, that only I could say it, that is when I dove into bible studies.

Take care, not only is the Good News, "GOOD NEWS" but we are ALL in this together.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

TO CHRIS EVERETT:

You wrote, "Would you say that your knowledge of God is related to a certainty that everything happens for a good reason?"

I have written that: God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition and God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and ultimately His Plan is for ALL to be with Him in His Kingdom.

Would this have anything to do with your question?

I would also like to add that only God knows exactly how everything ties together, so to speak.

You also wrote, "Personally, the organizing principle that I'm inclined toward is equanimity - the idea that we should live all experiences fully, regardless of whether they are pleasant or painful. I can't say I come close, but I try."

I don't know what "equanimity" means, but doesn't it seem that we are not only living the experiences of our lives but we are constantly learning from these experiences and the interaction we have with the various people in our lives?

As far as the "pleasant or painful", sometimes we can grow the most from the "painful" can we not?

Even tho we sometimes try to avoid the "painful" at all costs, it is both unrealistic and can be very counterproductive to living a fully human life.

You then wrote, "In both cases the message is to embrace life. For you I imagine it's a divine gift. For me it's just a gift, but it's the ONLY gift. Either way, it's a positive shift away from the feeling that "it wasn't supposed to be like this."

You look at life as a gift and it is. Everything is gift and how we live our life is what we do with this gift.

As far as "it wasn't supposed to be like this", sometimes it seems that some people try to map their life out so precisely that they don't leave any room for having a life.

Take care, we are all in this together.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi, Thomas Baum,

Always good to hear from you.

Apparently you have found your place. I am still on my journey. Not that you are resting on your laurels, as the saying goes. Obviously, you still quest. But there seems to be a difference, if not a very important one.

Perhaps the bible can lead people to God. It did not do that for me. After I came to know that God IS, and is with me, I came back to the bible. My search continues.

You are right that too many twist our Lord's message of love into despite and hatred. It is hard not to despise them. I certainly oppose them.

Arminius

TO ARMINIUS:

You wrote, "but.... the basis of where I stand has absolutely nothing to do with reason. It cannot be proved, and I do not wish to try. That is what I meant by not applying reason to what I believe. The non-believers, with (mostly) good intent, ask us for proof. There is none. And that does not bother me.

We may be closer together than we realize."

I agree with this and I also agree with whatever experience of God that you had, was God's doing and you were open to it.

In my case not only was it God's doing but He led me to the place in my life, when and where it would happen, in other words it can come as, to say the least, quite a surprise.

Reason can help lead you to God, just like the bible can help lead you to God, and there are other things that can help lead you to God.

We don't throw away reason when we say YES is what I am trying to say.

As I said above, the bible can help lead you to God but from some of the things that I have read on here, for some it seems that all it has done is lead them to God's Name but it definitely has not led them to God.

Before I met God, I believed in God but I did not know that God Is Real and even tho I was taught in second grade that God is Love, I had no idea that the statement "God Is Love" is literal.

You also wrote, "I would submit to you that Thomas Baum is also, if not in, at least close to, the 'live and let live' belief.".

I am not here to tell anyone what to do or how to live their life and you know what, even God does not force Himself on us and in this life He can't, not because He is not Omnipotent but because He gave us free will.

I would like to say two things about Jesus here, He offered an invitation to "Come follow Me" and He also said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth", He did say to force you but to "guide and comfort" big difference.

So much of what Jesus taught has been so twisted and corrupted by people supposedly speaking in His Name, it is no wonder that so many seem to reject Him whereas: Are they rejecting Jesus or rejecting some of the garbage that some spew in His Name?

Then you wrote, "The true difference between us is that I am still seeking, and he has apparently found his harbor.".

I don't know about the harbor thing, it is more like God found me; when I met the Trinity, I thought it was all over, but lo and behold, it was just beginning.

Take care, thanks for the response and yes, the Good News is "GOOD NEWS".

See you and the rest of our brothers and sisters [humanity] in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Arminius:

Perhaps the blocking problem is actually a study in faith being conducted by WaPo.

"How many times will a poster hit the 'post' button, without result, before they give up entirely?"

Cheers

Back to the topic with a repeat:

Actually there was no need for Magdi Allam's Baptism since there is and was no original sin so the point is mute just like the Pope's Baptismal words were.

An update on current Catholic theology as taught in many Catholic university graduate classes:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon]).

Original Sin therefore is only symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies.

Baptism therefore does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer
accepted.

As soon as Mr. Allam shook off the brainwashing of Islam and accepted the teaching of the Catholic Church, he became a Catholic.

However, as has been noted many times, the Catholic Church is almost as flawed as Islam and Mr. Allam is simply trading one hallucination and myth based religion for another."

I get it.

It's divine intervention blocking all my posts.

God is not happy with my comments so He is censoring me.

What kind of God is against free speech?

MHughes976:

"Constantine believed that dedication to Christianity was more important than precise definition of the faith."

The point I was making was that not only did someone who wasn't even a Christian convene and preside over a Church Council, he also presided over the very Council that largely determined what that definition of faith would be. When one considers that he and the other participants (of uncertain credentials) had no authorized canon, no real tradition of critical scholarship, an incredibly divergent variety of competing theologies from which to choose and tons of purely political incentives, its amazing that the Church has any confidence at all in the foundational decisions they made.

(I'm sorry for the untimely response, but I've been blocked for most of the day.)

Arminius,

I went back to read a couple of previous Thomas Baum’s posts and agree with you that in general he comes across closer to your positions. But in this particular case his "there is a reason for absolutely everything including us having reason" is not that close to your rare spiritual rationality.

Probably the difference are only words, the way Thomas Baum put his thoughts in the paper. But also my bias skewed the message a bit. Chris Everett reaction to the same post was opposite to mine.

But I stand firm with the idea that there should be room for spiritual people to believe in things that make sense for them and at the same time be able to live in a non confrontational relationship with non religious people that function with different reasons. This understanding that Thomas Baum post not necessarily is against it.

More shared rationality, or secularism if you wish, even if people have to accept that don’t always are in agreement with own personal reasons.

(thanks for the beer, any time!)

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

JAC,

Seems there is some posting confusion here... nothing new on WaPo, that's for sure.

Hey, Dude, I'll have a beer with you any day of the week and discuss things.

Arminius

Sorry for my typos too!

My original post required of open surgery to correct typos:

Arminius,

It may feel good when you said to Thomas Baum that "We may be closer together than we realize". But the reality is that you two are light years apart. Your position is closer to live and let others live. Thomas Baum position is my truth is the truth and period, end of paragraph. Yours is like saying, hey Tom, I don't agree on this with you, but let's have a beer and talk it trough.

Thomas Baum,

You have all the right in the world to honestly believe that "after God revealing Himself to me in His Way, even tho I may know very little, things do make sense". You can even say "there is a reason for absolutely everything including us having reason", and that per se do not affect other people. But if you take that "reason for us having reason" as a basis to legislate and try to tell everybody how to live, that is when problems start. At least half the world’s population will not agree with you. Even many of your fellow christians will not go along with you on this.

There is a good reason to compartmentalize: secularism in public interest matters, then the level of spirituality you deem appropriate at personal level.

Peace and best wishes for all,

JAC

Hi, JAC,

I would submit to you that Thomas Baum is also, if not in, at least close to, the 'live and let live' belief. He might correct me on this, but I stand ready. The true difference between us is that I am still seeking, and he has apparently found his harbor. We will see. I suppose....

Arminius

>>Constantine believed that dedication to Christianity was more important than precise definition of the faith.

That was one of the great beginnings of a deceived world....leaving it in Constantines hands. A mere man who sold the true church out to pagan practices and mystery religous systems...none of which are condoned in scripture...and are dedicated to a false Christ due to the fact they (Nicene council) set forth false counterfiets of worship that God does not accept.
Hebrews 13 states that Jesus (the Word in the beginning) is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never condoned falsehoods for fact with regard to what man should believe and what he shouldnt. He never will. But basically no one would admit that who claims to be His representative here on earth...wether it be the pope or a 'Reverend' or a 'Father' (which, by the way, the bible clearly shows no man is to be referred to as such....more error)

Precision is important to most any thing that works well. Mankind is not perfect and therefore cannot be precise always, but when commandments and laws that are precise to the last jot and tittle are unwound and molded to mans way...you naturally loose sight of the one who set them forth.

And the world has endured religious confusion ever since.

Best regards to all

Sorry for the typos!

Arminius,

It may feel good when you said to Thomas Baum that "We may be closer together than we realize". But the reality is that you two are light years apart. Your position is closer to live and let others live. Thomas Baum position is my truth is the truth and period, end of paragraph. Yours is like saying, hey Tom, I don't agree on this with you, but let's have a bear and talk it trough.

Thomas Baum,

You have all the right in the world to honestly believe that "after God revealing Himself to me in His Way, even tho I may know very little, things do make sense".
You can even say "there is a reason for absolutely everything including us having reason", and that per se do not affect other people. But if you take that "reason for us having reason" as a basis to legislate and try to tell everybody how to live, that is when problems start. At least half the world population will not agree with you, Even your many of your fellow christians will not go along with you on this.

There is a good reason to compartmentalize: secularism in public interest matters, and the level of spirituality you deem appropriate al personal level.

Peace and best wishes for all,

JAC

Thomas Baum,

You write "When I write that things make sense, I do not mean that in a scientific way, as in this causes that, so to speak, but that there is a reason for absolutely everything..."

I am interested in the idea that perception requires a set of "organizing principles" that define the context in which perception takes place, and that, broadly speaking, the religious "organizing principle" is that every event has a "higher purpose" that is for the best, even if we can't see how (hence the need for faith).

Would you say that your knowledge of God is related to a certainty that everything happens for a good reason?

Personally, the organizing principle that I'm inclined toward is equanimity - the idea that we should live all experiences fully, regardless of whether they are pleasant or painful. I can't say I come close, but I try.

In both cases the message is to embrace life. For you I imagine it's a divine gift. For me it's just a gift, but it's the ONLY gift. Either way, it's a positive shift away from the feeling that "it wasn't supposed to be like this."

Thomas Baum,

Hello! I'll try to answer your questions, best I can.

In a sense, we agree. Both of us had some experience that led us to God. The result of mine is that I know that God IS, that He is with me, that He is in His creation, and He is with all of us.

That is my beginning, where I ultimately stand. Now, then. After that, I began to try to reason, and ended up in the Gospels. But, but.... the basis of where I stand has absolutely nothing to do with reason. It cannot be proved, and I do not wish to try. That is what I meant by not applying reason to what I believe. The non-believers, with (mostly) good intent, ask us for proof. There is none. And that does not bother me.

We may be closer together than we realize.

I do indeed remember the Good News. I love your comment from an earlier post: Either the Good News is for all, or it is not Good News at all.

God bless,

Arminius

Yes, this website has gone all wonky, and I am not sure what to make of it. I sent an email to David Waters, the contact for this site (listed somewhere here) and he replied with suprise that he was not aware of these problems and could I be more specific. So I sent him a very LONG email, with lots of specifics. So, now he can't say he doens't know.

I think I will give up for now, with the hope that maybe things will work better soon.

TO ARMINIUS:

This wasn't in response to anything that I wrote but if you would, could you tell me what you meant by this statement: "The world does need more reason. But not at the expense of belief. The flaw of many believers is trying to apply reason to it, and this is always doomed to failure. To one who is spiritual, reason has no meaning in that context. But it sure is useful in other contexts!"

Granted, whether or not anyone believes me or not, I have met God and after finding out God is real, reason has been very intregal in what I have been chosen to do.

I would also like to add that by reason alone no one can come to know God but after God revealing Himself to me in His Way, even tho I may know very little, things do make sense.

When I write that things make sense, I do not mean that in a scientific way, as in this causes that, so to speak, but that there is a reason for absolutely everything including us having reason.

Take care, remember the "Good News".

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Constantine believed that dedication to Christianity was more important than precise definition of the faith. Everything was to be worked out peacefully by rational discussion. It didn't quite work out like that: Christian leaders became more ready to use force. It's not really the case that he was baptised 'as an Arian'. He was baptised by Bishop Eusebius, oriignally an ally of the heresiarch Arius, later persuaded by Constantine to return to the orthodox faith: on his return, Constantine arranged for his promotion to the plum job of Bishop of Constantinople. As for the plan of reaching agreement by rational discussion, we have little option but to keep on trying, even if we can hardly hope that it will work as well as we might hope.

Neal,

Yes, the problems with impounding of posts continues. I too have taken to making a copy, just in case. Oddly, this happens mostly at night. If this gets rid of the demented posts of the like of JJ, then I guess it is endurable. But terribly annoying!

Arminius

I tend to agree with another poster's assessment of the on-going "censorship" problem experienced by so many posters recently. Given the decidedly unhinged nature of some posters on these blogs, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that some would attempt to flood the blog servers and the "embargoing" is an attempt to contain those floods.

I also do not think, however, that it would kill the blog owners to let the participants know exactly what is going on and inform us as to any new criteria (length or frequency of entries) which may now be working against our efforts. If nothing else, it would cut down on the number of "test" posts and complaints of perceived unfairness.

For my part, the problem has gotten so bad that I now have to compose and save my entries in a separate text program to be copied to the blog box later after the smoke clears.

For Jihadist

That question about MLK a few days ago asked about our personal experiences and memories of the day MLK died. Gee Willickers! That was 40 years ago. It is just a faint boyhood memory, to me. It was a poorly formed question, because it excluded most people. So, we just talked about other stuff, like music.

Also, about your musical comments, I have been going to church since I was aged ZERO, and all of the church music that I have ever heard would be "traditional" and classical music, some of it, alot of it, even, very fancy. And since most of the peopole who attend church are women, I would say that they liked it too.

Also, I find that, in a church setting, alot of white people seem to be fascinated with black gospel music, and alot of black people seem to be fascinated by whitle classical music. I think the opposite feeling of xenophobia, is a curiosity for the exotic and far-away, which you seem to have, and which I also have, and why I think you are sort of interesting.

1...2...3

I have been blocked, so all I could do was read some of the posts.

Derik:

When one considers the enormous issues the Nicene Council tackled, as reflected in the resulting Creed, it boggles the mind that not only was Constantine not a baptized Christian at the time (and still holding some decidedly Pagan beliefs), but also church scholars apparently don't know how many participants there actually were or how many of *them* weren't Christian. The cherry on the irony cake being that when Constantine was finally baptized he was baptized as an Arian Christian, the major competing sect that the Council, at his direction, had previously condemned as heretical.

In the grand scheme, all the faiths want to magically convert everyone. Sometimes I wonder what actually happens during this conversion process. Anyhow, going back to Constantine and his Council of Nicaea meetings where they created god and squashed the other versions of god ... it seems that even back then, there were some penalties for not going with the Nicaea system. Isabella and her inquisition merely took all of this further. So, even now we have certain penalties today. All in all, I believe if it were not for the Constantines and Isabellas and others like them, no one in their right minds would have come across to America on a boat and began a new life in America. So, in essence, their need to convert essentially built our Nation. So, I guess we should thank them, even though they are now pretty much dead and gone into matter. Obviously, when Jefferson studied history he saw all these linkages and set out to make our Nation politically secular. Alas, we are once more going into the convert at all costs phase of our evolution. Obviously, Constantine's empire crumbled rapidly after his grand unified Nicaean system made the convertees somewhat restless. Over in the other faiths similar things happen too. I look at muslim conversions by a pope as political posturing by the pope under advice from his handlers. Sometimes, such posturing spills oil on the fire and innocent people do get burned. Sadly, that is the way life is. Obviously, we can not ignore such things. In my case, I criticize and sometime have a good laugh at how idiotic all this systems of beliefs messes up a lot of things. It is somewhat perplexing when all our choices for President are somewhat hardcore believers in magic. Maybe, all our Presidents have believed in magic. But, this campaign seems to have a more pronounced exposure of such magical beliefs.

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

It is very strange that whereas you know and comment so much about the Christian religions and their flaws, the USA and its flaws and the general non-Muslim world and its flaws, you rarely mention the flaws of Islam.

For example, the Sunni and Shiite blood feud for the last 800 years is a flaw terrorizing not only Islam but the world in general. It is obvious that Sunnis (e.g. you) consider Shiites to be a lower class race of hominids who should not be allowed to exist.

From CNN:

"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.

Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

Very strong words but you remain silent about such rhetoric??

This Sunni-Shiite blood feud/hatred/genocide/terror continue to spread globally as noted before and below:

Iraq's civil war- Sunni minority, Shiite majority, 24/7 blood letting, 4000 American soldiers dead, 90,000 Iraqi civilians, dead.

Iran, Shiite theocracy, 24/7 support of global terror.

OBL, Sunni/"Wannabee"/Saudi madman and madmen, 24/7 support of global terror.

Fill in the answers below:

Hamas, Sunni or Shiite??

Fatah, Sunni or Shiite??

Pakistan, Sunni or Shiite? Which group assassinated Bhutto??

Malaysia, nearing a Sunni theocracy?

Bahrain, Sunni or Shiite???

Phillipines, Sunni or Shiite???

Taliban, Sunni or Shiite???

Somalia, Sunni or Shiite???

We await your condemnation of said blood feud and its hate via commentaries on this blog, in your mosque, in your city and country, with your imams/clerics and on every Islamic blog on the internet. Or do you still fear the dictates of the long-dead mad Arab named Mohammed?????

Paul C,

There is also a lot to learn from the parables/stories of Bambi, Santa Clause, Jack and Beanstalk, and Little Miss Riding Hood.

Ryan Haber:

Though I suspect you really didn't disagree with my statement as much as use it as a springboard to testify, I'll address your post assuming that any disagreement that may exist is just a matter of semantics. When I said: "From what I recall in regard to other Christian denominations, the Catholic church doesn't argue so much that it's the one, true 'faith' as much as it it argues that it's the one, true 'church'..." I used the word "faith" there, perhaps clumsily, as a synonym for "denomination" or "path".

As wee Catholics in the early 50's, many, if not most of us, were taught that all of humanity was either Catholic or Non-Catholic; righteous Catholics went to heaven; Non-Catholics, no matter if they were Lutherans or Animists, no matter how righteous, could not...period...end of story. In essence, if you weren't baptized a Catholic you were automatically SOL in terms of salvation. Sometime during the early 60's, following the ecumenical spirit of those times, that changed and Catholics were then taught that *any* righteous Christian of any Christian "faith" i.e. denomination, could also go to heaven. It is my understanding that these days some Catholics are taught that even Hindu's, Buddhists and Pagans may be eligible for salvation. To this layman's eyes, therefore, the church doesn't seem to be now saying any more than: "There are many possible paths to salvation, but ours is the oldest, most direct Christian path." If that's substantially true, then I stand by my statement.

You stated: "The True Church is a part of the True Faith and Its Conserver. Other philosophies, religious beliefs, and so-called revelations are correct only to the extent that they do not contradict the truth. Where they vary from our own, they are mistaken."

But, are they damned? If they are not, of what real consequence are the doctrinal differences among the beliefs? If the differences aren't consequential enough to annihilate other paths to salvation then what real meaning do the words "true faith and true church" have? In that I outlined above three separate, substantive shifts in Catholic "truth" teachings in a space of less than 50 years, in what way is the Catholic church a "conserver" of truth?

Aloha

Arminius, she is a jewel.

As are you.

Hi, Jeff P,

What ya gotta remember about Jihadist is that she is a past master of satire. Keep that in mind, and her posts will appear much better. As proof of that, re my post to her earlier. Berlinerblau offered an essay blasting baseball, my second religion, and it had me raging in fury. But last October, at the height of the playoffs, J put out a satire of my game that had me rolling on the floor! It was priceless.

Arminius

J--
Nope, I don't recall posting an irate message to you saying "I'd never ever speak to you ever again.." I'm happy to disagree with you, and often do, but...that whole thing sounds a bit childish, and if you'd point it out or quote me, I'd be willing to offer a sincere apology for it in front of the entire reading audience.

On the contrary I sincerely do enjoy your writing and have told you that before. But we are alas on different sides of the coin, and we will expect to disagree.

Shutting conversation down isn't generally what I'm about. (Although I must confess I have heard enough from Angela B about my ultimate-awaiting eternal hell, and Speed123 struck me wrong from his first posts with ad hominem attacks on Susan that it's hard to want to dialogue there...)

And being ignored isn't new to me, it happens quite often right in my own home.

I'm also sorry you read into the conversation about the wonderful music a complete "male whites-only need apply" dialogue, with the ? implication that all of those Caucasian males were too blinded by their racial bland-ness to understand that ironically, they were propogating the very thing MLK was fighting against? I'm really stretching to understand your point, and am eager to be set straight there. I'm even a liberal, so it should be easier..

Arminius,

I promise I'll lighten up but good gosh I hate these kinds of conversations. Conversations about "me" generally don't help me learn much..

Hi, E Fav,

Apparently, WaPo has a serious case of dain bramage tonight. I, and others, have suffered also.

Arminius

My posts aren't going through, but maybe this one will.

I'm sure it's just a glitch and nothing personal

Chris, you said,

"ready once again to say that science proves there is no god, that atheists can explain everything, and that if we could just get rid of religion once and for all we would have paradise on Earth, with no hatred, crime, hunger, sadness, fear, sickness or death"

Tongue in cheek, of course! Otherwise, boy, do I have a deal for you on beachfront property in Nebraska.... (LOL)

The dialog continues, with humor attached, fortunately!

Arminius

Jihadist,

Your "manimal kingdom" post put my head in a spin that no amount of logic and reason was able to cure.

But I'm better now, and ready once again to say that science proves there is no god, that atheists can explain everything, and that if we could just get rid of religion once and for all we would have paradise on Earth, with no hatred, crime, hunger, sadness, fear, sickness or death. ;)

JAC et al,

This may give you an inkling to the foggy trail that spirituality treads, a poem by the great Sufi poet, Rumi:

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase ‘each other’
doesn't make any sense.

I think the atheists are invaluable; they're usually the one blowing up the logjams on the path!

Merry Meet, Jihadist! One of my favorite songs is the prayer "The Lord bless you and keep you" set to music. Some 30 years later I can still sing the second soprano part without error.

Hi, Jihadist,

I remember with great fondness your take on baseball. I laughed for days, and the memory of it still makes me smile. Wish I had saved a copy. But Berlinerblau, on the other hand, had all my ancestral Celtic blood at a full boil. I did the best I could to smash his blasphemy without getting thrown out of here forever.

Arminius

JAC,

Well, I don't think I have stopped the donnybrook for long! I just meant to insert a new idea.

'Public soul striptease'... damned interesting simile. Not sure it is the best one, but I am stumped for a replacement. Not that I have any objections to a good strip club....

The world does need more reason. But not at the expense of belief. The flaw of many believers is trying to apply reason to it, and this is always doomed to failure. To one who is spiritual, reason has no meaning in that context. But it sure is useful in other contexts!

Arminius