The Ecumenical Age May Be Past

"All is never known. If Dr Chopra knew everything then one book should be enough. He's probably liki me, still learning after all these years and with little hope of ever becoming a genuine know-it-all."

I'm still kind of wondering who sold the idea that 'knowing it all,' was really ever the point, never mind a necessity.

Bgone exactly the opposite of Christianity which presumes that there is only one entity that knows everything and hence 'everything is not knowable in this life on earth.

I would argue that it is in fact the atheist that teaches that everything is ultimately knowable.

thopaine:

You point out the problem of everyone believing the same thing. And it's historically accurate that this has always led to "looking for the enemy within" leading inevitably to "we have met the enemy and he is us."

That happens because religion, (democracy?, communism?) says that "all is known" beginning in the beginning when God created all etc. Those who already know cannot learn. Those who cannot learn are retarded --by definition. Conclusion -- religion creates retardation. The conclusion is consistent with history --religion based cultures always exhibit the characteristics of retardation.

Both democracy and communism are ways to run economise. All is not known except in the area of the economy --true for both systems. Maybe it's good enough to just know how the economy must be run to be retarded? Can't help but notice there are some banks showing signs of retardation.

All is never known. If Dr Chopra knew everything then one book should be enough. He's probably liki me, still learning after all these years and with little hope of ever becoming a genuine know-it-all.

Perspective,
I have tried to post a number of blogs that some would find supportive of the Pope and it has blocked most of them. All of them were respectful to all parties and contained appropriate language. I am not sure what the issue is, but it seems to be mechanical. In any case, it makes having a real discussion difficult.

It's my opinion that the blog withholds comments it doesn't like or that is seen as the least bit derogatory to the Pope - I really don't think this is a software glitch. My ability to post to this thread has been nil so far..........

I would never presume to convince anybody that their belief is wrong. That is, as you said, proselytising and I find it absolutely abhorrent.

I will never push my take on philosophy and spirituality on anyone, unless they come to me of their own volition, seeking for answers, in which case I will tell them what little I know with utmost sincerity. To do anything otherwise is dishonest.

However, if someone asked me my opinion of their belief system, I would not pull any punches. That is freedom of speech.

If I find anything repugnant in another belief/faith, I will not hesitate to say so. That is freedom of speech.

So, please do not confuse the two issues.

THOPAINE: I hesitate to submit this as it is a bit off topic. The topic as I see it is whether Benedict’s actions were correct and appropriate, and whether Dr. Chopra’s comments about those actions are warranted and valid. I would hold for the reasons that I outlined below that Benedict did exactly what he should have; that no Muslim has any valid reason to take offense; and that Dr. Chopra’s analysis is deeply flawed.

With that said, I may have been overly harsh towards Dr. Chopra. If that is the case, I apologize to him and you. As an Endocrinologist and expert in internal medicine, I hold great respect for him. For some of his work on the connection between mind and physical condition, I respect him.

At the same time, I find it difficult to take his full body of work seriously. His language about quantum mechanics seems inaccurate and disingenuous and has been widely criticized by physicists.

Moreover, his “spirituality” in many cases seems down right silly. I may not agree with Aquinas’s five ways or Wojtyla’s concept of personalism, but I can discuss it within the framework of a rational system, whether I am having the discussion with a Christian, Hindu, or an atheist. I can apply basic principles of logic like the law of non-contradiction.

Dr. Chopra’s concept of defining God in relation to human awareness and his concept of an all persuasive universal intelligence that transcend individual minds, are, at least as I understand them, nonsense that cannot be discussed within the frameworks of logic, science, philosophy, or theology. Perhaps I misread and misunderstand him, and I would be happy if you could offer a more in-depth explanation about his views. Being a respected and published doctor says nothing about his intellectual qualifications to comment on religion, spirituality, theology, or philosophy. As I read him now, I cannot see where he has shown any other merits in his arguments in these fields. As to being a professor, graduating from a prestigious school, heading a large department or private business, or writing a good number of books, none of it speaks to his ability to comment on religion.

As to Benedict, his credentials look rather similar, though in the field he is actually trained to practice – Professor at Friesing, Bonn, Munster, Regensburg, and department chair at Tubingen; author of around forty works, many peer reviewed; and often considered a theologian of comparable influence to Hans von Balthasar, Lubac, Tillich, or Wojtyla. As to the notion that he works in a closed system, earning the admiration and respect of Marxist Kantian political philosopher Juergen Habermas, arguably one of the two most important political philosophers of the twentieth century (the other being John Rawls), hardly indicates that his work is respected only among those who share his belief system.

Nevertheless, all of that is beside the point. The point of my argument below is that Benedict’s actions hold up to rational scrutiny, where as Chopra’s arguments about his actions do not.

DISGUSTED: To proselytize is by definition to attempt to convince or convert another person’s beliefs or opinions, often, but not necessarily, in relation to religion.

Attempt to chance one’s opinion cannot, in itself, be dishonest. The attempt to convince has no truth value. The actual propositions one attempts to convince another of, not the attempt itself, are the subjects of factual analysis. It is only dishonest if one knowingly attempts to convert another to an untrue position. I suspect that most people who proselytize sincerely believe the position that they argue for and, in at least some cases, may possibly be correct in their beliefs.

If we allow for a free society in which people can think freely and in which they can express their beliefs to others who think differently, we must inherently respect the right to proselytize. If you have ever tried to convince someone that his or her religious belief system is wrong, then you are guilty of proselytizing.

i would venture to say that if the most passive christians watched one time as some so-called chritian zealots cut off somebodys head,they would take the most immediate and drastic action to eradicate such a cancer from the bodyof the church. where-as passive muslims don't do anything to combat the murderers in their midst,mainly i believe because they know their scripture says its okay to murder unbelievers,much unlike the bible.

To Maurelius;

In one blog you ask for a civil discourse and respect for differences.

In another you refer to Dr.Chopra as an intellectual lightweight?

A graduate of the most prestigious medical institute in India(AIIM)?

A man who is board certified in two specialities?

Who was a professor at a medical school?

Who was chief of staff of a large hospital in New England?

A man who established a large PRIVATE practice?

Author of 40 books?

Many successful foundations and private ventures to his credit?

And his academic achievements were all "peer reviewed" by objective outsiders,unlike ratzinger whose academic work was/is in a closed self regulating system.

You are way out of line with that comment.

So sad, yet so true.

Does religion,like democracy, carry the seeds of its own demise?

When everyone is a "true believer" it will turn on itself and begin the accusations and trials of who is more of a believer, and who is not really a believer, etc.

Anytime 100% of a given population hold the same belief system,the view is inward,and the pettiness and character flaws of our species take over in individuals, and the destruction begins.

As a former russian communist said to me,this is why communism did not work: it fails to take into account this phenomenon.

GARYD says

"Disgusted so why don't you atheists stop doing it?".

What makes you think I am atheist ?

Maurelius,

nothing silly in my comments. I was not talking about the muslim man converting to christianity.

Let me emphasize again.

I mean every word I said. In all seriousness and sincerity.

Proselytisation is dishonesty in every facet you view it.

Go figure.

Pagan because as Bishop of Rome it is his job.

Disgusted so why don't you atheists stop doing it?

Mr Deepak Chopra:

I hope you know what the nebol bridge is but in case -the nebol bridge connects this world to the next world, this life to the next life. All religious faith is in the existence of the nebol bridge and concerns itself with formulas for getting past a roadblock thereon. I'm sure you understand it's importance.

What the pope is doing, reaching out and offering olive branches to other faiths is readily identifiable as him saying there is room for more than one roadblock on the nebol bridge. I won't belabor you further for I expect you will be able to connect the dots and get the very clear picture of different toll gates for different faiths.

PAGANPLACE: Why not? The burden is not on the Pope to explain why baptism, a standard practice of his religion is not offensive. The burden of proof is on those who find it offensive.

The valid question is, “Why *should* Muslims be offended by the conversion.” Surely, there is no rational reason to take offense in a freely man celebrating a newfound conviction. Perhaps they do not “feel” good about it, but they have no rational reason to take offense. I take offense when someone hurts me or directs bad actions towards me. This man did nothing “towards Islam,” but, quite the reverse, walked away from Islam. He declared himself a Catholic and requested acceptance into the Church. At the moment that he made the decision to convert, his actions as a religious person moved outside of the ream of Islam. As long as his baptism did not directly include references to Islam, Muslims are not entitled to a say about when and how he and his priest, the Pope, conduct themselves as Catholics – it is not their concern. (Note that the baptism occurred on the holiest of Christian Holidays, not an Islamic one. Muslims might have a better case for taking offense if the baptism was performed on Mawlid al-Nabi or Eid al-Fitr.)

Because Catholicism holds that religion is a communal, not just a person, relationship with God, it is altogether natural to want to publically celebrate a conversion.

And yes, part of the Pope’s role is persuasion of other non-Catholics, including Muslims. The fact that a prominent journalist converts provides a powerful example to others considering conversion.

As I have stated, rational and civil dialogue is the best way to bridge differences of belief, but such dialogue by its nature includes an acknowledgement of differences of belief and respect for individual free will. We should celebrate that a man, whatever his chosen beliefs, was allowed to commit to them at the time and place of his choosing and of his own free will, and we should condemn those who would deny him that free will, whatever their beliefs.

DISGUSTED: That is just a silly comment. No one held a gun to this man’s head and forced him to convert. No one threatened him with death if he did not. He acted of his own free will and was persuaded by argument.

Let me state this in the simplest possible way.

Proselytisation is intellectual, spiritual, moral and ethical dishonesty.

It is also violence - mental and physical.

It is no different than rape - mental and physical.

Christianity and Islam are both guilty, to this day.

" MAurelius:

Why shouldn’t the Pope baptize anyone who wishes to convert? "

Well, why *should* he personally make a spectacle of it?

Guess that's the question.

Dr. Chopra rocks!

Amen

Why shouldn’t the Pope baptize anyone who wishes to convert? What right do Muslims have to be offended? Christians in the past have converted to Islam. Should Catholics be offended by that move? Both Islam and Christianity are proselytizing religions and as such, seek converts. Even if the Catholic Church were aggressively trying to convert every Muslim they could (which they are not), assuming they used argument and persuasion, not violence, no Muslim would have the slightest grounds on which to be offended.

The difference between the Pope’s moral and responsible approach and the prominent Islamic approach is that the Pope allowed a man to choose freely his beliefs after being persuaded. According to prevalent readings of Sharia in much of the world, that convert to Catholicism should be executed. The issue is not that the Pope highlights differences in the two faiths and discusses them, and welcomes in those he and his Church persuade, but that much of the Islamic world sets aside discussion in favor of the scimitar, gun, or bomb. The Pope used reason and persuasion within a context of free will, whereas much of Islam uses force.

As to the notion that Benedict is a reaction, how many reactionary Christians would find common ground with and mutual intellectual respect for Kantian Marxist political philosopher Jurgen Habermas? The reality is that Benedict is a scholar who, because of the complexity of much of his work, unfortunately lends himself to being taken out of context by popular intellectual lightweights like Chopra.

At the same time, it is also true that the individuals of different faiths are not in direct contradiction to each other as human beings. This Pope and the Pope before him have gone out of their way to point out the common ground between Catholics and Muslims; the common humanity of all human beings, whether Catholic, Muslim, atheist, or Hindu; and most importantly, the common duty to love fellow men and women, whatever their beliefs. Both have held to the official Catholic position that, “The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.” (Nosra Aetate, 5). The Catholic Church has taken the far more liberal position – the position of freedom and Socratic dialogue – and in doing so built the bridge half way. (More bridges might be completed if prominent Imams and Ayatollahs to proclaim vocally similar positions.)

Common humanity and love do not preclude a real, Socratic dialogue. Instead, they require it. Real dialogue respects differences, highlights differences, and reasons through them. This is exactly the type of scholarly approach that Benedict has taken and he owes no apologies.

Sherry that is a complete misunderstanding of how Christianity functions.

First God makes you a Christian not us.

2nd In Christianity Christ is the only way

3rd According to Islam the way is the seven pillars of Faith. And one who will not abide by the seven pillars of faith is damned. This is works theology at its worst for if you perform the seven pillars then where your heart lies doean't matter.

Almost all religions are by nature somewhat elitist as regards who get saved and how. Picking Christianity to be the problem in this series of revolving door beliefs is alot like blaming monkeys for forest fires.

We're sorry for the technical difficulties. We think a system glitch is inadvertently blocking some perfectly acceptable comments. We are looking into the problem. We think it may have something to do with whether the comment is posted multiple times. Please be patient when you post a comment. Try to wait 5-10 minutes before posting again. Thank you.

I never heard such stereotypical nonsense about people of faith. I don't agree w/Pope Benedict as I'm not Catholic but the 1st Amendment is for all; isn't it. Also, not all people of faith stay home and have babies.

I tend to agree. Things seem to get worse and the Catholic church is not helping. Pope Benedict is no more inclined to work for interfaith dialogue than was JP II. Agreed that JP II did make some efforts, but statements that claim one is in possession of the one true faith are certainly not helpful.

More and more we see even our main line Christian denominations falling victim to an increasingly vocal and harsh right wing that demands that everyone be like them, or be damned. It's the absolute worst thing that could be happening now, when the world virtually cries out for understanding and tolerance as we sort out the many and varied differences between us.

"the thirst for some kind of belief must be quenched."

Is this a marketing pitch for a new book Mr. Chopra?

Sounds great! I hope that you can Eckhart Tolle work together for a book on quenching people's desire for psycho-babble and finding "the god within"

I will pre-order today on Amazon!!!!!!

Doug:

You are correct, religion does promote population explosions. We seem to be at some population node right now.

Starvation that is years old in Africa.

Haitians are now eating mud pies.

In SE Asia they're standing in line to buy rice.

50% of the richest farm land in America is now under contract to grow sugar cane for the production of ethanol. Corn is over twice it's normal price. Wheat is 3X it's normal price. And we're going to continue driving gas guzzling automobiles because they're safe.

World populations are already out of control. What we need do is force Chinese women to drop as many babies as possible because it's a sin to not do so. Maybe the pope should baptize the Chinese president or whatever they call him. We must send missionaries to China so their souls can be saved. Forget the old "rice for faith" routine of the early 20th century. Rice is too high cost and they've already played "The Good Earth" game that's now being replayed in Haiti.

The old expression, "give your brain a chance" comes to mind.

The return to religion is also caused by birth rate differentials.

Educated secularists have fewer children than fundamentalists, Muslims and Catholics.

That's why America and Western Europe have to encourage immigration from Latin America and the Middle East.

Evolution favors religosity in that it makes women more likely to reproduce.

Wouldn't be surprised but never thought of it that way, secularism created a religious vacuum that has been filled with fundamentalism.

Fear is the prime mover of man but not the only mover. Greed is a close second if not neck and neck with nose bobbing out front now and again. Fear prevents taking risks yet no risk means no reward, no investment means no return on investment. Greed overcomes fear in many instances.

People have mental blocks brought on by fear of hell that prevents them from noticing ministerial greed that is universal. At it's minimum the ministry is a "life supporting" career. And it has been known during wars past to get a fellow a commission, (key to officers bath room) along with a cushy job avoiding getting shot at in the army and the navy too.

Is his holiness greedy? No one believes he is yet he has everything "he wants" that is much more than money can buy. The "prince of the church" is just that, a prince with all that princes get which amounts to what they want. It's kinda democratic, an old boys club that picks one of their own in a free election to be crowned. So in a way it's the American way where any young person can become president of h/er own corporation.

Now is the time to collect data. The world economy teeters on the brink of disaster. Will that bring people to God, (God's greedy reps) or will it cause them to turn away? The pending disaster is Old-T Biblical except there is no Egypt to feed God's chosen people. Not likely there exists a vacuum more vacuumy than one void in food. Will people fill that vacuum? Things are already interesting and will likely get a lot more interesting -like, who are you having for dinner tonight, anybody I know?

Mr. Chopra

Aren’t most liberals the first to talk about their 1st Amendment rights: :Well, Pope Benedict had the right to baptize whomever he wanted to what ever the reasoning behind it.

Also, If you want to comment on what happened to the early Church in Western Europe (i.e., Italy and England) let's name one of many “Charles Spurgeon”. Charles Spurgeon was literally kicked out of the Baptist Union which he spearheaded because he refused to be tolerant of the heretical teachings and watered-down doctrine of the faith. It literally killed him fighting for it. Well, the church in Western Europe especially England has become so liberal that everything Charles Spurgeon stated over 100 years came true. The church in England never bounced back from their fight for tolerance, ear-tickling, made me feel good, fulfill my needs doctrine.

Also, it’s quite appalling when those who diligently fight for the truth of the faith are labeled “right-wing fundamentalists” as if it’s a bad thing to stick to the fundamentals of the Christian faith without watering it down to deny 'the absolute and single authority of Scripture, and the absolute exclusivity of Jesus Christ'.. We all believe in different faiths and we Christians along with Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus all believe exactly what John Paul II stated about Buddhism but maybe you won’t say it out loud but most Muslims will. Fundamental Christianity cannot be compared with the violence of some overzealous Muslims as we as evangelical Christians don’t believe in bombing abortion clinics and painting banners saying God Hates Homosexuals. This world has become so touchy and politically correct about the most ridiculous when in fact, there are so many other important things we can be doing with our time.

As a friend of mine put it some years back, "Everybody believes something. I believe I'll have a beer."

I think there is a relevant piece written about two years ago on this.

On the rise Apostasy

Google "on the rise apostasy" don't forget the quotes.