[Erin] A people without theology or geometry

Not to argue with the doctrinal illiteracy of American Christians, but i think it fair to say -- if you had mentioned Jesus and used specific language, you would have pushed those buttons and gotten different answers. Americans are a) courteous and b) used to having to soft-pedal their faith in public settings. I don't see how you can give a survey that uses all generic language for spirituality and then say "Americans prefer generic formulations for their spiritual expressions."

GIGO, if you remember early programming (Hail the mighty Commodore 64, prince of personal computers!)

My family's first computer was a Commodore 64. I even learned a little BASIC--just enough to make some of those odd "loop pictures" where by instructing the computer to repeat various characters you could make a picture of sorts. :) Good times.

You may have a point, Jeff, but why have Americans become used to soft-pedaling their faith in public settings? Is it really because we courteously want to avoid hostilities with people who don't share our beliefs?

Oh -- and nice Confederacy reference:)

Why is is always a failure of the people, and not a failure of religion? If people are jumping from church to church, faith to faith, doesn't that demonstrate a failure of those churches and faiths? Their inability to create meaning in the lives of the people who have abandoned them demonstrates a significant failure. If our nation is becoming less religion, why is the culture blamed? Why aren't we blaming the church?

Let's put it another way. Rod has changed churches at least three times. He's gone from Protestant to Catholic to Orthodox. So does that mean Rod is to blame, or does it mean the churches and faiths have failed him? If we decide that Catholicism failed a devoted Christian like the cafeteria-Christian Rod, why aren't we willing to admit the Catholicism is also failing people who completely leave the faith and never return to church again?

You ask why people soft-pedal their faith in public. I'd argue it is likely embarrassment. Embarrassed by other people of faith, embarrassed by what being considered "religious" represents in our culture, embarrassed by the what religion in America has become.

Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, sees in the numbers that Catholics, like everyone else, are shaped by an individualistic culture. "People are trained to trust only their own spiritual experience" rather than in the historic message of the church.

Translation of the good Cardinal's statement into English: "People now trust their own spiritual experiences more than they trust what I and my organization tell them."

Yes. Just so. Now quick, someone explain to me why I should put more faith in the statements of the American Catholic Bishops (or the Roman Catholic hierarchy collectively) than I should put in my own experiences of God. I mean, anyone really, but especially these particular men.

I'm not sure if this is a catastrophe or not, but it certainly has people in those institutions worried.

I would think so, in the same ways and for the same reasons that auto makers would be appalled if Americans decided en masse that bicycling is better and so stopped buying cars.

What any of this has to do with God is anybody's guess.

One premise of this thread seems to be that there once was -- depending on one's point of view -- either some "golden age" or some "dark age" when most of us ever did have a rigorous and intellectually complex understanding of our own religious beliefs. My contention is that there never was any such time in this country or anywhere else, and what is more that the lack of intellectual substance that this survey suggests with regard to religion is equally as present -- if not more so -- with regard to politics and most everything else. Just as most people can call themselves Christian or Jewish or Muslim or whatever without any really deep sense of what that means, so too can most people call themselves Progressives or Conservatives with not real sense of political history or political theory, let alone with anything near the amount of knowledge one would need to justify the vehemence with which so many hold their views on politics -- views which are often uninformed and lacking in any real legitimacy. All of that's the bad news. The good news is that while most people hold their religious and political views with very little intellectual authority, it is also true that most people have a gut level practical sense of the "spirit" if not always of the "letter" of the different religious and political "laws" to which they adhere. It has ever been such and it is merely a pretense of our current era of mass democracy and public "education" that it is now any different than it has always been. The really good news or the really bad news -- again, depending on one's point of view -- is that we probably are more informed en masse both religiously and politically than any populace of comparable size has ever been in the history of the world. So, in conclusion, the muddle we are currently in heralds neither "a brave new world" for self-styled progressives who are hoping that God is really dead this time, nor "a new dark age" for self-styled conservatives who fear the same -- and who ought to know better than that.

...why have Americans become used to soft-pedaling their faith in public settings? Is it really because we courteously want to avoid hostilities with people who don't share our beliefs?
Posted by: Erin Manning | June 23, 2008 6:59 PM

Something about how that question was phrased leads me to suggest you have a different answer to that question, so I'll bite - courtesy might be the case - 'Gentlemen do not discuss religion or politics' and all that, but what do you think, Erin?

It would also help if you narrowed the scope of 'public settings' - are you talking about waiting in line at the grocery store, chatting with your hairdresser/barber, or what?

One thought that comes to mind is that here in the Bible Belt, such a conversation almost invariable is a sales pitch along the lines of "Do you know Jesus as your Personal Savior?" or "How would y'all like to come to Church with me this Sunday."

Very few religious conversations here are along the lines of, "Do you think the general Protestant view of the Eucharist as being merely symbolic has more to do with a materialistic mindset or with a distaste for ecclesiastical ritual?"

Well, *I* think the general Protestant view of the Eucharist as being merely symbolic has to do with the fracturing of the sacramental reality of Christianity as a whole; sacraments in the Catholic understanding are an outward sign of the conferring of grace, composed of two elements: matter, or the physical sign, and form, the words of the sacrament. Protestantism split in roughly two groups: those who emphasized spiritual reality apart from any physicality, and those, chiefly in the Church of England, who clung to the physicality and ritual but denied the inward spiritual reality as it had been formerly understood--thus matter and form split apart, and the essential sacramentality of the Christian faith was put asunder. Central to this fracturing was the new symbolic view of the Eucharist, which could now only be symbol--for if the Eucharist is really the Real Presence of Christ, the proper matter of bread and wine transformed by the words of the ordained into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, really and truly present for us, then the old sacramental understanding, the conferring of sacramental grace by the uniting of matter and form to be transformed into a new transcendent reality which at once symbolizes and realizes what its symbolic reality suggests, is the truth...

Oh, but as to your actual question, I was only suggesting that some of the discomfort in talking about religion stems from the fact that the prevailing social view of religious believers isn't all that positive.

Posted by: Erin Manning | June 23, 2008 10:21 PM

So the Church of England doesn't hold to the doctrine of Transubstantiation? I would have thought that since they claim Apostolic Succession that they would also claim that too.

Regarding the idea that the prevailing social view of religious believers isn't all that positive, I'd have to say that depends on the location, eh? Here in Deep East Texas, religious belief - Baptist variety - is assumed to be the default.

On the other hand, if one expresses a polite disinterest in religion, one is not generally pushed further on the subject.

Or are you making a distinction between social churchgoers and those for whom religion is 'a big deal?

Also on the up side, people with these views are unlikely to ever accept religion as an excuse for bigotry, genocide, inquisitions, etc. I'm for more tolerance and forgiveness.

As for the prevailing view of religious believes, why should it be any different? Just reading here regularly has immensely lowered my view of traditional religious understanding. It seems to lead to division, "not in my club" elitism, homophobia, denominational hatred (See Roland de Chanson in almost any post), and generally people I don't want near my kids.

I'd like a powerful, tolerant religious perspective. Barring that, I'll settle for a neutered, tolerant one. Strong, ethnocentric, divisive and bigoted doesn't serve humanity at all.

And yes, before the argument pops out, I'm much more interested in serving humanity than in serving God. If God exists, he doesn't need help. We do.

The problems with faith and religious identity parallel the breakdown of the family. It is difficult to transfer religious faith or identity to the next generation because after several generations of family decay and putting religion only in a box (at best, church on Sunday, that is it) it has little meaning.

In the future more Christians will be made, not born. The Benedict option is coming. However there will always be some devout, committed families of Catholics and Protest...., sorry, Christians who can transfer faith to some of their children.

Somewhat knowledgeable ex-Episcopalian here...

The way it was always explained to me is that Anglicans don't officially do either Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. They affirm the Real Presence, but are quite vague about what that actually means. Some Anglo-Catholics are decidedly in the pro-Transubstantiation camp, however.

Consulting the 1928 Book of Common Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA, one finds in the Catechism the following:

"Q. What is the outward part or sign of the Lord's Supper?
A. Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received.

Q. What is the inward part, or thing signified?
A. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.

Q. What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby?
A. The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the Bread and Wine."

Richard

"... endless moral debates devolve..."
of course...
since the dawn of the awareness that the world contains a vast multitude of ancient theologies...
and all of these are based on unreliable Myths...
so...
no surprise...
in growing numbers, persons discard them...
or go with the alternative...
of making a uniquely personal grasp of one...
and perhaps engaging in lengthy debate...
which can never get to a reliable conclusion...
because...
remember...
there are no known details about God...
oh well...
carry on...

faith hope love joy peace to all...
Forgive God...

So then, if society is on an irreversible trend towards irreligion and liberalism, what do leftists have to complain about? Why bother attacking religious conservatives like myself or bother with politics in general when it is only a matter of time until complete moral chaos and left-wing hegemony over every aspect of society? I'm sure many of the marxists who comment on this board are salivating at the prospect of an atheist majority America where the religious are viewed as quaint backwards simpletons whose views and practices are better kept to themselves - and I have no doubt they will get their wish.

For the masses theology has never been much of an issue. Your average 18th century Catholic probably knew little or nothing about Catholic doctrine ditto Protestants and Jews. What they did know was obedience to their clergy and the fear of being ostracized by their community. What people had was not an understanding of their religion but a devotion to it.

No one wants to admit that this devotion was largely forced. Once the state and society allow religious choice people exercised it.

Without the brute force of the state or the veiled threat of the mob most people will choose not be devout. So then, it is fair to ask how deep the devotion of previous generations was and how you're going to recover it.

It is interesting that this Benedict option everyone talks about uses just these tools to reproduce devotion. If you have no other tools you're pretty much doomed.

Sorry - I really don't get the geometry reference... probably being dumb.

ollie W, you're not alone--the "theology and geometry" reference is to John Kennedy Toole's book, "A Confederacy of Dunces," which Rod has written about before on the blog.

As a Born-again Catholic, I found it amazing that the Pew Survey questionaire was not made more public. I personally would like to see and answer the questions. One thing that was mentioned in these blogs concerned a concept that we don't discuss our Catholic Faith openly. This is especially true of Catholic Men. This might have been a trend several years ago, but I have seen a new revival of Men's Fellowship groups in America. Thanks to our protestant Brothers in Promise Keepers, a new revival of Catholic Men are now meeting openly in small faith groups and openly dealing with issues that would have not been even thought of 15 years ago. Perhaps we need to acknowledge that there is a battle for souls in our world. I am constantly reminded of the story of the 3 devils discussing how to win souls for Satan. The first thought of telling people that God doesn't exist, the second devil thought that it would be best to tell people that Satan doesn't exist, finally the third devil said "all we have to do is convince everyone that they have all the time in the world"

God Bless

"We've lost our command of theology, doctrine and history. And probably geometry, too, if we only knew it."

Actually, Erin, the more I studied theology, doctrine, and history, the LESS orthodox I became; plus church's are full of "true" believers who are just as ignorant about theology, history, etc as the more "open minded" types.

You further relativize: "I'm much more interested in serving humanity than in serving God." It is of you that Matthew speaks, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

I thought Jesus made it quite clear that serving humanity is the highest form of serving God. Mammon refers to riches or wealth. I find it alarming that there is a perceived *choice* between serving humanity and serving God by both JPL and RdC.

Roland,

You further relativize: "I'm much more interested in serving humanity than in serving God." It is of you that Matthew speaks, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

I generally present the traditional Roman Catholic point of view, unsugared, and probably not to the taste of morally neutered relativists.

God forbid, if your "analysis" of this verse in Matthew is an example of your theological sophistication. If Jesus makes anything clear he makes it clear that loving and serving our neighbor ("humanity") is a vital part of serving God; indeed, anyone who does not do so cannot possibly be a follower of Christ.

If I were a "traditional Roman Catholic" (I'm not sure what that means - how does it differ from just being a regular old Roman Catholic?) I'd be horrified to find that you are my spokesman.

I'm coming late to this thread, but here's my two-cents worth on one of the issues discussed.

Lots of Americans have moved from denomination to denomination in the last 30-40 years. Good thing or bad thing? I consider myself a serious Christian, and I've belonged to five denominations during my 52 year faith journey. Sometimes, the reasons for changing denominations are purely logistical. Example: in college, I had no car. So I attended the Protestant church closest to campus (happened to be UCC). At other times, changes in denominations are part of the negotiations many of us make as part of our marriages. When I (who grew up PCUSA) married a Missouri Synod Lutheran preacher's kld, I deferred to her and went Lutheran for the first 8 years of our marriage. At other times, a change in denomination reflects a genuine attempt to maintain a deep faith commitment. Example: four years ago, we bailed from a PCUSA congregation when it adopted a "seeker sensitive," happy face worship style and moved to an ELCA congregation that was more liturgical and traditional.

So from a Protestant perspective, I don't think that denomination-shifting is necessarily a bad thing. Much of the time, it is necessitated by our mobile society and by the workings of the Melting Pot. And from time to time, it reflects the moving of the Holy Spirit, who leads folks to individual congregations where their faith can flourish.

For these reasons, I don't worry about the stats that show folks moving from church to church. But I am concerned about the general lack of understanding about theology and basic Christian doctrine.

The bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ? Why, that's as ridiculous as... as... as a man being raised from the dead after three days!

Richard

Old Susan,

Relativists serve the ephemeral in this world. Mammon. JPL stated that he's more interested in serving humanity than God.

Traditional Roman Catholic: I don't do Novus Ordo. If I want Bugnini, I'll join a Lodge.

Calm your horror. I am not your spokesman. You are exculpated.

Roland, I have long wearied of your affected, Latin-filled, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual delivery, which presumably adds intellectual weight and moral heft to your bankrupt arguments.

Basically, everything I need to know is summed up by your short sentence "I don't care."

That's correct...you don't. You don't care if your words are hurtful. You don't care that you state opinions like "There is objective truth in Catholicism." There is objective truth of some kind in almost everything, including relativistic morals, or perhaps you missed post-modernism for Latin 404. But the idea that the fundamental religious truths of Catholicism can be proved in any way acceptable to even a mediocre logician is laughable. Aquinas' attempt aside, no logic can prove or disprove the existance of God, let along issues like the Trinity, the Real Presence, or any other such thing. Transubstantiation is NOT objective truth, unless you take "objective" to mean "I, and many others believe it, hence it is so."

As usual, my argument is not with your faith, but with your manner. It's not a matter of not sugar-coating things. It's a matter of deliberately working to offend, of finding the worst possible ways of phrasing your ideas with the explicit purpose of degrading, demeaning, and dismissing others.

The current Pope is certainly a traditionalist...I doubt you'll hear him float the term "heretical" in public to describe most other Christian denominations. He might even consider it technically the case, but still would be hesitant to use the term, since his goal is NOT to deliberately alienate.

But you don't care. You're just saying it like it is. And not caring is the very reason that, although you may think of yourself as some uber-Catholic, you hardly even seem Christian to me.

Much like the gentleman above, who while expressing disappointment in the current state of religious education in our country, noted that they had only covered "the bare basics of the deity of Christ and the Trilogy", almost everything you say would make any thinking being who has read the Gospels reject your version of the Catholic church.

Traditional Roman Catholic: I don't do Novus Ordo. If I want Bugnini, I'll join a Lodge.

You are a schismatic, then, since the Novus Ordo is the regular and ordinary rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

As for serving humanity and the futility of same (unnecessary really, and "ineffective"), check this out: "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'when I was hungry, you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me drink, when I was sick and in prison you visited me. Enter now into the joy of the kingdom.' And they will say to him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or sick or in prison and care for you?' And he will say, 'whenever you did it to the least of my brothers and sisters, you did it to me.'" (free translation)

Please go back and review what the King says to those on his left.

Also note what the King says about which rite you're willing to grace with your presence. (Hint: it doesn't come up.)

I know this may not be the whole story, but to say it isn't any of the story contradicts so much of the gospels I'd have to type the text of all four of them right here to fully refute you.

Transubstantiation is NOT objective truth, unless you take "objective" to mean "I, and many others believe it, hence it is so."

There's a lot of that kind of "thought" going around on this blog right now. To the tune of, "I and many of my friends think X, which means that God thinks X, which means that it is objectively (or, "ontologically") true."

Now, X may very well be true, but this kind of statement falls considerably short of proof when read by people who do not happen to agree with the proposition under discussion. In fact it's sort of a useless statement unless you are talking exclusively to people who agree with you (in which case they will...wait for it...agree with you).

Daniel-

"create meaning in the lives of the people"

Post-modern drivel. Christ's church does not "create meaning." It teaches truth, and invites us to share in the life of God. Of course people are free to reject it, but I think they should prayerfully look within for the reason, and not assume the blame lies with the Church.

Old Susan-

"someone explain to me why I should put more faith in the statements of the American Catholic Bishops (or the Roman Catholic hierarchy collectively) than I should put in my own experiences of God"

If you're Catholic, go read your catechism. If you're aren't I think it would be hard to make the case to you, other than to say - these are the representatives of the Apostles, and have been empowered by Christ, and informed by the Holy Spirit. If your "experience" contradicts the teaching of the Church, something is wrong... and it is not with the Church.

"You are a schismatic, then..."

Hardly accurate. Go read Cardinal Hoyos' statements about the SSPX. Even they aren't in schism occording to the EDC. But what about the FSSP?

They are required to acknowledge its validity.

"We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II."

As for Anglicans:

Def. reject Transubstantiation. Other than that, the range is from Real Presence to Mere Symbolism and everything in between.

There's quite a crowd on the RC "right" riding the line on schism. Perfectly OK with me personally, of course, what do I care.

When such folks begin to claim that they are the only "real" Catholics, and that everyone who tamely follows what the Pope says (hey! how's he supposed to know?) they do begin to sound a little silly. But there's a lot of silliness in the world.

Roland, I have long wearied of your affected, Latin-filled, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual delivery, which presumably adds intellectual weight and moral heft to your bankrupt arguments.

Sigh. To relieve your fatigue, are you asking that my delivery not be Latin-filled? Or in Latin only? No Latin derivatives? Anglosaxon only? No Norman need apply? Sad, very sad, the French took the time to civilise and beautify, galllicise and latinise your boorish barnyard tongue, and this is the thanks we get. Je suis fortement chagriné.

Benedict has used the word "heretical" in describing movements of the past which are hardly different from many sects today. He does deny the term "church" to the majority of those sects, namely, the Protestants. The Orthodox are "churches". A reference for your edification, oops, Latin, sorry, illumination, argh, Latin again, err.... ah! enlightenment:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Old Susan,

You are a schismatic, then, since the Novus Ordo is the regular and ordinary rite of the Roman Catholic Church?

No, I hope not. The "Tridentine" rite was never abolished. Every mass at Vatican II was Tridentine. I just don't go to the Novus Ordo. I pointed out here or in another thread that Ratzinger labeled the Bugnini rite a "fabrication". I know there are arguments against its validity but I am not knowledgeable enough to accept or reject them. This is in the realm of theological opinion and not dogma. In any event, I doubt Benedict would perform an invalid rite.

Please go back and review what the King says to those on his left.

I have never been accused of being on the left! But I know a couple of professional social workers who do good works (for a salary) but are atheists and liberals. So much for works without faith.

But as with most biblical parables and allegories, I am left in a miasma of ἀπορία. This is a parable of sheep and goats. You are postulating that I am a goat. Now sheep produce pecorino romano. And goats produce Greek feta. So I am Orthodox? Or is this to be read as a validation of the Roman Church and condemnation of the Orthodox? Domine, utinam credam ut intellegam. (Poor JPL will be rending his vestments at seeing both Latin and Greek.)

Also note what the King says about which rite you're willing to grace with your presence

It is not my presence which graces the rite but the grace presented by the rite which I willingly crave.

Roland hits the nail on the nubbin: All dogma is semantics.

Merci beaucoup.

As with the axiom about the sword, those who live by dogma will die by it.

I would respectfully ask that the assertions being made be clarified with "from the Christian perspective." Without rancor, I reject any assertion without that qualifier because it begs the unending question: by what right do you claim that your faith is the only faith and all those who do not hold that faith are undeserving of respect? I further respectfully abstain from the intramural aspect of that: the various sects of Christianity may fight amongst themselves as much as they want or need to do. I have no stake in the winner of the "true Christian" war.

I submit that the "war" is a key component to the social discomfort with discussions of religion. Strictly from my POV, the Christian assertion of sole possession of the truth coupled with the insistence of some of them to aggressively promote that assertion as a method of converting others, should be the no-brainer evidence of the motivation for that discomfort. Why engage a Christian in spiritual matters when my notions have been rejected wholesale before I take breath to utter them?

My personal experience is not the cause of that view, it is simple observation. I have had many deep and satisfying conversations with devout Christians in an atmosphere of mutual respect and thoughtful response. I would just add that the vast majority of such valued partners in discussion would be branded by many as something other than "true Christians" because of their respect for my spirituality.

And Franklin Evans, I agree. The simple phrase "from the Christian perspective" or "from the Catholic perspective" or what have you would remove a vast amount of offense here, and make conversations more fruitful. From my perspective. :)

JPL: I find you pretentious, rude, dismissive and provocative. ... you really present yourself as a crappy human being.

Sniff. Golly, I never said anything bad about you.

I only called you a relativist.

Oh, wait. You must mean I am relatively pretentious, rude, dismissive and provocative and a relatively crappy human being.

Now I feel relatively better. Context is everything in hermeneutics.

Roland, the pejorative connotations of "relativist", as you have used the term, are clear to any non-Christian. It prompted my previous post as much as any general usages I've observed.

As for your general tone, I tend to ignore it. ;-)

Franklin Evans: As for your general tone, I tend to ignore it.

Don't tell anyone, but so do I. ;-)

And as evidence, I submit his response above. Imagine that you are in heated debate with someone. Imagine that after a length tirade, his response consisted of what you see there. The snide sarcasm, the dismissive tone. And then honestly tell me that no part of your would be tempted to knock him on his ass.

If so, you're a better person than me. I'm decent enough not to do it...I'm nowhere near decent enough to not want to.

And perhaps more importantly, not one word of it is designed to convince me, convert me, console me, forgive me, or even work towards respectful mutual disagreement. It's designed to piss me off.

That's a troll. And it isn't Catholic, or Christian. If he believes his inflammatory language about others is merely "straight talk", he deserves a little of the same.

Roland, I'd expect to be vastly entertained, should I be able to join you for a good ale, and I'd do my best to return the favor.

JPL, we lack the critical factor of face-to-face contact in this forum. I feel the same about you as I do about Roland, and I would be humbly honored to buy both of you a beverage of your choice. :-)

I salute your bonhomie Franklin, and use the French to "honor" my trollish foe. Yes, I imagine we'd all be more lovable face to face. I find this place a constant effort in practicing what I preach. Hence, worthy of my time.

Your civilized tone has cooled my jets. I apologize for my crankiness. You, sir, are a peacemaker. I salute you.

Ok, the "doughty little devil" bit was good. Although perhaps "doubty" would be more accurate. Given the amount of "truthiness" around here. :)

I can't be the only person here with this experience, but as a Jew on the fringe of a fringe group, my ability to be safe and free in the practice of my religion often depends on my neighbor's lukewarmness in the practice of his.

"So claiming that your particular religious dogma is "objective truth", while claiming that someone else's is false, doesn't cut it. You may be right, but have no valid means to prove that statement. The most you can say is that you BELIEVE that your faith states objective truths. You cannot authoritatively dismiss the claims of other faiths as untrue, nor can you put those of your faith forward as a certainty. Not by any "objective" standard."

- I don't think you understand the nature of religious belief. And be careful that you don't confuse "objective truth" with "objectivity" understood as a sort of "fairness" or "uncommitedness." They aren't the same... And post-modernism... which so many on this board are fond of (evidently) pretty much destroys the post-Enlightenment notion of "objectivity" and "scientificity" as being but one more "pose" that is adopted in relation to things, as opposed to a sort of priveliged access.

Well, if you're cartoonish persona will play the pontiff, perhaps it should be a "pontoon" bridge.

As advertising, perhaps we could have something like "The Church of the Bridge: Drive Your Karma Over Our Dogma."

Vast amusement ensues! I hereby proclaim Roland as Le Pont(iff) Neuf, our official ritual of sacrament bridge (the card game), and our Place of Holiness will be known as "Troubled Waters".

Seriously, now. The latest anonymous post prompts me to solicit a response to my "indictment" of Christianity in a previous post, to wit: its fundamental claim to the truth and its practice by some of aggressive proclamation of that truth as a method of conversion. The original context was the observation that discussion of faith in social settings has become a source of discomfort for many; I shan't be a stickler for that context.

"If I were a "traditional Roman Catholic" (I'm not sure what that means - how does it differ from just being a regular old Roman Catholic?) I'd be horrified to find that you are my spokesman."

Old Susan, how would you know this if you don't even know what he means by traditional Roman Catholic?

BTW, it doesn't differ from regular old Roman Catholic. It DOES differ from the modern contemporary Catholic that picks and chooses, or worse, re-writes doctrine.

After all, there's too many blogs to read to have time to actually talk to our neighbors about religion.

This made me laugh, because one of my Adventures in Real Time today involved the arrival of a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses. The first one had come by a couple of months ago, and I had not been overly polite to him, since I'd just been reading about the incidence of sexual abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses. His polite demeanor and clearly hurt feelings made me feel sorry, however, so I apologized for my abruptness and invited him to sit down for a minute and tell me more about his view of his own religion. We had a pleasant, friendly chat, from which I learned among other things that he used to attend the Catholic church, but had a great hunger for the word of God as found in the Bible, and when the Jehovah's Witnesses satisfied this hunger, he joined them.

Today he came by again and brought a friend. I told them in a friendly way that if they intended to make a convert, they were wasting their time. They left me a helpful tract that purports to explain the presence of evil in the world. Oh boy. I can hardly wait. Soon I will understand everything!! I'll keep you posted . . . . From my point of view, this was just the kind of serious but amicable talk with one's neighbors that you seem to be discussing.

OK, Franklin, the theatrical experience is great -- you're the preacher. And JPL's pontoon bridge idea, that's OK but just remember I still have to live under it. Maybe I need a wet suit with a Roman collar....

I like the karma dogma. Maybe we could sell plenary karma certificates? You know, like indulgences? No, wait, we don't want to cause a reformation before we get the venture off the ground.

It's shaping up nicely, brethren. I'm suprised no one else ever though of doing this.

Sig,

If I'm a wagering men, I'll bet you got more truth even out of your discussion with the Jehovah's Witnesses than you did from the Pew Research poll being discussed here.

**But to claim that Catholic, or any other faith's, dogma is beyond question "objective truth" is just bluster and balderdash...**

Does something have to be demonstrably true by Enlightenment or positivist standards to be true objectively? Can you prove in this way that your husband or wife loves you "objectively"?

To paraphrase the great Flannery O'Connor, "If it's not objectively true, then the hell with it."

This notion, of course, makes all religions exactly equal, and therefore all are exactly and equally meaningless. If something can mean anything one thinks it means, then ultimately it means nothing. Viva la postmodernisme!!

"Go back and read some of the posts and ask yourself - would what I have typed have helped bring people to the Christ? To God?"

Max, I disagree with your evaluation. I think this is a pretty good question. After all, St. Paul said to preach the gospel ("good news") in season and out of season. And the good news would be? That God loves you overwhelmingly. And gave his only son for your salvation. News doesn't get much better than that.

How many of our posts here, if read by...oh, much of anybody at all...convey that message?

According to the new Pew poll 6% of atheists believe in a personal God and 21% believe in some kind of God. Wrap you're mind on that.

And some of the results may or may not mean what they seem to mean. For example one had the choices "My religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life", "Many religions can lead to eternal life", "Neither/both", and "Don't know, refused."

Now from the traditional Catholic perspective the answer is clearly "Neither/both." Why? Because even if you believe in a pure Augustinian "The unbaptized, including babies, go to Hell" they are still experiencing an "eternal life." The idea of annihilation is mostly a Jehovah's Witness thing. And indeed JWs had 80% saying "My religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life." So why did so few people say both? It's not really a surprise as people rarely choose "both" on any of these polls even if it were clearly the right answer in an objective way. If you had "George W. Bush is A) A Methodist B) Has Episcopalian ancestors C) both" few would likely choose C.

Still from this question they take it that precious few believe their religion is true. They might be right, but the wording of their question makes the whole thing meaningless. (Unless they are misrepresenting it's wording) I think it was worded this way because they were also asking Hindus and Buddhists so words like "Heaven" or "Hell" wouldn't work. Although trying compare the devotion or orthodoxy of Buddhists to Christians is so difficult it's almost futile.

No, in point of fact you can't prove "objectively" that your spouse loves you. It isn't an objective fact, meaning a fact that is mind-independent, requiring no judgments to be made by a conscious entity. It's not an objective truth.

It can however be true, and is certainly a subjective truth. And both can be just as "real" as objective truth.

The difference is that you can with accuracy state that your spouse's love is true to you, or even that you believe it to be true.

But to claim that you can prove it to be objectively truth beyond possibility of error, a truth that transcends the need for a mind to make some judgment about it, is false. You can't, and neither can anyone else.

Why does everyone insist on either complete aperspectival relativism, or absolute claims to truth? What about relative truth, or falsehood?

"This religion contains some truth. This other religion contains even more truth. Neither contains all truth, but this religion is relatively more true than the other." Post-modernism, in any other than its most aggresive, deconstructive forms, doesn't say that all truths are equal...it says they are relative. None as absolute. But some are relatively more true than others. Some are relatively more liberating, or more accurate, or more useful, than others.

So no, religions are not exactly equal, by this criteria. Some contain more truth, some less. Some are more harmful than others. Some more healing. Etc. Not the same. But relative. None speaks perfectly and entirely the truth. None of their dogmas represent the whole, accurate truth.

Hence, FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, religious truths can indeed be true, and many are, but they are relatively true.

So, speaking purely from personal opinion, I think that the mystical branches of our major monotheisms, such as Christian mysticism (ala Meister Eckhardt, St. Teresa, etc.), Sufism, Kabbalah contain more truth than do the exoteric branches of said faith. I think Episcopalian theology contains more truth than does Mormon theology. I think Christianity as a whole contains more truth than Satanism. I don't think ANY of these bodies contains all truth. I don't think ANY of them utterly lack truth. But relatively, I find some more convincing, others less so.

Of course, this is only my evaluation of the evidence presented to me. Others see it differently. I might change, confronted with new evidence, or better thinking on my part. But I think it adequately illustrates the idea of a relative truth claim.

Hence, although I think the truths of earthly religions are indeed relative, by no means do I think them equal.

BTW, the Jewish position on this is that "the righteous of all the nations have a share in the World to Come." Which sounds like dogma isn't even the right question.

Old Susan, you're way off on the Jewish thing. You've been seriously misinformed, or met some very, very odd Jews.

Jews believe that those of all faiths, nations, and races have an equal opportunity for blessing in the World to Come. (Closest Christian idea might be the New Heaven and the New Earth, for equivalence.)

Belief is of little to no importance, including from many rabbincal perspectives even belief in God. All that matters is righteous behavior. For Gentiles, this basically means the Noachide laws, which prohibit murder, theft, etc. For Jews it means the mitzah, to one extent or the other.

Modern Jews see themselves as a chosen people, meaning they have extra duties and responsibilities, not extra rights or benefits.

But bottom-line, I've never heard even the most Orthodox Jew put forward a position that says only Jews are saved, go to heaven, receive God's blessing, etc.

The position that Jews are "better" than others would be quite antithetical to the vast bulk of talmudic or rabbinical positions.

Jews believe that those of all faiths, nations, and races have an equal opportunity for blessing in the World to Come. (Closest Christian idea might be the New Heaven and the New Earth, for equivalence.)

Belief is of little to no importance, including from many rabbincal perspectives even belief in God. All that matters is righteous behavior. For Gentiles, this basically means the Noachide laws, which prohibit murder, theft, etc. For Jews it means the mitzah, to one extent or the other.

Thus JPL.

BTW, the Jewish position on this is that "the righteous of all the nations have a share in the World to Come." Which sounds like dogma isn't even the right question

Thus Marian.

Modern Jews see themselves as a chosen people, meaning they have extra duties and responsibilities, not extra rights or benefits.

But bottom-line, I've never heard even the most Orthodox Jew put forward a position that says only Jews are saved, go to heaven, receive God's blessing, etc.

So, according to what I'm reading here, only people born into the Jewish people are required to observe all these dietary and other laws. The rest of us can eat what we want, behave as we wish, have sex while our wives are menstruating, yadda yadda, no problem. We will be saved if we love our neighbors. They, the real Jews, have to keep two sets of dishes and observe these endless rules and regulations, etc., etc.

Have I got this straight?

That's exactly correct. Only Jews are required to keep all 613 commandments, or mitzvah. Gentiles only need keep the far more limited restrictions in the Noachide Law.

Eat what you want? Certainly.

Behave how you will? Well, within the limits of compassion and the aforementioned Noachide Laws. But beyond these ideas, yes.

Menstruating sex? Well, yuck, but whatever floats your boat.

Jews, two sets of dishes, etc. Although no Jew perfectly keeps all mitzvah, and I've never heard any of felt that failure in that realm automatically kept you out of anything. Jews don't have any concept of hell, so there's no where for you to be sent.

I think most Jews would agree that God demands of all people justice, compassion, mercy, charity, etc. Judaism is also big on continuous learning, study, and reason. But I think you understand the essence of it now.

Hey, Jews, all good.

If you choose to subject yourselves to all this for no reason that I can figure out, go for it.

Count me out.

Susan, I have an off topic nit about your reference to quantum mechanics. You stated that fundamental particles have a definite position and velocity but we just can't measure it.

Einstein and Bohr went round and round on this topic. Einstein believed that there was an underlying deterministic reality in which God didn't play dice. The problem was he was wrong.

All his proposed experiments to catch quantum mechanics in a paradox in fact wound up proving that the position and momentum of particles do not have precise values, but instead have a probability distribution. Reading about this stuff is pretty mind twisting and really hard to retain or explain.

I meant to type Old Susan in my last post.

Also Old Susan, my spouse was raised Jewish so I've learned a fair bit about that religion through the years. What people in this thread are telling you is correct.

Judaism is the religion of a specific people and is not a universal religion for all people. So that's why other people's can not be Jewish and God is still fine with it.

I was a bit stunned when I first learned that because Christianity doesn't take that position.

Erin (just to horn in) I had that impression at first, but read the previous posts and I think you get a different impression of what Susan was getting at. Maybe just me, but still.

Your welcome, Erin. And thanks, Marian.

No, of course not, Old Susan. In moderating comments some are going to get by me, especially on fast-moving threads. But when I click on the comments link on the behind the scenes software and there are two or three comments from you where you say things like "How glad am I
that I am not a Jew." and "Hey, Jews, all good. If you choose to subject yourselves to all this for no reason that I can figure out, go for it. Count me out." then chances are I'm going to notice, and scroll through that section of the comments thread to see what's going on.

So, if you see somebody clearly violating the rules of civil conversation, and you alert me to it in the thread, I'll probably catch it. Otherwise, by the time I'm made aware of it, the participants will have made a pact (apparently, based on a quick scan) to buy each other drinks and found a new religion which makes clever if oblique references to the Three Billy Goats Gruff--at which point doing my best pince-nez wagging ruler teacher impression is a little ridiculous.

[I have long felt that the Holy One would have done better to evolve us from the octopus rather than the primates, so that we could argue "on one hand..." and "on the other hand..." and "on yet another hand..."]
Posted by: Marian Neudel | June 24, 2008 9:41 PM

Two Jews, three opinions, eh?

Sometimes I think I was more temperamentally suited to have been born into a Jewish family.

Rob, the problem with "standards" is that there must be some (arbitrary, I would add) highest authority that performs as the referee. Ascribing measurments is tantamount to placing all of the religions on a track and handing stop watches to the various deities.

I submit that we all (and I never excuse myself from this) could take a lesson from the long tradition of Judaism. Perhaps simplistically put, they make the statement: this is who and what we are. All others must look after themselves.

It's not about truth, I assert. It's about my personal relationship with truth. I am human, I have failings, foibles and an ego. Comparison is based on all of those things, and in a message of universal love I have one challenge: how can you not see the human motivation in the claim that your God loves more or better than my gods?

Joseph Campbell, for all that his human failings were plain for all to see, provides another key lesson: if you get stuck on the trappings, on the semantics and symbol sets, you will fail to see that universality is right there, inside or at the core of every human spiritual construct. Certainly, there are some instances where a reasonable and sane person will say "gosh, but they got some things very wrong", but that in no way negates their connection to the universal themes in all of our constructs.

Rob, I'll be the first to admit that my stating an opposition to dogma (and my occasional tendency to express it as contempt) puts your faith and your beliefs into a bind. Other than hoping you'll believe me when I say I have respect for others' beliefs, and affection for people I've encountered here, I don't have a compassionate reaction to that bind. To be blunt, when a belief system invests human ego into it to the point where it must be the only and true way, it has sealed its fate and has only one recourse: moderate that belief, recognize the ego component in it, and work forward from there.

I am not so well acquainted with the details of the story, but it seems to me that I just stated Jesus' primary criticism of the Pharisees. I believe I am well acquainted enough with the story to assert that I just stated the primary cause of the downfall of pagan Rome.

O. Susan: I have oft thought but rarely expressed in public exactly your sentiment concerning not wanting anything to do with being Jewish, but directed towards Christianity.

Rob, I would contend that hypocrisy is the ultimate expression of ego. I will confess that I am trying to push you into looking at this from a different angle. Courtesy demands that I acknowledge that, as well as demanding that I leave it at that and refrain from further pushing.

I will add one thing: the irreconcilable differences are there, and have driven our civilization with its most destructive and constructive consequences. The differences, I contend, are human ego differences.

You're right. Upon reflection, I am precisely asking you to take a step back. At no point, at least personally, am I asking -- let alone demanding -- that you deny your faith. That this results in logical paradox is regrettable, over which I have no better response than a shrug.

If nothing else, our efforts around that paradox will serve to keep us from being bored. Eh? ;-)

What you seem to be saying then, Franklin, is that if the adherents of a given faith believe they are right, and try to convince others of that, that's simply an exercise in ego. Or, we're allowed to say we're right, but that it's somehow uncharitable to express its corollary -- you're wrong.

But it seems to me to be uncharitable NOT to try to show others where they err, especially when the error may concern their eternal destiny.

Or, we're allowed to say we're right, but that it's somehow uncharitable to express its corollary -- you're wrong.

You can, but where you're arguing theory (e.g. "Hell") your warrants and evidence aren't strong enough for absolute or conclusive statements.

**But this entirely misses important past conceptions of truth. Myth demonstrates the important idea that something can never have objectively happened, and yet be "true". Myths speak truths to us, in fact, the most important truths. But they are not factual.**

Yes, but note how Tolkien brought C.S. Lewis to Christianity, by showing him that the faith was "a myth that happened to be true," i.e. factual. And the foundational documents of Christianity themselves declare their story to be fact, as do the immediate successors of those authors. Christianity, then, requires the story to be fact, or else it's worthless.

Yes, I totally agree with both JPL and Franklin on the necessity of charity and the rejection of coercion, and I will be the first to admit that Christianity has often failed in that regard.

However, I think the Yugo analogy isn't quite accurate. To my mind, it's more like warning a skater that the ice he is about to skate on is thin. One needs to be a bit more "vocal" about that than one would be about warning someone not to buy a lousy car.

"What is that standard? If religious claims are mere opinions without real cognitive content, then what difference does it make if one is 38% "true" and another is 65% "true"?" RG

TR: I can't speak for others, but I can easily see how this would work.

Let's say you have two calculators. One gives the "true answer" 38% of the time and the other does 65% of the time. (This means you have two really awful calculators, but this is besides the point) For a business it certainly makes a difference which you use.

Let's say you have two surgeons. One has a 38% success rate and the other 65%. The difference is meaningful.

Although I traditionally see Catholicism as the true faith, I think there's justification not to say that other faiths are totally wrong. I think there were standards like "how well do they conform to natural reason" and so forth. From my understanding a religion could only be truly false if it states that you don't need to love God or your neighbor. (Hence Randian Objectivism is an evil false religion)

What an interesting discussion. I've learned a lot about other people's religions here. And I find myself agreeing with JPL's statement:

Offering our best suggestions, in love, based on what has worked for us is charitable. Ramming our faith, backed with physical or more existential threats down someone else's throat, is certainly not.

This leads me to a bit of a paradox, though. I had a visit from some friends this weekend. One of them was a woman who is unusual in that she exhibits almost no capacity for empathy. In conversation, she doesn't even pretend to put herself in another's place. If you tell her about an experience or feeling she can't share, she listens with a puzzled expression, then responds not with "yes, I see what you mean," but with "no, I don't feel that way AT ALL." I used to think she was just being rude, but now I think that she doesn't have the ability to be any different. Scolding her would only hurt her feelings. Trying to force people to change is cruel if they simply can't do it. My conclusion about her is that people on that particular branch of the autism spectrum, or whatever it is, need friendship too, so I adjust to her blind spots and treat them with affectionate amusement rather than high dudgeon.

Here's how this relates to the topic: I think one of the hardest things for any of us to do is to understand that other people are truly different. We all want to generalize our experience to others, and say that our individual experience must be a universal truth. One man believes a minority candidate unfairly got the job he wanted--therefore affirmative action is bad. One woman feels her concerns were slighted at a school board meeting--therefore public schools are corrupt. Another person encounters an autocratic priest--therefore the Catholic Church is a worldwide conspiracy of evil. And so forth. We all do it. Thus, a religion that engages our faith and zeal simply must be true for the whole world, and there's no excuse for others not to feel the same. Their only reason must be a bad one--they are blinded by pride or lust. We all resemble my friend at times, myself included.

The paradox: I spend a lot of time telling stories and spinning out word-webs designed to convince people that they should, they really SHOULD exhibit more empathy and compassion! And if they refuse to try this religion of mine--for I believe in it with as much faith and zeal as any more orthodox person--I can feel myself becoming quite indignant! What on earth could be wrong with these miscreants! Yet perhaps they are really different from me. Perhaps they are unable to comply with my urgings, even if they wanted to. Just as I am mysteriously unable to espouse their faith and fall on my knees before the altars of their worship. It certainly makes me wonder what God thought She was doing.

JPL, as a student of church history and the Fathers, I'd seriously disagree with your interpretation of these things, especially re: the Gnostics. You seem to be relying on such scholars as Pagels, whose take on the early church is suspect, at very least.

And as far as C.S. Lewis goes, you don't really think he was unfamiliar with criticism of the NT documents, etc., do you? Like many other educated Christians, he was fully aware of the criticisms and found them wanting. One can point to any number of contemporary scholars who would say the same thing (and I don't mean just the fundamentalists).

You're perfectly free to differ with St. Paul on his contention, but I'd argue that you can't call yourself a Christian while doing so. I certainly can't judge your soul, but I can judge your beliefs, and find them wanting by any historical and traditional (i.e., creedal/confessional) Christian standards.

You seem to be looking at this in terms of a dichotomy, Rob G.: "mere opinion" vs. eternal verity. There's at least one other alternative: that religious teachings are descriptive in nature, a story that people tell themselves to encode and preserve their understanding of the world and their place in it. Like any story, a religious narrative would then contain some elements that are deeply true, some that are superficial and bound to a particular time and place, and some that other people at another time judge to be erroneous and destructive. This way of looking at religion still gives you the option of finding some more true than others, without forcing you to choose one that is factual like a news report while the others are all fabrications.

My point was that IF all religions are mere opinions, then in the sense of their respective truth, it doesn't really matter what the proportion of truth to error is in their teachings.

That's too easy, Rob. All religions are remembrances and interpretations of some exalted peoples' lives and work. Truth in them is not handed to us, it emerges only in our effort at discernment.

Hey, I'm not trying to diss the Jews. (Why is it then that we can diss Islam here and no one will raise a peep? What's going on here?)

I'm thinking that human beings are by our nature incapable of understanding God/the universe (your choice of terminology). so we proceed of necessity in darkness. Some rely on divine revelation, like Christians: but the dullest Christian has got to notice that the "answer" (God naked and tortured to death on a cross) is even more difficult than the question. Jews, too, have received an answer more difficult than the question.

Hint: we don't get it, and are probably not intellectually qualified to "get it" or to understand much of anything.

Jesus called for trust. Faith. You are either willing and able to give that, or not.

"Why is it then that we can diss Islam here and no one will raise a peep? What's going on here?"

Probably has some connection with the absence of Muslims on this blog, ya think?

Erin,

So, if you see somebody clearly violating the rules of civil conversation, and you alert me to it in the thread, I'll probably catch it. Otherwise, by the time I'm made aware of it, the participants will have made a pact (apparently, based on a quick scan) to buy each other drinks and found a new religion which makes clever if oblique references to the Three Billy Goats Gruff--at which point doing my best pince-nez wagging ruler teacher impression is a little ridiculous.

My Jewish friends and I - my best friend is a Jew - are having a drink in your honor, Erin, even as we speak.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm sort of more offended by direct personal attacks than I am by statements to the effect that "all [Christians/Jews/Moslems) hold moronic beliefs." Or whatever.

When someone tells me to my face that It's that you really present yourself as a crappy human being. If you actually use the condescending tone and language that you affect here in your daily life, one can understand why you flee to the bosom of Mother Church. It's the one building in the city where people might refrain from beating the crap out of you.

Beyond that, you in no way resemble Jesus of Nazareth. To throw an "os" your way in the language issue, you are not an "imitatio Christi"...you more closely resemble a duded-up Al Sharpton, draped in ecclesiastical regalia and spouting pompous, long-winded obfuscation like a Louis Farrakhan knock-off (JPL to Roland, June 24 at 2:04PM) I'm disturbed. I was disturbed, even though I wasn't a party to it. That's a direct, personal attack.

It could well be, probably is, that Roland doesn't mind. Roland and JPL could well be hoisting martinis at each other at this instant.

Old Susan, I understand your concern. Without excusing my own upset, nor ignoring the reasons for it, I would note that, at least, if I'm insulting Roland, it's only he who has direct cause to be offended. But should I insult "all Catholics", let's say, well, that's a lot more people to be offended.

Beyond that, it would be dishonest to not note the existence of anti-semitism as a cultural reality, and hence more sensitivity towards it.

For what it's worth, I by no means thought you were being anti-Semitic. You simply find the idea of the mitzvah burdensome, which is understandable. And Roland and I, with Franklin's help, buried the axe.

It's so easy to get into the practice of talking at each other, or about each other, here. Franklin helped us talk to one another, and it made all the difference. I like the picture of the pagan helping the conservative and the liberal work out their differences. It demonstrates how valuable each perspective can be at the right moment, and how we need each other.

Oh, and in a side comment, I'm a little taken aback that if your best friend is a Jew, you seemed so surprised at the information we put forward. One would think that your presence here would indicate you enjoyed discussing religion. Did the articles of her faith simply never come up? Or is she perhaps non-practicing? I know many Jews who know less about Judaism than I do, simply because for them it's a cultural heritage, rather than an active religion.

Faith is required for Christians. Faith, belief, in things not seen. So far so good. Why is this offensive and insulting?

The part I bolded is the target of my ire:

You are either willing and able to give that, or not.

I'll step back and ask a more general question: if I am neither willing nor able to give trust and faith in Jesus, does that mean I am incapable of either?

My faith is strong. It encompasses things not seen. It not only excludes Jesus, it rejects Him as an object of faith.

I (perhaps arrogantly) consider myself as well-versed in and capable of trust as any human who has ever lived or is living. That trust does not include Jesus, at least not in the manner in which I take your statement.

So, if the answer to my general question is "yes", then you have the reason for finding your statement offensive and insulting. If the answer is "no", and I misread your statement, then I owe you an apology, duly offered... but I'd still ask you to consider your phrasing of such things, and expand them a bit to provide clarification.

"If the believer understood the meaning of the saying 'the color of the water is the color of the receptacle', he would admit the validity of all beliefs and he would recognise God in every form and every object of faith."

This is fine as far as it goes, if he's merely saying that all religions have elements of truth. But to extend it out to mean that all religions are equally true is quite problematic, given that many of the faiths have fundamentally conflicting truth claims.

"Truth in them is not handed to us, it emerges only in our effort at discernment."

Christianity teaches otherwise; specifically, the NT states that the truths of the faith are "handed down" to us. This does not preclude, however, the necessity of our appropriating them ourselves, both intellectually and spiritually.

Oh, and in a side comment, I'm a little taken aback that if your best friend is a Jew, you seemed so surprised at the information we put forward. One would think that your presence here would indicate you enjoyed discussing religion. Did the articles of her faith simply never come up?

I wasn't surprised, what could have given you that idea? I enjoy discussing religion. I simply assumed, and wrongly on this forum, that if the beliefs which are most important to me (eg, the Resurrection) are fair game, so are the important beliefs of other people.

Hey, Erin, check Franklin (Franklin Evans | June 25, 2008 1:39 PM)

"some Christians cannot help but be offensive and insulting in their expressions of faith.

"That statement is a complete failure of objective, rational thought. Jesus did not acquire sole ownership of the standard for trust and faith. Indeed, no greater arrogance exists than making -- and in my cynicism I add, or implying -- that claim."

Now I'm insulted. I'm "offensive" and "insulting" because I subscribe to the foundational truths of Christianity. Also, as a topping, I'm indulging in "a complete failure of objective, rational thought."

This is perfectly OK, yes? But I express reservations about Jewish laws, no. Do I have this straight?

JPL I'm with you on this hell thing.

O. Susan, I must ask which part of my 2:00 pm post fails to clarify my reaction to your statement that I labeled offensive and insulting... and I really and very respectfully am wondering how you can jump from a clearly worded "some Christians" to you. The only thing I can think of is that you took my initial "[n]ot meaning to be hostile" as sarcastic or dishonest.

I can find some aspect of Christianity offensive, and if I manage to convey that feeling in a civil manner, there can be no reason under the Rules of Conduct to sanction me.

Being uncivil to others is a very good reason to be sanctioned.

... and I found nothing offensive, let alone uncivil, in your statements about Judaism.

I am trying not to be "arrogant," however, when I believe that Jesus is the unique self-revelation of God.

I don't think you intended to accuse me of arrogance personally. That belief is, however, deeply woven into Christianity. You may view that belief as arrogant, and if you do you are well within your rights to think that.

Christians don't quite see it that way. Can you see that too?

I am trying not to be "arrogant," however, when I believe that Jesus is the unique self-revelation of God.

I don't think you intended to accuse me of arrogance personally.

You are correct. That was not my intention.

That belief is, however, deeply woven into Christianity. You may view that belief as arrogant, and if you do you are well within your rights to think that.

Something you couldn't necessarily know about me before now: I do understand at least the basics of Christian faith. It's the details that trip me up, as Rob G. and others can certainly confirm. ;-)

Christians don't quite see it that way. Can you see that too?

I must respectfully answer that question in a way that you perhaps did not intend...

Some Christians, who I shall identify without intending prejudice as thoughtful and reasonable, could not by any standard be labeled arrogant. You, Rob, Rod, Erin, and others here I place in that category.

Others, who were my intended target in my previous posts about offense and insult, tend to be less than thoughtful and sometimes quite unreasonable in their expressions of belief. Their expressions implicitly and/or explicitly label non-Christians as deceived/deluded at best, willfully contentious and (in limited cases) malicious at worst. The "at best" description was the thought I had in mind when I commented directly on the "trust and faith" aspect of your statement.

You are invited and most welcome to clarify your intentions, as you deem necessary or desirable. I feel confident that I understand you here. :-)

I think the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ is like water.

Water, the chemists tell us, is made of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen (both colorless gases at room temperature), combined in a particular way. The result is liquid at room temperature, and when it solidifies (as it gets colder) it floats. (This in contrast to most material things, which when they solidify are heavier than the liquid.) This floating thing happens because of the particular way in which frozen water arranges itself in matrices. All this happens regardless of my understanding or my agreement. And all these qualities and more are essential to the development of living things as we understand them.

Now, I happen to know all this sort of because I was born into a culture in which it is known and because I sort of paid attention in school. My knowledge of these facts enriches my life, causes me to have a deeper understanding of many things around me than would be available if I did not know all this. But understand it or not, the nature of water has profound effects on my life; it makes my life possible. My understanding, while enriching, might be superfluous.

However. A human being who does not know all this, a stone-age person from New Guinea, say, still takes advantage of liquid water, in her very being - she's here! - as well as in her daily life. The difference is only in my understanding, not in the effect.

I think Christ is like that. I know about him, I've heard the story, and I understand that he died to save us all. And this understanding enriches my life beyond measure. But remember, if this is true, it has tremendous effects on reality, whether the people involved understand it or not. God became human. God in human form redeemed our broken situation. Whether or not we know about it, whether or not we understand it or not, it just is.

In fact, I don't understand it. My friend in New Guinea understands even less of it than I do, if you can imagine that. And even so even so, we are both of us redeemed, and we both go down to the water and bathe, and the water is liquid, and we are cleansed, and nourished.

Christ is like that.

The Buddha has a few minor additions to make to that story, Susan. :-)

Old Susan: It could well be, probably is, that Roland doesn't mind. Roland and JPL could well be hoisting martinis at each other at this instant.

Not likely. I don't drink martinis. It's the gin. An English abomination. Besides, as "pontiff", I decreed that our newly founded Church of the Bridge prohibit alcohol.

Thanks to Franklin, I just felt that a little levity was the better course of valor. I certainly didn't intend to rekindle the Wars of Religion. That said, I am not putting away my "God Wills It" ensign just yet.

Erin: And I did miss the insult to Roland, which seemed to have been resolved by the time you mentioned it. Personal insults aren't civil conversation, so I hope both participants will bear that in mind going forward.

If you read the posts carefully, I think you'll find I never insulted JPL personally. I characterized his point of view with aplomb yet fairly as I saw it. And with each cruel excoriation I most christianly turned the other cheek until it was only my two remaining cheeks that I was threatened to be knocked on.

But as JPL mentioned, we have buried the "axe". I note this with consternation as I only had a hatchet.

But all ye disillusioned believers and non-believers out there, you are cordially invited to our newly established (and incorporated) Church of the Bridge. I am the "pontiff". Franklin is the "preacher". And JPL is the "grand inquisitor"?

BTW, I will humble myself and take up the collection personally because I don't trust those other two. And I know damn well they don't trust me. :-)

JPL,

The fact that the accumulated experience of human history so far has not given humans acting on their own devices an objectively true and comprehensive understanding of the meaning of life does not in any way oblige one to believe that their *is* no meaning to be understood *or* to believe that any and all attempts to understand have been equally successful at grasping a truth that we all sense is there but that none of us can grasp on our own, due to the limits of our shared humanity, which is so much smaller than the world that it attempts to comprehend.

The Christian view of the Incarnation of Christ is consistent with this fact. In this view, God intervened in human history at the time, in the place, and among the people closest to grasping the meaning of life coexistant with God -- i.e. the Jews of Palestine at the time just before the birth of Christ. Christians believe on the basis of historical evidence including but not limited to Scripture, on the basis of Christian history, including but not limited to the Traditions of the Church in its various forms, and on the basis of personal experience interpreted in light of the aforementioned history that Christ was in fact who he claimed to be and who his followers took him to be. While the Christian view is not logically *necessary,* let alone logically *inevitable,* it is nonetheless as credible and as persuasive as any other view and much more credible and much more persuasive than most -- certainly more credible and more persuasive than any of the secular humanist views that have tried and failed to retain Christian ethics without Christian metaphysics.

Finally, you misunderstand the Christian view of hell that I describe or you replace it with a straw substitute that makes it easier for you to reject Christianity -- which, of course, you are entitled to do. Hell does not consist of God forsaking His children and hurting them as punishment administered in hate. Rather it consists of God's children forsaking Him and hurting themselves by rejecting his gifts to them, given in love. Again, I repeat, no one is locked out of Heaven and no one is locked into Hell. Sin consists of all the ways that we try to save ourselves instead of trusting in God. Hell is where it get us -- i.e. exactly where we think we want to be -- not knowing any better or thinking that we *do* know better than God what is best for us. Hell is not the prison God builds for us. Rather it is the prison God leaves us to build for ourselves so that we are free to choose. Just as Heaven is this world perfected and preserved in perpetuity, Hell is this world as-is only more-so and ad infinitum.

I fail to see how the view that our lives contain no meaning, that we can be no better than we are, that the world can be no better than it is, and that neither ourselves or the world in general can hope for something than which we already have is morally more sympathetic that the Christian view. It seems to me that in essence that view damns *everyone* to Hell no matter what, by making of this world a Hell and denying that there is or even ought to be a world beyond this world. But that's just me.

To be serious here for a moment (no!) this has been a most important discussion for me personally.

About eight years ago I "left" the Catholic Church. (Whatever that means.) I wasn't sure why, but I knew I had to get out of there.

Way back in the discussion here, the following exchange took place:

Me-
"someone explain to me why I should put more faith in the statements of the American Catholic Bishops (or the Roman Catholic hierarchy collectively) than I should put in my own experiences of God"

Some other person- "If you're Catholic, go read your catechism. If you're aren't I think it would be hard to make the case to you, other than to say - these are the representatives of the Apostles, and have been empowered by Christ, and informed by the Holy Spirit. If your "experience" contradicts the teaching of the Church, something is wrong... and it is not with the Church.

Me - "'these [the RC hierarchy] are the representatives of the Apostles, and have been empowered by Christ, and informed by the Holy Spirit.'

I used to think that. Now I don't any more. I think they are often informed by the Holy Spirit, but not necessarily more often than a lot of other people, and certainly not always so.

This is the core of the matter, isn't it. If I believe that the RC hierarchs are what is claimed for them (and they claim for themselves) I am a Catholic (in the sense of doctrinal conformity). And their pronouncements must trump any personal contacts I have with God. If I don't think that, I'm not a Catholic in that sense.

And as you say, it's hard to make the case to anyone who doesn't already agree with that proposition.

Unless you think the RC Church the institution is really empowered by Christ and informed by the Holy Spirit, in other words, unless you really believe they the hierarchs speak for God in a way better and more true than the word of God as you hear it yourself, allowing them that power violates the First Commandment, in that you are thereby giving to creatures the regard due only to God.

Certainly the hierarchy fails, at least in large degree, the "trees and fruits" test proposed by Jesus when his disciples asked, "who should we believe?" But nothing is perfect. There have been good fruits too. So...which side controls? Is it overall good, or overall bad? If you're claiming infallibility, if you're claiming in fact to be God and to speak for God, I think the burden of proof - and it's a high one - is on the folks who claim the fruits are good.

They haven't met their burden of proof. In my opinion.

_________________________

For the articulated insight thus gained, I thank you all. I mean it. This is a very important moment for me. I am one of those persons who doesn't know what she thinks until forced to articulate it.

May God bless in all His abundance all who read this message, and bring all to the fullness of His presence.

no no no gin is good, the ultimate good. just not too much of it!

Drink Jameson & Sons Irish Whiskey...
Gin and Scotch are poison...
They make you write like this...
An obsession with ellipses...
Pity ersatz bromides...
Like bumper stickers...
Only worse...
Drink Jameson & Sons Irish Whiskey...
And avoid doing this...

Interesting that we started with God and have ended up with the whiskey . . . . I'm glad to see there's someone else here who prefers Irish to Scotch. Gin really is poison (sorry, Susan!) though I'm not averse to it in a nice cooling gin and tonic on a summer evening. I prefer bourbon to Scotch, as well. I know the single-malt snobs would despise me, but bourbon is a fine, robust, all-American drink. As A.E. Housman said,

". . . malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man."

O. Susan, your two previous (serious, that is) posts were beautiful. I am touched that you chose to share your spiritual thoughts, and some which seem intimate and very personal, on a public forum.

You guys are the best, the best. May God bless you all.

So perhaps, when dealing with divinity, one, three, or many can be somewhat confusing, since "person" in dealing with God is different from you and I as persons.

Hmmm. "Person." God is more "person" (or persons) than you or I. After all, we are about 98% the sum of heredity plus environment, whereas God is what He is independent of all that.

Yet another question we are not intellectually qualified to ask, let alone answer.

I hesitate to interrupt the bonhomie (or may I say bonnefemmie? Perhaps Roland can correct my macaronics) by pursuing the topic of Hell, but burning at the stake is of special interest to me, since my patron saint is Jeanne d'Arc. I used to accept the formulation put forth by Augustus--God is not responsible for Hell, since he allows the damned to damn themselves. It's not his fault if they choose to burn for all eternity.

Bear with me for a moment as I circle the question. After 9/11, I heard some misguided soul claiming that those who fell from the towers had "chosen" to leap to their deaths rather than be burned alive. This disturbed me greatly. That's not a choice. No one "chooses" to be burned to death. There's a reason why heretics were CHAINED to the stake! Human beings are so constructed that at the very breath of such agony, we escape however we can. Jumping out a window is not a "choice" under those circumstances.

So how can you argue logically that human beings would "choose" a similar degree of pain, not for moments only but forever . . . and ever . . . and ever? I think any sinner, however obdurate, would change his mind when presented with the options. The trick is, the Church says, that you have to pick the God option before death--that is, before you actually feel the fire. You're not allowed to change your mind once you die. So it seems to me that not allowing repentance after death is God's version of the chain on the heretic. And I don't think it lets God off the hook to say "well you chose this of your own free will," when the sinner has no way to run away from the stake. The Inquisitors couldn't say that honestly, and neither can God.

I once presented my three year old, known online as the Diva, with her options: "Well, Diva, you have a choice. You can come to dinner when I call you, or you can stay out here and play, and then you will get no dinner." Her response: "Dat's not MY idea, Mommy! Dat's YOUR idea!" Busted! I laughed and admitted as much. If there is a Hell, it's God's idea, not mine. I don't know how he can wiggle out of that one.

Sig raises an important point, and no, Augustus, your "learned" answer doesn't satisfy.

Can we have a straight answer from someone? No answer that says, 'please read these books' will suffice. If the writer has read the books in question, please summarize. If not, don't mention them.

Augustus, I'm afraid something else about your answer disturbs me. You speak of "the living hell of life on this earth." I just don't see it that way. There is much suffering here. But there's also great beauty, wonder, adventure, and the unexpected blessing of the love that human beings are capable of showing for each other. Even if my life were reduced to a small, everyday compass, I hope I'd find much to be thankful for--a cup of coffee and a dry place to sleep, perhaps. It seems ungrateful to refer to the life we've been given, the amazing opportunity to be human, as "living hell." Jesus never called it that. As Robert Frost said in "Birches," "Earth's the right place for love:/I don't know where it's likely to go better." So does that mean that I must be saved already? What about those who choose happiness as best they can, though they haven't signed on with Jesus? Can they be in hell even as they bathe their children and recite the devotions of their choice? Perhaps it is possible to touch God even without the correct dogma?

"And as far as C.S. Lewis goes, you don't really think he was unfamiliar with criticism of the NT documents, etc., do you? Like many other educated Christians, he was fully aware of the criticisms and found them wanting. "

-I remembered this quote from Lewis ...

"There used to be English scholars who were prepared to cut up Henry VI between a dozen authors and assign his share to each. We don't do that now."

-As for his education, he graduated with first-class honors in Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, and English Literature. He taught English Literature at Oxford, then became a professor of medieval and renaissance literature at Cambridge. Not a sloppy scholar.

"On the level of pure semantics, you can define "Christian" in a certain way, and I might define it differently, more broadly perhaps. You can point to the millions in the past who defined it your way. I can point to the millions today who define it mine. You can claim the old was closer to the source, and hence better. I'll note that the new comes from a much more evolved, less ethnocentric worldview, and is hence better. And we can continue, ad infinitum...But I see that's not what you're saying anyway. You're just saying that by the standards you accept, I'm not Christian. And that's ok. I understand your reasoning."

- So does the word mean anything? What is the point? This isn't a "purely semantic" question. It threatens the ability to articulate any thing at all if we refuse to agree that words have meaning. The creeds defined at the ecum. councils determine who is a Christian, and who is not. If you are initiated into, and hold the faith of the Church, then you are a Christian. Perhaps if we added the word "orthodox," and simply informed you that, based on your statements, you are not an orthodox Christian you would accept that?

On hell...

Very simply, the fire of hell need not be literal (in fact, this was a sticking point in the discussion between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox over reunion at the council of Florence in the 15th century. St. Mark of Ephesus, speaking for the East, refused to accept hellfire as necessarily literal). But if there is a 'burning,' the burning is that of rejected love. People in hell still experience the love of God, but since they reject that love, it 'burns.'

This view is a pious opinion and not a dogma, but to my knowledge the church has never issued a dogmatic statement on the nature of hell, so believers are free to accept this view just as much as the other. While the former is a minority view, it does have a longstanding pedigree in the Tradition and thus is not a novelty, nor an instance of modern theological CYA.

In honor of being amongst people who pay close attentin to both meaning and usage -- something I so rarely encounter -- I shall endeavor to meet that higher standard...

Not meaning to invoke the justification logic, but I don't have a better introductory thought: a big reason why I reject Christian doctrine is the process of fallen-sin-redemption and the promise of "reward" in the hereafter. It's not that I reject the concept of Hell per se, but the definitional aspects thereof.

I believe in reincarnation. I believe -- in a visceral way, so please stipulate the rational arguments that apply -- in the Celtic notion that we return to continue our work over an over again. The word they used is wyrd, whose pronunciation and semantic content gave Shakespeare his inspiration for the "Wierd Sisters" in Macbeth.

From a personal perspective, there is this irreconcilable disconnect between my spiritual and ethical commitment to balance in this world, to make a conscious attempt to follow my wyrd (a concept that bears strong resemblances to the Asian karma, but which is not the same at all). I place my value on the living. I expect, in that visceral way, to continue my work into the future as I have been doing up to this lifetime since my soul was "born"... another visceral concept, and worthy of discussion in its own right. But not necessarily on-topic here.

Augustus Johnson: Those who do not *wish* to be saved, those who do not feel themselves to be in need of being saving ... simply will not *be* saved. The God of Christianity is notably "tolerant" in this respect.

An interesting point. Earlier in the thread I referred to arguments against the validity of the RC Novus Ordo rite. One of these, maybe the most prominent, is the pro multis. In the Latin rite, the Words of Institution are "This is the chalice of My blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many that sins may be forgiven." The Greek of the Byzantine rite also uses "for many". I haven't looked at the Slavonic translation, but generally it is slavishly literal to the Greek.

The English translation approved by ICEL changes this to "for all." But the Latin and Greek are echoed by Augustus' point, if I understand him rightly. The "many" are those who wish to be saved. The "all" leads to the heresy of apokatastasis, or universal salvation.

There are traditional Catholics who get incensed over this mistranslation. My own view is that the bishops deliberately mistranslated it so the sheep in the pews won't ask too many questions. "Why only many, and not everyone?" Theology is inimical to faith, hence may put a dent in revenues.

Franklin Evans: a big reason why I reject Christian doctrine is the process of fallen-sin-redemption and the promise of "reward" in the hereafter.

I am also very uncomfortable with this notion, i.e. "original sin", a staple of RC teaching.

I am much more sympathetic of the Orthodox concept, wherein the consequences of Adam's sin are inherited, but the sin itself is not. The consequences of course are the trials and tribulations of life here on earth and our own inevitable death. Heaven is seen as our natural goal, the result of "apotheosis" or deification. The reward/punishment is a more western legalistic approach to eschatology. I confess that in general I am far more drawn to Orthodox interpretations where they differ from Roman Catholicism.

As an aside, this Sunday the Pope and the Oecumenical Patriarch will be having (I can't say concelebrating) a Mass at St. Peters. They will recite several prayers together including the Nicene Creed, evidently without the filioque. What Benedict will say to Bartholomew in reaction to his (Bartholomew's) call for Eastern Rite Catholics to return to a "dual unity" with Orthodoxy -- well, I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall for that conversation.

Roland,

My sense is that there is an ambiguity to salvation that is difficult to capture in language and even more difficult to translate between two languages without engendering yet more distortion than is already there of when an infinite divinity "translates" itself into our finite humanity's terms.

Christ came to offer salvation to *all of us,* but only *some of us* -- though thankfully *many of us* -- will choose to take Him up on the offer He has made.

We find ourselves locked in a cage. Christ came to place the key to the cage within our reach. It is up to us to choose to use the key or to stay inside the cage. It is also up to those who have learned that the key is there to let the others in the cage know that as well, so that they may have the chance that we have had to make the choice that we have made.

Salvation is not universal in practice though it is universal in potentiality. Universal salvation of the sort to which you allude disapprovingly would violate the freedom to choose that God means us to have as creatures who are made in His image. Essentially it comes down to this: We are made in God's image. In our fallen state we are imperfect versions of the perfect human being who was Christ. We may choose to be like Christ and in so doing to accept the fulfillment of our ourselves that is our legacy as creatures who are made in the image of God. Or we may choose to recreate ourselves according to lights of our own, light's other than God's. We have the right to make that choice, but we also we must take responsibility for the consequence our choice will entail. God entered into history as Christ to help us see that this is so. He did so in response to the best of our efforts to that point in our history to understand ourselves and the nature of our world without direct intervention from him. He recognized and indeed respected the insights that humans had been able to gain on their own about these things -- insights contained in the various non-Christian religions and secular philosophies that pre-date and post-date Christ. It was a compliment to us, a complement engendered by His love for us, that He deigned so to join us as He did in our conversation here in this world. The last 2,000 years have been, among other things, an attempt to come to terms with the most unexpected turn that the conversation took in Palestine so long ago. I suspect we are just at the beginning and nowhere near the end of that debate.

Franklin,

Thank for your kindness in support of me. I will confess that my "professorial" tone is an occupational hazard of my labor in this life -- though that which I profess for pay is something other than Christian theology. I will also add that the voice, the personae, the idiom of speech that I have chosen to adopt in this thread is not meant to cater to everyone's particular needs, just as many other poster's voices, personae, and idioms of speech are not meant to cater to my own. I offer these observations in the form that they are offered in for the use of anyone who finds them to be of use. Those who do not find them to be so, are free to ignore them as they will. No "imposition" of a Christian point of view is intended by what I have here to say. Thankfully, I haven't such ability, one which in any case I would not be justified to use, for reasons that I hope are clear from the discussion of salvation in relation to freedom that I have engaged in above.

I don't know about any other pagans (except the few with whom I've had this topical discussion), but this pagan has a deeply felt understanding of non serviam. I don't see it as a rejection of the authority of God (at least, not only), but as the right to choose where, with and for whom I serve.

Yes, I know that Milton wrote that; but I also know that there is a usage in the Bible. The two contexts don't match, as I recall, at least not very well.

Augustus, I meant to say earlier that I actually appreciate your taking the time to create such thoughtful, well-constructed replies. That they do not satisfy me should not be taken as a criticism of you. ; ) I second your recommendation of N.T. Wright. I've read a little and Mr. Sig has read much more, notably The Resurrection of the Son of God. I wish I could be confident as Wright is, but I'm not.

Max, thanks to you too for attempting to help this perplexed and indignant soul. "Counsel the doubtful" is one of the works of mercy, isn't it? (Though I believe your normal specialty is more along the lines of "Thrash the recalcitrant!") I'm afraid it's too late, however. It seems to me that "serving God"/"serving self" may also be a false dichotomy. Or, at any rate, a less than useful way of looking at one's actions. It is rarely that simple. And, in any case, as Socrates pointed out, to become a bad man is the most miserable of fates, so by choosing to be good, I'd be serving myself in the most basic way. Moreover, historic Christian churches posit Hell not in return for bad actions so much as for bad dogma. You can be a very bad man all your life, but if you profess Christian faith and repentance in your last moment, you go unpunished. But you can be a very good and wonderful person for 80 years, while holding heretical views, and the testimony of your deeds goes up in smoke. This makes me think that the doctrine of Hell is not so much a reflection of God's nature as a reflection of man's need to extend control over his fellow men beyond his temporal reach, through the threat of infinite pain.

My recuperation has hit a few minor bumps lately, so my brain feels slow. Otherwise I'd say something eloquent about how, if you want to stick with the faith of your fathers, it's probably best if you don't take it too seriously. And if you want to keep believing, it's best if you don't study too much. I'd probably be a good Catholic to this day if I hadn't decided that I should try to find out what it all really meant, and behave accordingly . . . .

Well, Max, show me a church where women provided a significant proportion of the leaders, rulers, teachers and torturers, and I'll be happy to change "men" to the more inclusive "human." Are you really asserting that women have shaped the views of the Western churches to any considerable extent? I'm afraid you can't separate power and responsibility.

"So...there's nothing really morally wrong with dissing other peoples' most deeply held beliefs. (Which I don't think I did, by the way.) In itself. The only possible wrong is if someone who holds those beliefs is listening and objects. Otherwise it's a free for all. Yes?"

Not having been in the habit of dissing Islam myself (I do in fact have some Muslim friends), I certainly wasn't saying that. Just that, as a practical matter, we find it easier to bad-mouth a person or a group behind their back.

True, Marian. I should have included nun abuse! Probably a significant number of Americans got their ideas about Hell from "sister." However, in mitigation of that fact, I would also point out that the period of their influence was decidedly limited in time and place, and that they never had any control over the content of their lessons. Had a nun decided to teach children that God was a loving parent who did not punish children with hell fire, she probably would have been thrown out of her order forthwith. Once the nuns started to think for themselves, post-Vatican II, the whole structure disintegrated.

Sorry, Max. None of my above speculations (and you're right, they usually get one in trouble!) were directed at you specifically. They were more general musings. As I said, brain still fuzzy. I had some surgery recently, resulting in a cool 8-inch scar that is not entirely healed up yet. This, combined with several hours of phone calls regarding a certain ongoing lack of sanity in my family of origin, has caused me to be awake in the wee hours and thus not entirely with it by the bright light of day. But, in general, all is well, thank you for asking. (I would never imbibe gin even to the point of hilarity. Brrr. Horrid thought. A wee tot of gin goes quite far enough, IMHO.)

But just because someone abuses power, and that abuse of power is rooted in a perticular doctrin, it doesn't follow that the doctrine is false. I agree. However, I do think that when a particular doctrine is being used as a blunt instrument by a certain group of people, that usage and the warrant behind it merits careful examination.

One of the worst places to learn of the Catholic faith is within the Catholic church itself. LOL! Sad but quite possibly true. I think people who come in from outside get the cleaned-up for company version, whereas we cradle Catholics get the down and dirty version, complete with angry nuns. Like the celebrity version of Scientology, suitably groomed for Tom Cruise and John Travolta, celebrity Catholicism is all about the fine wine of distilled doctrine and tradition's most ambrosial confections, and may bear little resemblance to the gritty cornpone and purple koolaid we peons find in our tin lunchpails. (Metaphor usually gets me in trouble too, so ignore this one if it offends.)

Thanks for the good wishes. When you say, " . . . for what it's worth, the Catholic faith as you describe it bears little resemblance to the Catholic faith I hold," I become curious. Could you point out some examples of where you think I've misrepresented Catholic doctrine or teaching?

Sig, I wouldn't want to say "misrepresented", at least not intentionally misrepresented. I'm sure what you say is what you think and believe. And I can't give any examples from past threads because my memory is not good enough to paraphrase fairly. So, with your permission of course, I will mention it when (if) it arrises again and note that it is an example of what you asked. Despite my faults, I think you (and Franklin) at least hold that I'm a man of my word.

Did I mention that I'm out of Jameson? And it's Friday too. :-(

My mother sent me to the a Catholic church every Sunday so that I would be eligible to go to a heaven she believed she would never be allowed into because my father wouldn't marry her in the church, in addition to the legal secular marriage they already had.

It took me years to get over the resentments I had against Catholcism but I have. I even donate to a few catholic charities now and then.

That didn't lead me back to the fold though. As far as the protestant and other christian denominations are concerned, I wasn't pulled that way either.

I grew up when there was prayer in the schools. I remember the protestant majority putting down the catholic kids who didn't add "For thine is the kingdom" etc, to the lords prayer at the end.

I remember all the the jewish, budhist,and muslim kids that refused to convert, having to leave the room until the prayers were over.

I felt that they were unfairly seperated from the other kids by this act. The teacher might as well have said "All you infidals leave the room while we pray to Jesus."

Mort Saul once said that;

"Conservatives were for prayer in the schools, for capital punishment and against bussing."

"Liberals were against prayer in schools and capital punisment and for bussing."

"Moderates were 50/50 on capital punishment but would allow prayer on the bus, on the way to school."

I'll check spititual but not religious every time.....lc

Hey, Max. All is good and right with the world. You may please now return to at least a little sarcasm in your commentary... except when responding to me or Sig, of course. We should now be able to claim immunization... or something like that. ;-)