Pope Benedict Wants You!

4/26/08

Dear Ms./Mrs. Jacoby:

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

Thank you

MAurelius:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TO JUST A COMMENT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

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

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

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

MAurelius:

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

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

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

To Thomas Baum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace and best wishes to all,

JAC

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

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

TO JUST A COMMENT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO ARMINIUS:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

TO CHRIS EVERETT:

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

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

Would this have anything to do with your question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take care, we are all in this together.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi, Thomas Baum,

Always good to hear from you.

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

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

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

Arminius

TO ARMINIUS:

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

We may be closer together than we realize."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Arminius:

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

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

Cheers

Back to the topic with a repeat:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get it.

It's divine intervention blocking all my posts.

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

What kind of God is against free speech?

MHughes976:

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

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

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

Arminius,

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

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

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

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

(thanks for the beer, any time!)

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

JAC,

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

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

Arminius

Sorry for my typos too!

My original post required of open surgery to correct typos:

Arminius,

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

Thomas Baum,

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

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

Peace and best wishes for all,

JAC

Hi, JAC,

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

Arminius

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

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

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

And the world has endured religious confusion ever since.

Best regards to all

Sorry for the typos!

Arminius,

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

Thomas Baum,

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

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

Peace and best wishes for all,

JAC

Thomas Baum,

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Baum,

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

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

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

We may be closer together than we realize.

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

God bless,

Arminius

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

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

TO ARMINIUS:

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

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

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

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

Take care, remember the "Good News".

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

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

Neal,

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

Arminius

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

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

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

For Jihadist

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

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

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

1...2...3

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

Derik:

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

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

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

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

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

From CNN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fill in the answers below:

Hamas, Sunni or Shiite??

Fatah, Sunni or Shiite??

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

Malaysia, nearing a Sunni theocracy?

Bahrain, Sunni or Shiite???

Phillipines, Sunni or Shiite???

Taliban, Sunni or Shiite???

Somalia, Sunni or Shiite???

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

Paul C,

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

Ryan Haber:

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

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

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

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

Aloha

Arminius, she is a jewel.

As are you.

Hi, Jeff P,

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

Arminius

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

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

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

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

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

Arminius,

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

Hi, E Fav,

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

Arminius

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

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

Chris, you said,

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

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

The dialog continues, with humor attached, fortunately!

Arminius

Jihadist,

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

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

JAC et al,

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

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

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

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

Hi, Jihadist,

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

Arminius

JAC,

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

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

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

Arminius

Hello Jeff P,

Ah, some say never explain, never apologise.

I had thought that you are never speaking to me ever again. You posted an irate post to me in another thread and I ignored it.

Thanks for the technical advise on the "shut down button".

My post regarding music being discussed may sound condescending to you. The truth is, I realised then that all posters doing that must be male Caucasians. They are discussing a form of church music that most Caucasian Christians and former Christians love and relate to.

African-Americans, believers or atheists, would be talking about African-American gospel music. It made me realise that 40 years after MLK died, there is still a long way to go on the racial chasms in the US. Susan Jacoby is right in her conclusions. Not just in the US, but the world.

Yes, I love this site too. It is telling and informative of who were are, what we believe in, where we came from, where we are coming from and where we are going.

By the way, I do know E Favorite love church music. He said so in an earlier post in another thread that is what he loved most about church.
I told him then that I love gospel music too. The kind I like is the rousing African-American gospel, and especially the great Mahalia Jackson.

What I was "reading" in the thread following Susan Jacoby's piece on MLK is Caucasians, both believers and non, relating to one another. That is a good start if one think of it as a sort of adherents of faith and non-faith finding common ground when the topic is about racism and racial divide.

As for the so-called "sharp verbage", yes I suppose lampooning, satire, sarcasm and irony don't translate well.

Come to think of it, I think a wrote a better vent against baseball as a "religious cult" than Jacques Berlinerblau:)

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

Hello Arminius,

Always good to see you. I agree with Chris Everett on what he said about you, and more - you are one of the most spiritual posters here.

Perhaps Chris did not know you were an atheist before.

As for CCNL, should I put out a bait to him so he can gnaw on me thus leaving other believers alone? Not much to do actually. Only by posting here and he'll come. He loves thumping Bible/Qur'an thumpers:).

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

Hello Chris Everett,

Good to see you here.

Yes, most atheists do bend over backwards to communicate what they believe and why. I'm only after Harris and Dawkins when they write something, that is not rigorous, logical, rational and arguable on some things.

Other than that, I leave atheists and other believers alone and am more interested to post comments on what On Faith panelist wrote if I feel like it. Sometimes, the posts of other posters are too interesting to be left alone or let pass.

I can't resist engaging you sometimes as you are quite informed on many things other than non-belief/atheism/science. I was hoping you'd be less rigid that logic and reason and science as a cure all. Is that rational?:)

Thanks and best regards

"J"

A Guinness it is, or I can save you some Bushmills. :-)

A lot of thoughtful discussion here today. That's great. It seems to me that proving the existence or non-existence of God through scientific method is a fools errand, since if there is a God that created the universe, he would be too great for any of us to measure or test. What it really comes down to in the case of Christians, is whether or not you believe the eye witnesses of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Chist. Jesus proclaimed himself the son of God and then proved it by his resurrection. This is of course, a very radical claim. Scripture and Catholic tradition tell us that despite witnessing dozens of miracles, his closest followers thought the story was over at Jesus's death, only to be lectured on the third day for their unbelief. One of them, Thomas, would not believe Jesus's resurrection until he physically probed the phyical wounds of the crucifiction. That would be pretty strong physical evidence. In the end, most of those eyewitnesses were themselves martyred for their faith. The question in the end, is whether their witness is credible.

Wiccan, Well Met!

I am surviving, sort of. Hope you are doing well.

As I have said before on these blogs, many paths up that Mountain. We'll meet at the top. Make it a Guinness!

I'm all for blocking JJ permanently, free speech or not.

Arminius

Arminius, I think WaPo is trying to block JJ; he recent posts on Gays and Pagans have been downright nasty. I think we're getting caught in the net they've put out for him. I had two tame posts held also. I have a co-worker whose 17-year-old son could probably fix this in half a day.

Jeff P, Hi,

Be easy on Jihadist. That Lady has a way with words, and I devour her every post. Her replies to CCNL are priceless. She has a different perspective, and, IMHO, a pretty good one, that is valuable here.

Arminius

“Damnit” Arminius, your ultra human sense of the life came across and stopped cold the hot discussion between the firm religious folks and the atheists.

I was enjoying the discussion, but must accept that also enjoy your post. They are like a public soul striptease, meaning by it the best it can mean.

Unfortunately, more rationality is needed in this world, at least in the way the human groups are lead, irrespective of the spirituality of each individual.

Best wishes to all,

JAC

WaPo SUCKS!!! There was nothing in my twice-entered post that was offensive!

Testing 1 2 3
WaPo just impounded another harmless post. What's up with those idiots?

Merry Meet, Arminius! Hope all is well with you.

I have been struck how many times I have heard one's personal faith described as "climbing up the mountain", because I have oft times thought so myself. Some people will tell you there's only one path up that mountain, or they'll tell you there's no way you can climb that mountain; you have to be carried up (and everyone knows whom I'm talking about!) :-)

On my journey, I've seen that the paths can run beside each other, sometimes they intersect, some times I can only see others through the trees. Sometimes you reach out and help others up, sometimes they're helping you up. I do know that if I had only taken help from other Wiccans, I'd be much further back than I am now. So thank you to all my fellow climbers; I'll buy you a beer when I finally get to the top!

Andrew - I'll put it on my wish list. According to The Secret, it will subsequently appear at my door!

Chris Everett;

Did you ever read "Roger's Version" by John Updike? It's a novel which, through its characters,discusses much of what we chat about here. One character believes he can prove the existence of God with his computer. Some great arguments result; some sounding much like yours, et al.

Jihadist:
I think the site authorities are monitoring the length of the posts, and that is why there are "test" posts here and there.

It's difficult for posters to formulate ideas, put them into type and have them deleted as easily as clicking on the "post" button, never mind the frustration that produces.

This is a wonderful site to share many ideas, and to occasionally even share a passion, such as music.

The MLK posts were wonderful, but music came up around E-Favorite's description of his experience singing in an Episcopal choir (something shared by many on the blog, and coincidentally in the spirit of ecumenism--atheists and religionists agreeing on something profound,)

but instead of using your condescending whimsical tone to criticize it, next time push the power button on your computer and shut off. It's very easy and I can help you with that if you need instructions--it's a technical skill someone with your sharp verbage might be able to master well.

Arminus,

Thanks. I think we might both agree that the really big question is "how shall I live my life?" Science informs that question but doesn't answer it. Religion (superstitious religions, anyway) are all too eager to answer that question, but with absurdities. Ultimately, the road of an atheist is hard, since the culture isn't brimming with organizations that can credibly address it. Perhaps you experience some of the same hardness, for some of the same reasons.

Chris

Arminius;

I think you would be interested in Victor Stenger's new book, "God; The Failed Hypothesis" (How Science Shows God Does Not Exist) pub.Prometheus Books 2007.

You seem like a thoughtful guy, and this is a juicy book of interesting ideas and great sense that might appeal to someone named Arminius.

I think if I was religious I would have to check out views diametrically opposed to my own,sometimes, if for no other reason than just plain curiosity; to see what others think about things.

Just a thought.

Chris,

A postscript, I forgot to answer one of your questions.

Yes, I choose to live my live as Jesus taught. I am still trying to sort the rest out.

Arminius

Chris,

Yes, I consider myself Christian, although the fundis disagree. That's their problem. I believe I have taken the path best for me, one of the best paths. Is it the only path? I cannot believe that. God is too big for one church. And there is no lake of fire in what I believe.

Damnit, man, I don't have it set in stone! It is a work in progress, a true inner jihad, a struggle, it is NOT easy! There are NO easy answers!

I was an atheist. I am not now. I explained why in my post. Please read it again.

Your atheism may be rigorous, logical, and rational. But, in the light of spirituality, it can be argued. To no logical end, of course. I can't prove my belief. And I don't care. And, since I know, from experience, where you stand, I will not put you down.

Arminius

MLK-related question:

I once heard a tape of an MLK speech about time - about how it doesn't move in the direction of progress without the constant efforts of dedicated people pushing it that way. Left to its own accord, time tends to move backwards. Has anyone heard that speech and can anyone provide a link?

Arminus,

You certainly come across as a thoughtful, reasonable, kind and tolerant person. Tell me, when you say you are a Christian, are you saying only that you have decided to be a follower of Christ's teachings on how one should live one's life? If so, what do you think of people who choose another "style" of practice, such as those who follow the teachings of Buddha, Ingersoll or the Pope? Or are you saying that you believe Jesus to be the "one true path," perhaps even to the point where everyone on a different path is destined for the "lake of fire."

The atheists on this blog bend over backwards to communicate why they believe as they do. To me, atheism is rigorous, logical, rational and inarguable. What makes you not an atheist?

TO RYAN HABER:

You seem to have forgotten about Jesus decending into hell which is in the Apostle's Creed and if Jesus took ALL OF THE SINS OF HUMANITY upon Himself then it stands to reason that when Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have Thou forsaken Me?", it must have meant something could that be when He went to hell and maybe even death [spiritual death] by His choice of taking all of humanity's wrongdoing upon Himself?

Mary was a biological virgin when she conceived and bore Jesus but the Catholic Church also teaches about her spiritual virginity, have you ever thought about that?

Jesus may or may not have had half brothers and half sisters biologically speaking, what difference does that make?

The reason that I believe that Mary was conceived without sin is that since God is a Being of Love, Pure Love, a consumming Fire of Pure Love and that God wouldn't and couldn't put Pure Love in a tainted container, so to speak, so of all of the female members of humanity, Mary was chosen but she still had to freely give her YES and she did.

Jesus said, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It".

We are all called to be rocks, not just Peter.

Jesus said that It was HIS Church not Peter's.

"The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It", there is the mission of the Church.

Jesus also said, "I Am the Vine, you are the branches", did He not?

Jesus also said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you into ALL TRUTH", He did not say that He was going to send the Holy Spirit only to the Apostles or only to the higher-ups, have you ever heard of confirmation?

The bible also speaks of {the new heavens and the new earth} and they will come at the dawning of the seventh day, I look past heaven to [the new heavens and the new earth].

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and it is unfolding before our very eyes and it will come to fruition, Jesus becoming One of us is just part of God's Plan, just like the Jews being the chosen people is part of God's Plan.

God knew that not all people would repent that is why in His Plan, He won the keys to hell and spiritual death and will use them in due time [God's Time].

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

Being a Christian is taking up your cross and dying for others, whether you get wacked or you die some other way.

The word catholic means universal and it means that for a reason.

Jesus also said, "I have come into the world not to condemn it but that it might be saved.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

By the way I am Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith and I have also met God the Father and God the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

These are a few things to ponder about.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hi, Jihadist,

Susan did indeed present a great essay. MLK's words and deeds still guide those of us who listen. Indeed, they resonate in the whole world.

His dream goes marching on!

Arminius

(Oh, yeah, CCNL keeps showing up on these blogs, and needs your firm corrective hand...)

This is gonna be tough. On me.

The blog has split now, between the firm religious folks and the atheists. Close to open warfare. Everything seen as black and white. A classic blog fight, place your bets, ladies and gentlemen...

The trouble is, the universe is not black and white, and that includes belief. It is possible to believe in both God and in Science. I do. I am not insane. I do not push my beliefs on anyone.

They tried to raise me in the Episcopal church. They failed. I got a good grounding, but was so bored that I was a non-believer for 30+ years.

Then I had a spiritual experience. Remember that word, 'spiritual'. It did not come from anyone's 'holy book', not from a preacher, imam, monk, or priest. Not from burning shrubbery, not on the road to Damascus. It just .... came .... and I was changed. I know that God IS, and He is with me, and He is with you. Proof? LOL! No way! Do I expect you all to follow in my footsteps? If you agreed, I would run screaming out of the room. That is YOUR path, whatever it is. I now have my path.

I eventually came back to the Christian bible, searching for more meaning. I had the good sense to avoid the OT and hit the Gospels. After four readings, over a period of years, I came to realize the truth of Jesus' teachings about compassion, healing, caring, and love. Nowhere did I get a sense that science in any way is flawed. There are two paths here, and they need not conflict.

Damnit, I HATE metaphysics, what am I doing with this stuff? I guess I have gotten fed up with the conflict here, and was mean enough to throw in some sand in the gears. Make somebody think, maybe.

Call me nuts, fine. But it is a gentle and beautiful madness.

Arminius

Ms. Susan Jacoby,

I've just read your piece in connection with the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination.

Thank you. It is a heartfelt and evocative piece on what it means, how it defined one, and what one hoped for. For someone born after 1970, and especially a foreigner, MLK is a distant voice of a distant place in a different time of a different situation. One only see him a grainy video giving his, "I have a dream..." speech at the Mall in Washington. But oddly, it resonated well across time and place.

Too bad so many readers share on their music preferences in the subsequent thread on that MLK piece. I have no idea how Faure is connected to civil rights, racism and the legacy of MLK.

Thanks, best regards and a good weekend to you.

"J"

Malachy:
I too have been censored.
I said Ms Jacoby seems a bit bitter.
And so many others.
Religious views (great truths?) are so calming.

Speed123:
Actually, her (Jacoby)familial connection to Catholicism may explain a lot of her irrational pathology against it ...at least according to Freud ;)

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

Hello,

You can say my familial connection to Catholism and Judaism may explain a lot on my irrational pathology against Catholics/Christians against Muslims, and against Muslims against Jews and Catholics/Christians.

I have no problem if anyone is outraged against any individual Catholic/Christian, Jew, Muslim or anyone else for that matter, for what he or she say and do that is offensive in the sense that it wrongly characterise a group, is dismissive of any belief in toto, or call for the destruction of a group regardless. Some of what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Hirsi Ali wrote falls in this category.

With regard to Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict 16, I have my doubts.

What is true for him is not true for all. Our beliefs or non-belief is true for us.

For atheists, truth and reason is through science.

For believers, faith is a truth in our life, state of being and reason for existence.

For Pope Benedict 16, there must be reason in faith.

I have reason to be believe on matters of faith, the truth is that, Pope Benedict 16 still regard all truths as others adhere to, are lesser or false.

Let us hope that he will really reach out to others not of his faith in the spirit of co-existence. But of course, what am I saying. He wants to build bridges to reach out to people and convert them to his "truth" and save them:)

Thanks and best regards

"J"

Borden - if feeding people loaves and fishes is pure science, why did Jesus only do it once, a long time ago? And why can't anyone replicate it?

There have been a lot of starving people since then who could have used some food.

Dear Borden -

Thanks for the laughs. Best regards to Elsie, Elmer and Lizzie...

Why are people posting "test" here and there?

Is there a problem with this site?

All this talk of science and atheism is ignorant. True science came from Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who cured the sick, produced enough loaves and fishes to feed five thousand, raised the dead, and gained life immortal. They were called miracles before they were understood, but we now know they are science. The true science, which is Christian Science. It was Arthur C Clarke who said that a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. But since he was an atheist he didn't even realize he just proved Christian Science! That is the box that atheist non-believers are in. Since they reject true science they explain away Jesus' miracles as being just magic. But they're real because they're true science.

To give any creedence to a 'church' that is steeped in the Babylonian Mystery religious system, that proclaimed they are 'it' without any backing of scripture, and do not even halfway resemble the church that Jesus set forth in much of its background and practices, let alone a 'leader' who claims to be the 'vicar of Christ' that wears a dagon-hat when appearing here and there- all of this pagan, error-ridden background does not stand against scripture. Hebrews 13 tells us the Word (Jesus) is the same yesterday, today and forever. That same Word eschewed all of the pagan background that the 'church' in question holds to to this day...and they have the gall to think that He, the Word, Jesus Christ is ok with what they do.

Talk about truth in scripture...Rev. 12:9

And relatively soon we will see when the harlot will ride high with the beast.

In the scientific world, if someone makes a hypothesis and it proves false, the hypothesis must be modified or discarded. If a religion makes a claim that something is so because of the "infallible" word of God as revealed through some prophet says it is, and then that claim turns out to be utter rubbish, it must be discarded or modified. But the religious mind set generally would rather discard the evidence rather than change their world view. I, nor science can "prove" there is no God. Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. But I've never seen the slightest plausible evidence there is one. Unlike many of my fellow atheists, I was raised in a non-religious household. My parents encouraged my siblings and I to explore our spiritualiaty, but I never felt any call to religion.

I find it ironic that Susan argues that, horrors, the pope is Catholic and motivated by his religious beliefs, and a number of Catholics and others are threatened by that. I may not agree with those beliefs, but I don't argue that he has the right to practice them, just not the right to force them on us who don't believe.

Ryan Haber sez:

"Our faith is a set of assertions about history with theological implications drawn from them,"

Many religious assertions about "history" have no basis in fact and have been proven time and again to be a-historic.

"...and was given to us in the life and words of Jesus Christ, to wit, that Jesus Christ, truly man and truly God, was born of the Ever-Virgin Mary, established a single Church to continue His work, suffered under Pontius Pilate and was crucified to death, and rose from the dead on the third day, and then ascended into heaven with His body forty days later, whence He sent His Holy Spirit into the Church to guide it infallibly in perpetuity in all matters of faith and morals."

Myth, not history. How can anyone claim as historic "fact" that Jesus sits in heaven?

"Heaven is a vast place, but its is narrow and low. You must be willing to stoop to enter."

??? Who comes up with this stuff? Worse still, who believes it? I assume you'll be providing "proof" of the vast, narrow and low place? Perhaps the Bible has such a description?

The rest of your post is an exercise in self-importance and -aggrandizement. Really sorta sad if you seriously believe this stuff.

Who knew the universe and existence revolved around Ryan?

Robert asks of me:

"Could you please give some examples of evidence for God's non-existence?"

I provided such evidence in the post you quoted. The problem is that you chose to truncate my full quote before I added my qualifying phrase, which was:

"...if god does exist, it bears no resemblance to the imaginary gods of the world's many religions."

With that in mind, the process for proving that the god(s) of the world's religions are non-existent is really quite simple: take any explanation of the natural world that is offered in any of the world's "god-inspired and -informed holy" texts: ie: flat earth, sun revolves around the earth, figs grow into trees, earth created in 6 days, the earth is surrounded by a solid "firmament" above which lie "the waters," etc., and run them up against the scientific knowledge we have acquired in a short 400 years. It becomes instantly clear that the god(s) of the "holy" texts are not what they claim to be, for they are hardly omniscient. In fact, their knowledge of how the natural world operates are laughable at best, imbecilic at worst.

Ergo, we're lead to conclude that there is a high level of probability (to an almost absolute certainty) that the "holy" books were inspired by and written by men, not gods, and that the gods described in these books are pure fabrications of the human mind.

Once again, we're faced with an obvious truth about the gods of religion: the characteristics of what constitutes a god have been and probably always will be defined by men, not by the gods themselves. This makes sense in cases of a man-created religion: how else are we to identify a god unless we first tell people what to look for?

For example, in the OT, the messiah god was to be a warrior savior whose advent on earth would IMMEDIATELY usher in an era of peace and justice. Still hasn't happened. Fast forward to 100BC - 70CE and suddenly, humans will know a god has come calling because he will die and will later be resurrected (Mithras and, later, Jesus). Funny how the messiah of the OT suddenly acquired the characteristics (and lifestory) of th Roman gods who were popular at the time.

Yes, humans recognize their gods-du-jour because they reflect the zeitgeist of their times.

Might there be some kind of supernatural force that would qualify as being a "god"? Maybe, but the evidence for that hasn't presented itself, either. I'm not saying it won't or can't, just that it hasn't.

regarding feeling about the catholic church:

I left the Catholic church, without bitterness, long before I left religion entirely. I enjoyed going to church (except for the sermon, which usually focused on our obligation to give more money and always involved the priest talking down to the parishioners). As I got older, I could see how silly and arbitrary the rules were.
It didn't make any sense to go to hell for eternity for missing mass on Sunday because you died before having the chance to go to confession to have a priest, standing in for God, absolve you of this mortal sin.

Seeing the Vatican and the Cathedrals of Europe as a college student pulled me further away. Obviously, ordinary people had suffered through the ages so the Church could amass such wealth and power. Though I still enjoyed going to church, with all the pomp and ritual, I simply no longer accepted that an organization so obviously thriving on human greed could have a direct connection to God. That simple.

Robert B,

I call myself an atheist because there's no reason to believe in a god, not because I think I can prove no god exists. Similarly, I have no reason to believe a porcelain teapot is orbiting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter even though I can't prove there isn't one. I guess it's hard for someone who believes in god to appreciate this, but for me, "god" is just somebody else's whacky idea! Like the teapot. Like the flying spaghetti monster. To use Richard Dawkins' example, I bet you're an atheist about Zeus, Posiden, Ra, etc, even though you can't prove they don't exist. I just take my atheism one god farther than you take yours.

I'm not wrestling with the idea of god so I don't consider myself agnostic. This is a semantic point about which people disagree, but etymologically, atheist is a-theist, i.e. without theism. I am without theism, therefore I am an atheist.

Brambleton,

You misunderstand and misrepresent. Science is based on the idea that physical observations are, by definition, factual, which requires that explanations comport with the facts in order to be considered true. Even then, the truth of an explanation is never absolute, since it's always possible that new facts will conflict with it.

No scientist or atheist says that everything can be explained factually, through the senses or otherwise. In fact, only the religious are sure that everything can be explained - they simply say "God did it." Of course, that's not really an explanation at all. It's just a way of being comfortable with not having an explanation.

As for Robert B's question, I think what Mr. Mark was getting at is that after centuries of observation of the natural world, the pattern has been one of successful scientific explanations. The necessity to invoke a god as an "explanation" has been in steady and constant retreat. He does not carry the sun across the sky. He does not move the planets in their orbits. He did not create the Earth. He did not design man. Question after question about the natural world, which man used to "answer" with "God did it," (the classic logical fallacy of argument from ignorance) has been answered in a meaningful way by science. The existence of a god has not been disproven, rather, "God exists" is a failed hypothesis.

Neal,

Actually, we in the Church DO actually claim not only to be the one true Church (that founded by Christ) but to have preserved within our living memory and tradition the one true Faith as well.

Our faith is not, in our mind, a set of great spiritual insights or religious ideas. Our faith is a set of assertions about history with theological implications drawn from them, and was given to us in the life and words of Jesus Christ, to wit, that Jesus Christ, truly man and truly God, was born of the Ever-Virgin Mary, established a single Church to continue His work, suffered under Pontius Pilate and was crucified to death, and rose from the dead on the third day, and then ascended into heaven with His body forty days later, whence He sent His Holy Spirit into the Church to guide it infallibly in perpetuity in all matters of faith and morals.

Note, there was no promise that a baptized Christian would never fall into sin. There was no promise that we would be immediately obvious to our neighbors (our Lord wasn't). There was certainly no promise that we would be especially good at doing what He asked us to do.

He promised only that we would have the grace we needed to preserve what He has given us as the means to attaining saving union with Him, other than in whom there is no hope of heaven. This is not because He is a big mean bad guy who just gets His kicks by making us worship Him. Nothing of the sort. It is because HE IS the joy of eternal bliss. HE IS what we were each made for. We can no sooner have heaven without Christ than we can have our cake and eat it, too.

These are hard sayings, and made harder by the fact that we refuse to relativize them and say, "Well that's just our opinion." What makes them even harder is that we so often package these sayings with swords and defensiveness and anger and sins of our own.

Heaven is a vast place, but its is narrow and low. You must be willing to stoop to enter.

That, coincidentally, is not a "meanness" built into the universe either. It is just a simple fact. If selfishness and greed in one form or another cause the world's problems, then any heaven worth its weight in printed pages must be a place without self-centered self-aggrandizement. It must be a place of humility and self-sacrificing love.

That's the most incredible part of what Jesus did: though perfectly happy with our Heavenly Father, he humbled himself taking on the form of a slave, taking on our frail humanity, and suffered himself to die at the hands of sinful people as a gift of himself to those who slew Him. If we want to be with Him, we must be like Him.

In a nutshell, Neal, that is the faith of Catholics. We believe that it is true not only for us, but for everyone - much like the light switch is either on or off, even if a blind man cannot see the difference. The True Church is a part of the True Faith and Its Conserver. Other philosophies, religious beliefs, and so-called revelations are correct only to the extent that they do not contradict the truth. Where they vary from our own, they are mistaken. Of course, it is possible that we are mistaken; but we mustn't be blamed for not thinking so - our opponents don't think they are mistaken either. We refuse, simply refuse, to say that "Our beliefs are true FOR US." Jesus Christ is the Lord of those who know it, those who don't, and of those who hate it alike.

Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever!

To Brambleton --

I had no intention of converting Mr. Mark or any of the atheists on these boards. I was merely asking Mr. Mark to be a bit more explicit about what he sees as evidence against God's existence. I don't like to debate generalities.

To Chris Everett --

You wrote: "But as Jeff P indicated, the burden of proof falls on the person asserting the EXISTENCE of something, not on the person who rejects the assertion as being preposterous."

I've never been fond of the whole "you can't prove it, so it can't exist" argument. Time and again, atheists claim to be more rational than the rest of us. However, you cannot rationally prove a negative. So, if atheists wish to be intellectually honest about their use of reason, shouldn't they rather claim to be agnostics?

Robert,

You are involving yourself in a circular flow of logic that has no beginning or end.

I don't intend this to be mean-spirited, but you will never reach those that don't believe in God and engage in the "scientific method" argument. They are conditioned that everything in the world is packaged in a neat box, can be explained factually through the senses, and only necessitates a viewpoint in the first person.

The link between conversion and inquisition is a normal one. It is the result not only of the inquisition but of the war of religion. It has cemented the idea in Europe and european societies that religio should be a private matter. Conversion, au contraire, by definition calls a public display of religion to... convert. However, if it is normal, it also implies a certain prejudice against religion. The States in the XXth centuries have killed far more people than any time in history and nobody is advocating the end of the State. Many believer of the State ask for more not less. It is amazing given the record. So if you want to mention inquisition all the time, as a mental barrier, don t forget to talk also about the atrocities commited in the name of the State...

Good responses from Jeff P and Mr. Mark. I'll add that an hypothesis should be well formed - at least enough to be meaningful. The hypotheses "God doesn't exist" begs the question "what is God"? Unless you posit a god that has definite properties, the hypothesis is meaningless.

But as Jeff P indicated, the burden of proof falls on the person asserting the EXISTENCE of something, not on the person who rejects the assertion as being preposterous.

On a different note, there are theorems in physics that say that a universe with no special position must conserve linear momentum, one with no special direction must conserve angular momentum, and one with no special time must conserve energy. So the three great conservation laws of mechanics, which seem to be the basis of so much order, are really the consequence of a universe having AS LITTLE ORDER AS POSSIBLE! (In certain respects, anyway.) Victor Stenger has a book on this, The Comprehensible Cosmos, that I'm looking forward to reading.

Mr. Mark wrote: "Taken in this light, the evidence amassed over the centuries in the natural world proves to an extremely high case of probability that god doesn't exist..."

What evidence are you referring to? Could you please give some examples of evidence for God's non-existence?

Paul, thanks for responding.

You know we atheists get going good when people start talking about the scientific method! We think, "now we're talking!!"

"Some problems can not be solved by this method because there is no adequate way to prove or disprove the original hypothesis."

This is a very good observation, but I'd suggest you take this flow of logic one step further: In a really excellent read (that I'd suggest we all take time to read, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and atheist) in a chapter entitled "The Fine Art Of Baloney Detection," author Carl Sagan puts it into words much better than I ever could:

"...always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle--an electron, say--in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inverterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result."

I'm needing to step out soon but I'd address anyone's suggestion that an atheist would need to "disprove" the existence of the gods as really not quite accurate. An atheist would not have a need or desire to "disprove" the gods, any more than a need to disprove the orbiting teapot or spaghetti monster.

However, you would see an atheist get vocal as soon as she/he began to appreciate that some human liberty or some other justice is being violated or policy is being made in the name of some god--at that point, when the perpetrator was approached, the dialogue might be "well, if you think authority is given to you for this action by your god, I don't recognize that god, and therefore your authority to change policy or this injustice will be challenged."

Sorry to run--signing out.

Dear Paul C -

Your post to Jeff is a mixed bag of illogic.

First, you bring up the scientific method, and then set conditions on any experiment that by definition place your hypothesis outside of testing by the scientific method.

Next, you make a "supporting" statement tot your hypothesis - "the universe is orderly" - that can be challenged a priori.

Most egregiously, you seem to imagine that the purpose of the scientific method is to prove absolutes beyond ANY doubt, when the purpose of the scientific method is to prove a hypothesis to a very high degree of PROBABILITY. In many cases, this degree of probability is so high that it becomes settled science, or - for lack of a better word - a "fact." Into this category fall evolution and the movement of the planets around the sun.

Taken in this light, the evidence amassed over the centuries in the natural world proves to an extremely high case of probability that god doesn't exist, or that if god does exist, it bears no resemblance to the imaginary gods of the world's many religions. It's really up to those making the claim that god does exist to prove their hypothesis valid.

;)

Jeff P:

The scientific method starts with stating an hypothesis. The next step is to set up a controlled experiment to prove or disprove that hypothesis. Some problems can not be solved by this method because there is no adequate way to prove or disprove the original hypothesis. For instance, you may say: My hypothesis is that God doesn't exist. What would would be your controlled experiment to prove or disprove this hypothesis? I might say to you: The universe is orderly and must therefore have had an intelligent creator to create that order. Would you accept that as proof by the scientific method?

Some years ago I came across a Catholic Bible commentary which stated that its authors valued the work of Jewish and Protestant scholars. I am sure that this compliment can be returned and a way forward opened up. On the other hand I was sorry to see that Pope Ben recently cancelled a visit to a university in Rome because some students were going to demonstrate against his defence of the Church's treatment of Galileo. We all need to listen to opinions we just don't like.
I was also sorry to read that a Catholic scholar who had remarked that we wouldn't have thought that Luke claims that there was a Virgin Birth if we did not have Matthew's account in mind was seriously browbeaten.

TO JEFF P:

First off, I would like to thank you for the post and second, it doesn't matter that you don't believe that God is real, for one thing, He is not the putrid, vile, egomaniac that some seem to think that He is and I am talking about some of the ones that know His Name.

You wrote, "He would probably be a "hit" today.", He would probably be a "hit" with some but some of the ones that think that they are speaking in His Name would absolutely despise Him.

You also wrote, " But I did want to congratulate you for not using this post as a avenue for proselytizing or "damning", as we see so often here.", you know what, Jesus didn't do those things either.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

By the way, the only reason that I sign my full name at the end is that one day people will realize that I have been chosen to speak.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

This is a test.

Robert B:

LOL!
I thought about that myself. Yep it would have to be a carefully controlled experiment indeed!

If we've learned anything about "miracle healings" we've learned to be skeptical!

But, if it happened once we might, according to the scientific method, have to request God do it again for another team. You know... the answer is only as good as the process of getting there!

To Jeff P. --

You wrote, "If done in a carefully controlled experiment, if God healed an amputee, you'd have converts enough to fill all your pews each Sunday."

Forgive my own skepticism, but I rather doubt that. More likely, you'd have the anti-theist brigade (of which I do NOT include you as a member, Jeff) finding all sorts of flaws within the experiment and screaming "There has to be a rational answer!" at the top of their lungs. If that failed, then they might try to convince us all that we were deluded when we thought the man was a amputee in the first place...

TO NEAL:

You wrote, "I'm pretty sure Ms. Jacoby means that the "emphasis on conversion" remained consistent, not the methods."

There could be no conversion without Proclaiming the Good News.

Actually, I speak for God, not the Catholic Church, the Divine Commission given to us by Jesus is to PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS whether anyone takes it to heart or not, is up to them, conversion is a freely done personal matter and no matter what may have happened in the past or may be happening now, forced conversion is a contradiction in terms.

Conversion and Proclaiming the Good News goes hand in hand, there should be no "emphasis" or it just turns into a numbers game.

And in proclaiming the Good News, we can become active participants in the mission that Jesus laid out for us when He said, "Simon thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it".

First off, we are all called to be rocks.

Second, hell and spiritual death have been defeated and even tho people persist in building them for themselves and since God gave us free will, God cannot keep us out of building them for ourselves, so He went ahead and won the keys to them and He will use them in due time.

When Jesus extended the invitation to, "Come follow Me", if we accept, then He will walk with us and also send the Holy Spirit to guide us on our journey.

Gospel means GOOD NEWS and that Good News is for ALL.

As far as repenting goes, that is taking personal responsibility for our actions and we all have the choice of taking responsibility, now or later, take your pick.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Paul C:

...as far as the reliability of eyewitnesses, I suggest you do some research on that.

...as far as the argument: "well, they ask for evidence, but even if they were given evidence, they wouldn't believe.."--that's a fallable and ineffective argument, and if Jesus really is the Son of God, I don't think he'd fall for this fallacy. I'm thinking that one was cooked into the books about the time the gospels were written.

Generally speaking, the scientific method is that based on emperical, reproduceable evidence, and it has served us well over the last couple centuries, and it continues to be the reason we thrive and survive better than any preceeding generations.

If done in a carefully controlled experiment, if God healed an amputee, you'd have converts enough to fill all your pews each Sunday.

Thomas,
I too have always enjoyed your posts, and on occasion I have to rev up my "scepticizer" meter when things seem to be a little "out there," I do appreciate that you have a sincere care for people and wish for all to be reconciled to some greater, healing power.

We just disagree as to any supernatural source!

But I do agree with your assessment of Jesus as a man of healing, (sometimes) peace, justice, and (sometimes) equality.

He would probably be a "hit" today. But I did want to congratulate you for not using this post as a avenue for proselytizing or "damning", as we see so often here.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Its interesting that you put so much faith in that trio of scholars who are trying to determine what someone said 2000 years ago. Remember, all they are doing is comparing what is in the new testament to what they "think" Jesus might say based on their own assumptions and comparative analysis. Why do you think they are more credible than the eyewitness authors themselves?

I'm curious. Do you know the NT story of the Rich man and Lazarus, the poor man. In that story, the rich man is in Hell and asks that Lazarus, who is in Heaven, would be allowed to quench his pain with a drip of water. When told that that was impossible, he asked whether Lazarus could at least warn his brothers of their impending doom so they could repent. When told that they had Moses and the prophets to warn them, the rich man said that was insufficient but that if someone rose from the dead, they would believe. The response to that was that if they didn't believe the prophets, neither would they react to someone rising from the dead.

I'm not sure whether you believe that this is a true story from Jesus which he stole from someone else, or was an embellishment from a new testament writer. In any case, I at least see the truth in these words.

TO ARMINIUS:

Hi, hope you are doing fine, thanks for the post.

You know one of the things that Pope John Paul II did and some did not seem to notice was that he went around the whole world making public penances, [acknowledgements, so to speak], of the sins that the Catholic Church did and it was the right thing to do and timely.

There are plenty of people that are members of the Catholic Church, both laity and clergy, that seem to be really bothered that Vatican II happened and as, I think it was Pope John XXIII put it, "open the windows and let some fresh air in" or something to that effect and they keep trying to slam the window shut.

Jesus was not an "in your face" type person and He never, ever asked His followers to be that way.

As far as "by example" there are people that are more "Christian in their hearts", where it counts, that don't even believe in God, than some of the people that believe in God.

When I write, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know, I am just trying to do what God chose me for: to speak wherever and whenever.

I have learned more about God from people that have never mentioned God than from those that have tried to cram God, or at least their conception of God, down my throat.

I liked how you put it, that you haven't met a RC that was actively trying to convert others and you know what, it is not about converting others, it is about trying to be "Christian" and if God gives you a specific "job" then give it a shot because then it becomes "God's Job" to see you thru.

Gospel means "Good News" and if the news is not "GOOD NEWS FOR ALL" then it is not good news at all.

Take care, nice hearing from you, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] as I said GOOD NEWS.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Oops, make that "are leaving the Church".

Paul C.

Uneducated "pew sitters" referred to parishoners before the 1800's. "Pew sitters", of course, are now very well educated and that is one of the reasons so many our leaving the church or are members in name only i.e. they recognize the flaws and errors in the church's foundations and founder as noted in the following synopsis:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/
carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary (post 1800) NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles/"voodooing the hoodoo")/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

You made the statement that Catholicism spread because of uneducated "pew sitters". Why do you believe that only the uneducated would be attracted to Catholicism? Your position is not accurate, at least as far as the US is concerned. In the latest Pew reports, the catholic population very closely mirrored the US population as a whole in terms of education and economic status. Just because people don't agree with your positions, doesn't make them less intelligent or less educated. It may merely mean that they have different life experiences, analysis methods, or priorities than you do.

This is a great column. "Mine is the only right way and by hook or crook I must make you see the right (my) way" is the root cause of most of the ills of our world. This view is not only he;d by the Catholic Church and the Muslim Clergy but Evangelicals as well. I wish they would read the writings of Mahatma Gandhi, Eknath Easwaran, Paramhans Yoganand, Meister Eckhart, Jalalludin Rumi and such other luminaries.

Actually, her familial connection to Catholicism may explain a lot of her irrational pathology against it ...at least according to Freud ;)

I too have been censored.

I said Ms Jacoby seems a bit bitter.

And so many others.

Religious views (great truths?) are so calming.

I too have been censored.

I said Ms Jacoby seems a bit bitter.

And so many others.

Religious views (great truths?) are so calming.

I too have been censored.

I said Ms Jacoby seems a bit bitter.

And so many others.

Religious views (great truths?) are so calming.

I too have been censored.

I said Ms Jacoby seems a bit bitter.

And so many others.

Religious views (great truths?) are so calming.

E-fav,

Although the writer has had some experience with the Church in her family, this fact does not lend any weight or credibility to her bias (bigotry) and misinformation used against the Catholics in one screed after another on On Faith...

I believe that Ms Jacoby is primarily concerned here with "selling papers" which assures her of her job.

But, this can be educational in some ways.

Maybe I'm wrong, and hope so, by I believe I smell a little bitterness in Ms Jacoby's viewpoints, and thats what they are; as for all of us.

When one rejects their faith, they often come out of it swinging.

Lots of us need spirituality today. Is there a nicer way to kind of do this, without the slings and arrows?

Thomas The god talking Hallucinator Baum,

The Catholic Church has been consistent only about spreading its errors and flaws since the myths and embellishments of the NT were published. Paul's "imminent second coming" was the biggest flaw/error and should have been enough to intellectually crush the theological mumbo-jumbo. Catholicism however spread thanks to the uneducated "pew sitters" and their superstitions especially in regard to the "demons of the demented, the promise of healings ("voodooing the hoodoo), the threat of hell, ruin, the purchase of heaven with indulgences, the divine right of kings, queens and popes, and in many cases, the threat of the sword e.g. in South America, and of course 2000 years of Breeding, Birthing and Brainwashing its members with ultimate mumbo-jumbo of a physical resurrection that never occurred.

Grouse says: "Jacoby, you and other Catholic bashers have absolutely no idea what Catholicism is."

I guess you don't know that Susan was raised Roman catholic and attended Catholic schools.

Arminius - thanks - I'm laughing now too, because you're laughing.

how can two religions both be true if they teach different things? and if one believes theirs is true why wouldn't they want to teach the truth to those in error.

it seems a bit elementary to me.

Thomas Baum:

--"Could the answer to that be that the Church has been remarkably consistent but that things like the "Inquisition" have been an aberration?"

You might have a point if "things" like the various inquisitions hadn't taken place over a period of 650 years or so. For an extremely interesting case of relatively recent forced conversion (and one of the last prominent official acts of the Office of Inquisition) goog "Edgardo Mortara".

--"[Susan Jacoby] then wrote, 'The Catholic emphasis on conversion has remained remarkably consistent throughout history.', this statement of yours seems to be totally contradictory to what you wrote earlier in the posting about ['Although the church has given up conversion by the sword and waterboarding (a form of interrogation used on heretics during the Inquisition)']."

I'm pretty sure Ms. Jacoby means that the "emphasis on conversion" remained consistent, not the methods.

Cheers

Hello, Thomas Baum,

An interesting post. I think you are whitewashing the Roman Catholics a little bit. But I hasten to add that I have never met an RC that was actively trying to convert others. Mostly, they try to live their religion by example. As do you, I believe.

The problem here, I believe, is not the proclamation of the Gospels. The core issue here, often unspoken, is that many people, including myself, have an issue with those who are in your face, not explaining, not conversing, but demanding. Like Spiderman2. I have no respect for those sad souls screaming on the street corners. I have great respect for those who live what they believe, will explain it if asked, but never push it.

God bless,

Arminius

TO SUSAN JACOBY:

You wrote, " the Vatican's raison d'etre remains the conversion of everyone--including Muslims.", I don't think that you can speak for the Vatican and I am not speaking for the Vatican but the Divine Commission that Jesus sent us on, is to "PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS", it is not to convert "everyone--including Muslims", converting is up to the individual, whether or not that is the way it has happened throughout the AD period is or at least should be in the past.

You then wrote, " Allam, in a column discussing his conversion, wrote in his newspaper that the "root of all evil is innate in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictual." (The word "conflictual" was probably issued by some Department of Translation Into Bad English.)", what is "Bad English"?

You also wrote, "Does anyone seriously think that the Vatican finances mission schools around the world because it does not hope to gain converts?", do you really think that it is all about numbers or could you possibly entertain the idea that some people in this world do have beliefs and some have even had experiences that they wish to share with others?

You then wrote, "The Catholic emphasis on conversion has remained remarkably consistent throughout history.", this statement of yours seems to be totally contradictory to what you wrote earlier in the posting about ["Although the church has given up conversion by the sword and waterboarding (a form of interrogation used on heretics during the Inquisition)"].

Seems to me that you said the Church was into forced conversion, which really isn't conversion at all because conversion is to be the person's choice, and now it is not into forced conversion, so how can you say that it has "remained remarkably consistent throughout history.", can you answer that?

Could the answer to that be that the Church has been remarkably consistent but that things like the "Inquisition" have been an aberration?

The Divine Commission given to us by Jesus is to "PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS", Jesus forced Himself on no one and we are not to force ourselves or our beliefs on anyone else either.

Also we should be free to speak of our beliefs to anyone and so far it is still legal in this country, I happen to live in the USA.

I cannot live anyone's life except for my own and anyone that tries to force themselves on anyone else is wrong.

It is one thing to study history and maybe learn from it but it is another to forget that we happen to live in the present.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It's nice to see that Jacoby is writing more accurately now by not bunching all religions as one and the same.

I hope she continues writing this way so she does not add more blindness to a realm that is already pockmarked by grandiose stupidity.

Kudos.

From what I recall in regard to other Christian denominations, the Catholic church doesn't argue so much that it's the one, true "faith" as much as it it argues that it's the one, true "church": a subtle but important distinction. For even though it absolutely still believes that its dogma is superior to the schismatics, it's learned over the centuries that convincing people of that subjective proposition is much more difficult than sticking to the historical record and it therefore typically cites an unbroken line of popes, all the way back to Peter the Rock, as an easier proof of its authenticity.

If one looks at the list of popes one does indeed see a very long list of names stretching all the way back to the first century. (What one doesn't see in a simple list of names, of course, is that some of these people were, in fact, suspected murderers, purchasers of their offices, beneficiaries of nepotism, and/or just plain certifiably crazy.) As one gets closer to the beginning of the list, the specific historical details get sketchier and sketchier even as to the exact names, length in office and order of succession of these earliest Pontiffs. It's important to note, as well, that the current list is entirely a product of extensive church revisions over the centuries.

----------

(This entry and others today, though containing no URLs, were repeatedly "held for approval" by the blog owners.)

Smashing "the Rock" once again!!!

What does Professor Crossan (an On Faith panelist) and many other contemporary religious historians conclude about the historic
reliability of said Catholic foundation: (Think ill of Crossan’s work if you want but he has done his homework as shown by the content of the books he has written- See amazon.com for a compilation. Ditto for Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian)

To wit:

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

John 16:13- not reviewed by Crossan or others that I can find

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

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

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

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

From another source:

Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book or person?

“I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson,
x=the ayatolloah Sistani,
x=David Koresh,
x=the Koran
x=speed123”

more “logic”?

“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible
Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”

Again, this what some leading experts are saying about the foundations of infallibility. As I have noted before, I find it disturbing that the Vatican remains silent concerning the conclusions of Professor Crossan and Theologian Schillebeeckx.

I do not put too much in what luther said in his later years as became too impressed with himself as many do.

GONFRMTN,

The world is a complicated, messy place and Peter - the stone that Christ build his Church upon - was an apostle that denied Him three times...

"Grace" and "nature" are not mutually exclusive, despite what Luther's manifesto proclaims.

After reading most of the comments it is easy to see that most of you who proclaim Christian faith and all of you who do not are arguing like those famous Vatican cardinals of the 14th century who succeded in driving Martin Luther from the church.Much ado about proclamations of egocentric men and none at all about the message from Jesus Christ(the name in case you all forgot that we got Christian from).All things said,Susan Jacobt is an insignificant player in this world of ours as all of are.

The actions of the Catholic Church do not appear to be any better or worse than is possible by any other man-made institution, but they certainly are not what one might expect from an institution theoretically guided by an omnipotent holy spirit and benefiting from centuries of divine grace.

When I see the pope and the boys flouncing around I try to imagine just how the NT image of Jesus would fit in the parade, and I ain't seeing him.

After reading most of the comments it is easy to see that most of you who proclaim Christian faith and all of you who do not are arguing like those famous Vatican cardinals of the 14th century who succeded in driving Martin Luther from the church.Much ado about proclamations of egocentric men and none at all about the message from Jesus Christ(the name in case you all forgot that we got Christian from).All things said,Susan Jacobt is an insignificant player in this world of ours as all of are.

Nice book selection LTK.

I would add to that list, Michael Burleigh "Sacred Causes - the clash of religion and politics from the great war to the war on terror."

Great book.

Daniel: "You know what you know, and you know everyone else is wrong, and you are a pretty harsh and hard person, about it, and you're willing to fight anyone who crosses you, or at least your beliefs"

I didn't say everyone else is wrong; however, this is a discussion board for theology/philosophy, is it not?

Do you not enjoy having your preconceptions challenged? Or the competition of ideas?

As for relativism, you know what it is - not to mention that that discussion would take all day...

If any of you would like to read other opinions on the history of Anti-Christian topics check out Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry by Vincent Carroll, The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Phillip Jenkins and for a discussion of Atheism and Christianity see The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life by Armand Nicholi.

Thanks,

LTK

grouse wrote:
"Again, what did Jacoby's atheist brethren do. Oh, they were the Nazis."

Is that so? Then why did the German Wehrmacht soldiers have "Gott mit uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles?

"What do atheists aspire to? To basically get what is theirs and to be slaves to whatever emotions just rule them at the moment and to make up the rules as they go along. What a wonderful, remorse-less, criticizing, self-righteous, arrogant, meaningless and sorry way to live a life."

Every single thing in this paragraph is incorrect.

Speed123,

So, just what is the theory of relativism?

I am very interested in "subjectivity;" is that what you are referring to? I do not have a "theory" about it, just observations.

You know what you know, and you know everyone else is wrong, and you are a pretty harsh and hard person, about it, and you're willing to fight anyone who crosses you, or at least your beliefs. So? That is your religion?

(shrug)

I'm sorry, I can't read this drivel anymore. I am switching to the NY Times, where the writers of the articles—as well as the responses of the readers—are much more considered, civil, and intelligent.

Grouse

At least you picked a good name.

I do not understand all this grousing. Most of what you said is not true.

What did atheists do for the Jews in the time frame of the Nazi holocaust?

What do atheist do for anyone but for themselves?

It is quite comical for an atheist like Jacoby to be spouting off on what one or the other Christian religions did or did not do for their Jewish brothers during persecution. Really a Godless person does not even have the standing to criticize what a religious group did in that context. Again, what did Jacoby's atheist brethren do. Oh, they were the Nazis.

Christian religions like Catholicism are based on the wonderful loving and service-oriented teachings of Jesus Christ. They inspire people to love others, even their enemies, and to do many good things in this world in the hope to gain heaven and eternal life upon earthly death. If they failed in some regard, then they failed and as Catholics are subject to asking God for forgiveness in those failings that amount to sin.

What do atheists aspire to? To basically get what is theirs and to be slaves to whatever emotions just rule them at the moment and to make up the rules as they go along. What a wonderful, remorse-less, criticizing, self-righteous, arrogant, meaningless and sorry way to live a life.

Jacoby, you and other Catholic bashers have absolutely no idea what Catholicism is. You bring up the Inquisition and the Crusades as if that has any relevant bearing on Catholicism and its practice. Where else do people bring up centuries old history as if it is relevant in a current discussion. It is like yelling out Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Baker everytime an evangelical talks about their faith and their beliefs. It is immature and not particularly intelligent, yet you fall into the same trap.

As someone else on this blog noted, why is Jacoby even on this forum on faith and religion. She has nothing to offer but Godless finger wagging and childish observations and topics. Note how she has jumped into this discussion to basically give the equivalent of a "nunh unh" to those refuting her lack of historical knowledge or faith understanding.

What a waste of everyone's time, including mine.

Ordinarily, persons entering the Church at the Easter Vigil receive the sacraments of initiation from the hand of their local pastor. That's because the local bishop can't be everywhere at once. Those who live close to the cathedral, the bishop's "parish church" (as it were), will usually receive the sacraments from their bishop.

Exceptionally notable persons are very often baptized by the local bishop in keeping with the dignity of their station. Remember, the Church is not egalitarian-democratic but hierarchical. Civil society, for that matter, only puts on a sham of egalitarianism. The simple fact is that the governor has a more important role in society than I do. If he were to seek entrance into the Church, it would be fitting for a roughly comparable figure in the Church to admit him.

Mr. Allam is on the editorial staff of Corriere della Serra, a Rome-based paper. Presumably, Mr. Allam lives in or near Rome. Mr. Allam is also very famous and to some degree powerful because of his job. That alone would be enough to get him baptised by the Bishop of Rome, that is, the Pope.

Was the Vatican aware of how the baptism would be perceived? Certainly. Was it concerned enough to depart from customary protocols? Apparently not. But there is a difference between willing an effect and tolerating it.

---

Mrs. Jacoby is right-on at one point and way-off on another.

She said that the Holy Father's principle purpose for visiting our nation is to stem the flow of people leaving the Church here. Um, Mrs. Jacoby, you might not have been aware of the Holy Father's visit until the Pew poll came out a few weeks ago, but the rest of us were. It's been on the public's calendar for about a year now.

But you are right, that our mission is and ever has been to grow in personal and communal intimacy with Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, to lift Him up around the world, and so to draw all people to Him. Please God more Catholics will come to realize what you already seem to know, as a result of the Holy Father's visit to our country.

Daniel,

I would not consider myself intolerant; however, I do not agree with the theory of relativism.

Nor do I agree with the "terrible simplifications" found in the secular critique of faith (specifically Catholic faith/history)

Also, the idea that priests and nuns and laity helped others during this period, not because, but in spite of their faith and Church is really an atrociously reductionist and backward idea.

It is like saying "wow, that was a really nice gesture to return my lost wallet - and he did it in spite of being Mexican/atheist/white/black/Jewish/Catholic" etc.

Speed123 said:

"I am certainly not proselytizing on here - it is more like manning the defenses ;)"

I never said that you were proselytising; if you think I said that, then you were reading some extra meaning into my comment. I hinted that you might be proudly intolerant.

I have nothing to do with the publishing or scrutiny of anyone's comments on this blog. I see the comments when you do.

I do know, though, that the publishing of comments on this blog, like many others, is entirely at the discretion of the publisher of the blog.

Several people have asked for sources on the Catholic Church and the Jews. I highly recommend "Constantine's Sword," by James Carroll (a Catholic, as it happens); "The Popes Against the Jews," by David I. Kirtzer, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Saul Friedlander's works, which include "Pius XII and the Third Reich," and, most recently, "The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945." Dr. Friendlander, professor of history at UCLA, is the highest authority on this subject, and his perspective is particularly interesting because he is a Jew who was saved by being hidden in a Catholic institution in France. You should also take a look at Gary Wills's many books and essays touching on this subject.

I am certainly not proselytizing on here - it is more like manning the defenses ;)

The "Hitler's pope" type argument put forth by Jacoby is really repulsive and a historically falsity.

The exaggeration of the "power" and influence and unity of Catholic institutions in world affairs should be seen akin to the racists/conspiratorial screed "the protocols of zion"

I try not to be offensive but sometime it is hard in the face of so many bigoted stereotypes and willful misrepresentations...

To Daniel --

I thought you might have meant that any attempt to convince someone else of the rightness of one's position could conceivably by termed proselytizing. But I was not sure. Hence, I posted my questions so that you might expand on what you believe the term to mean.

Robert B.:

Daniel ITLD only explains what he believes; he does not insist on it. Others on these blogs get in your face and insist that they have the right answer, and all others are wrong. That is the difference. If you believe something, you should live it and only preach by example, not by shouting on the street corner.

Arminius

Robert B

To answer your question, discussing your own beliefs is not proselytising. What do you think it is? What do you think I meant in my previous post?

To Daniel:

Is Speed123 proselytizing when he discusses his faith on these boards? Is Ms. Jacoby proselytizing when she criticizes religion? Where is the line between someone attempting to convince others of the rightness of one's position and proselytizing? Is there even a line?

What a hateful screed.

I was raised to think that proselytism is intolerant and disrespectful, because its very aim is to subvert the religious beliefs and practices of others. If this only applied to a single person, maybe it would not be so bad, but the practice of proselytism almost always encites dissension and ill-feelings among those subjected to this practice. There are those, such as Speed123, who are probably proud of the label "intolerant" because they have somehow transferred its negative connotations into positive ones. In fact, I know people who are proud of their "intolerance." But I do not think anyone wants to be thought as as disrespectful.

In addition to my upbringing, I have also concluded in my adult life, that proselyzing is also pretentious and rude. And it is a sign of a primitive and backward way of thinking, at least from a reliigous perspective, since it is rooted in the notion of political power, the opposite of spiritual belief, with its emphasis on numbers of believers rather than on belief.

Whether it is the Catholic Church, Islam, Mormons, or Jehovah's witnesses, it is a pretty rude practice, that apparently, alot of people just don't get.

When I go back and read through all these posts, I think it is a little sad.

Hi, E Fav,

You said,
"Depends what's in the hamburgers.
Also, Ronald MacDonald is a clown."

I'm still laughing! Thanks, 12 pts outta 10.

Arminius

Doubting Thomas asked: "I'm not a Biblical scholar - but the 1st Commandment is commonly translated as 'I am the Lord YOUR God, thou shalt not have OTHER gods before me', suggesting that early Jews shared with other Semitic peoples a pantheistic cosmology. When did that shift into a belief that there was only one supreme being YWHW?"

I'm not a Biblical scholar either, but I do know that early Christianity identified the other pagan gods as demons (the letters of Paul, I think, as well as the Acts of the Apostles make reference to this). Perhaps the Jews had a similar view of these "other gods"?

P.S. I think the Jewish reference to God is YHWH, not YWHW... :)

Let’s speak the truth. In Muslim nations there is no freedom of religion and for the non-religious to express there opinions! And this is one of the many messages given by Pope Benedict to the Islamic world! The Pope has expressed Human rights for all people and not just Christians. If you don’t believe me then pay close attention when the Pope addresses the United Nations later this month in New York.

I think you would agree that both Christians and atheists would benefit from Muslims nations that are more tolerant of non-Muslims. As it stands today atheists and Christians are in hiding in those countries and for good reason! Everyone should have the right and dignity to profess what they believe or do not believe! Agreed?

We Americans take freedom for granted especially the young!

My posts are being held as well. Perhaps the blog owners or Ms. Jacoby will let us know why.

Gibson Polk:
"I am always amazed when I read posts like these at the number of people who miss the point. ALL religions have ALWAYS believed they are the one true religion."

Not true.

In fact, I suspect that this attitude may be a product of the belief in a Supreme Being.

Most religions don't believe in a supreme being. They believe in a multiplicity of gods, each with their own personality and powers. Adding another god to the pantheon is often no problem - witness Roman practices.

With no sole god, there doesn't even have to be one reality.

I'm not a Biblical scholar - but the 1st Commandment is commonly translated as 'I am the Lord YOUR God, thou shalt not have OTHER gods before me', suggesting that early Jews shared with other Semitic peoples a pantheistic cosmology. When did that shift into a belief that there was only one supreme being YWHW?

Comments welcome.

As a former Catholic now atheist, I think I have to disagree with part of your argument about Catholicism - at least in contrast with other faiths.

I agree that one of the primary desires of the Church is to convert non-Catholics and that it isn't in their best PR interests to announce that as their #1 goal. But I don't necessarily agree that the Catholic Church does this moreso or to a greater extent than other religions. I just think its easier to see those kinds of cogs turning because unlike other Christian denominations, the Church has a peak human authority to shine a spotlight on - the Pope - a single person who sets the tone for everyone else.

Other religions I have experience with (both Christian and Islamic) harbor those same desires to convert the masses, but when the responsibility for that aim is spread amongst many leaders versus focused on a single one, it doesn't seem as intense. A difusion of responsibility in a way.

So I think your criticism is accurate, it would just be more accurate if it was of all of Christianity and other major religions. After all, the Church was responsible for the Inquisition, but other forms of Christianity helped out with the conquest and near-extermination of the American Indian. They all have atrocities on their hands, just depends on which century is your example.

Be advised - these comments are being censored, contrary to recent theories about the failure of many posts. I think comments are under review at the time they're created and some just disappear, like my last one did. It did have some controversial material - we shouldn't be naive about censorship.....it is occurring.

Signing off comment:

It appears that Catholic-ness might not have been the primary reason for the deaths of Catholics, even if it may have been for individual Catholics.

Here's another quote that clouds the issue a bit:

"On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Orsenigo celebrated Hitler's birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany" and added with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars."

(Source: Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)"

I have to confess that one of my all-time heroes is Deitrick Bonhoffer, one of the few German pastors who opposed and ultimately died by the hand of Hitler during efforts to stop him. He redeems the Lutherans more than Martin Luther!

Linda: "I find it remarkable that people find the Pope's efforts to convert people to the Catholic faith, when he is the leader of the Catholic Church, offensive. That is like being offended when Ronald McDonald wants to sell people hamburgers."

Depends what's in the hamburgers.

Also, Ronald MacDonald is a clown.

This author says that the Catholic Church claims that St. Edith Stein died because of her Catholic faith, but I see no evidence of the Church making such a claim. In his homily for her canonization, Pope John Paul II said:
“Because she was Jewish, Edith Stein was taken with her sister Rosa and many other Catholic Jews from the Netherlands to the concentration camp in Auschwitz, where she died with them in the gas chambers.”
Read the whole homily here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_11101998_stein_en.html
She is called a “martyr of love” in that she lovingly accepted suffering and offered it up for others.

Robert B:

I'm not sure about the Papacy's role (in either action or inaction,) but here's a trivia question: Who said this?:

"Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...

Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...

Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...

Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it..."

Answer: Martin Luther!
..and to think I was confirmed a Lutheran!

In all fairness, most of my Lutheran pastor friends relate that they wish he had died prior to his rants about the Jews, but other theologians argue that none of his writings should be discounted.

Isn't religion interesting?

Closing point, this is the true lie:

Susan Jacoby: "Catholics were never targeted because they were Catholics"

Not quite holocaust denial, but getting there. Very ethnocentric, Jacoby...

I seem to be getting censored...

In any case, here is a direct quote from one of Hitler's speeches:

"The Catholic Church has but one desire, and that is to see us destroyed."

It's it logical, then, to assume that Hitler would seek to destroy the institution that he feels is out to destroy him?

This institution, by the way is made of people - people who had already been systematically attacked in France, Mexico and Spain. Thousands died merely because they were Catholic.

The point missed again by Susan! Here’s the truth behind the baptism of Allam!!!

Later in his open letter Allam turned again explicitly to his newspaper’s editor and wrote, “Dear editor, you ask whether I fear for my life in the consciousness that my conversion to Christianity certainly will obtain for me a death sentence for apostasy. You are quite right.”

Allam said that he will “face my fate with head high, with back straight, and with interior sureness of one who has the certainty of his faith.”

Then he said that “His Holiness has sent an explicit and revolutionary message to a Church that until now has been too prudent in the conversation with Muslims, refraining from evangelizing in countries with an Islamic majority and being quiet about the reality of conversions in Christian countries. Out of fear. Fear of not being able to protect converts from condemnation to death for apostasy [from Islam] and fear of reprisals against Christian residents of Islamic countries.

“Well then, today Benedict XVI, with his testimony, says we need to overcome the fear and not be timorous in the affirmation of the truth of Jesus even among the Muslims. ...

“In Italy there are thousands of converts to Islam who serenely live their new faith. But there also are thousands of Muslim converts to Christianity who are impelled to conceal their new faith out of fear of being assassinated by Islamic extremists who hide among us.”

Allam concluded his open letter by saying that he hopes the “historic gesture of the Pope and my testimony will bring out the conviction that the moment has arrived to leave the shadows of the catacombs and to affirm publicly our will to be fully what we are.

“If we cannot have here in Italy, in the cradle of Catholicism, our home, a guarantee of full religious liberty, how will we ever be able to be credible when we denounce the violation of such liberty elsewhere in the world?”

Also, I did not equate the attacks on Catholics (any attack on the Church and its institutions is an attack on a Catholic) with genocide.

I am correct in saying that BOTH Catholics and Jews were targeted by the Nazi government; however, only the Jews were targeted with mass genocide.

This is the point.

Also for Speed123

The "Troskyite left?"

You're in your own little world, it seems to me.

Why are you so worked up all the time? No one is going to do anything to you on account of your religion, if that is what you're worried about.

Growing up in a culture immersed in Catholicism (New Orleans, LA) I am attracted more towards this particular religion and it's traditions. Most present day Catholics, including myself, "pick and choose" what we like about the the Church and conveniently overlook the stuff we don't like. My fiance is from Colombia, and is much more devout/faithful than me (South America is on of the last strongholds of traditional Catholicism). She can't believe that I would actually call myself Catholic. I think that the Pope is 30-40 years late with trying to gather up the flock here in the States. My grandmother's generation was the last, at least on a grand scale, to be considered conservative Catholics. Probably because that was the last big influx of Irish and Italian immigrants coming into the country.

To Speed123 and Ms. Jacoby:

I am reading with great interest your current disagreement regarding the role of the papacy in the Holocaust. Could you both please post some sources regarding your claims?

There is this book called THE MYTH OF HITLER'S POPE BY RABBI DAVE DALIN.

ITs a fascinating book on how Pope Pius XI saved JEws and written by a JEwish RAbbi.

I am always amazed when I read posts like these at the number of people who miss the point. ALL religions have ALWAYS believed they are the one true religion. At most, one of them might be. More likely, none of them are. And yet seemingly intelligent, thoughtful people still argue for bronze-age myths and superstitions. There must be a gene for credulity.

Speed--thanks for the comments.

However, I'm not your "buddy."

You lost credibility in my view about 50 posts ago, and you know what I'm talking about. I've vowed not to get angry with you though, as a way to effectively reduce my blood pressure (it's a selfish reason.)

How does your (incorrect) "fact" that abstinence- as- a- way- to- combat- HIV diatribe excuse the behavior of CATHOLIC clery who have promoted comdoms as "tainted" with the HIV virus? Please remember these are spokespeople for God. And what is the logic that flows in "well, AIDS is worse in those countries where Protestants are in control" dialogue? I'm afraid you'll have to hear from Protestants on that one.

I'll share a stastic that might be scary: do a little research and define and compare those countries that are most "secular," with those that are more prominently religious, and measure and compare ANY health statistic or index of human wellness. I think you'd be in for a surprise.

Does that mean that SATAN wants us to be healthier?

Please link me to some "effectiveness" articles in regard to sexual abstinence, because if it's true, we should spend even more federal money on abstinence-only programs. They should be popping up on every street corner, and planned parenthood clinics should be thinning out like weeds sprayed with weed-be-gone. This is GREAT news!

It's just, I've simply not seen this to be true, from the medical literature to which I'm exposed (it may be godless secular Hitchins-tainted literature without his name or Harris' as co-authors) or to those who bring me literature about the Gardasil vaccine, which in Texas raises brows regarding it's potential to make all those sweet babies want to have sex, since it'll render sex "safe."

Speed, your argument (regarding the Catholics who ought to be considered special in this dialogue here because THEY were victims to totalitarian maniacal thought too) otherwise is among co-religionsts who distrust the catholic creed, not with me. I simply don't believe the creed.

That disbelief might send me to hell but I'm being honest about it, and at least on judgement day I'll have to shrug my shoulders with good conscience and say "well, just didn't see it...If we were supposed to know Christians by their love, and if the Holy Spirit was supposed to lead us into all truth, it just didn't happen for me. Maybe the Presbyterians are correct, it just wasn't in my hand of cards..."

I am replying directly to the argument made by Speed 123, with its historically false equation of persecution of Catholics by the Nazis with the extermination of Jews. I refuse to let this lie--and it is a lie--go unchallenged on this thread.

Catholics were never targeted because they were Catholics. Only those institutions, and individual priests and nuns, who played an active role in resisting the Nazis were targeted. As is well known, the Catholic Church as an institution took great care not to resist Nazi civil authority. Pope Pius XI made a concordat with Hitler and Pius XII was concerned only with the preservation of the Vatican itself. Many Italian bishops and priests, with no help from the Vatican, did indeed do everything they could to save Italian Jews. They are heroes as individuals and they did what they did in spite of, not because of, the Vatican's policies. Pope Pius XII was concerned only about the fate of those Italian Jews who had converted to Catholicism. There has seldom been a more graphic example of the moral blindness of an ecclesiastical bureaucat who places a higher value on the lives of those who share his religious faith than on all other human life.

To equate the murder of 80 percent of European Jews, targeted for extermination as a people, with the deaths of thousands of Catholics who participated in the resistance is morally indefensible.

The Roman Catholic Church, had it used its enormous influence to openly resist Nazism, might have made a difference. The craven behavior of the institutional church (as distinct from individual priests and nuns) in the face of this evil is a blot that can never be erased, however much the present Catholic hierarchy would like everyone to forget this history.

As for Jacoby, who has a particularly nasty anti-catholic bias in all of her writing, the following statement really stands out:

"in fact, Benedict's biggest admirers in America are right-wing Protestant evangelicals"

Is she nuts? Or is she just trying to group Catholics in with the more "fundamental" religious in the States.

I am surprised that she didn't say that Farrahkan love the pope and then by association claim that the Church is anti-semitic! (a thought she harbors in any case)

This is a typical tactic of the former Troskyite left (hitchens) - guilt by association.

Jacoby obviously knows nothing about evangelical/catholic relations (Hagee ring a bell) and she should not have a column on a religious blog..

PS - the toll of the inquisition was 3,000 not 30,000 - and compare that with the modern killing and you will see that modern capitalism and communism have been much more efficient and scientific in liquidating populations.

Jeff,

Got news for you, buddy.

That "absolute truth" of the Church includes the Just War doctrine of St. Augustine and the Catholic Church railed AGAINST the US for the invasion.

On the other hand, you have secularists and utopians like Chris Hitchens or any of the neo-cons (Wolfowitz, Feith, Pearle, Kristol etc) who lobbied for the war on the grounds of "battling evil" "making the world safe for democracy" etc.

Go figure.

As for the canard you use below on the Church and birth conrol, the highest rates of AIDs infections are in Anglo-protestant countries such as South African - not in Catholic countries.

Pushing condoms does not work in a hyper-masculine region as they will not be used. Teaching faith and morals in conjunction with sex has been proven by infection rates to be more effective.

You militant secularists (very similar to militant fundamentalists) use the same old and ineffective arguments...better brush up on the facts...

I think the key issue here is that, because each religious person believes HIS/HER religion to be the correct one, the other person's religion is denigrated.

Atheism, and science, are not belief-centric. Science begins with belief, and leads, via hypothoses, tests, and re-examination, to knowledge. Religion says we believe this because we believe this. Science says we KNOW this. And this is not arrogance on the part of scientists; provide facts to a scientist contradicting their belief, and they will helplessly be convinced of your position. That is why they are called facts.

It is the pope, and his new convert, that are arrogant. Why should we believe what they say, because they do? Because they believe their Bronze-Age myths?

Show us the money, Benny...

I find it remarkable that people find the Pope's efforts to convert people to the Catholic faith, when he is the leader of the Catholic Church, offensive. That is like being offended when Ronald McDonald wants to sell people hamburgers. Give me a break.

This article may at first appear to be harsh towards the Catholic Church and the current Pope, but this is the man who stated that only those baptized in the Catholic faith can enter into Heaven. Although, I doubt Catholic Heaven would be any place that non-Catholics would want to go anyway. His predecessor told women that they should stay in their marriages, even if there is abuse, because Christ suffered on the cross(?). This is a "primitive" religion and in its radical state is not too distant from radical Islam. One would think the Pope needs to take a long, hard look at American culture and then he will understand why so many are leaving Catholicism. A church that defies commonsense cannot continue to be relevant here.

Again, Susan is only telling on side of the story on the saint, Edith Stein. Monasteries and institutions of the Church were ALSO targeted due to the support for the Dutch hierarchy's public condemnation of Nazi racism in 1942.

And don't forget that the Nazi's attacked Catholics as well - with thousands of priests, nuns and other religious dying in the concentration camps.

Do they not count? Were they also targeted because of "jewish blood" or will you have to admit that the Nazi targeted more than one group for destruction.

Typical smugness in your piece today. I have to learn to ignore, attention seeking, book hawking secularists (esp the vainglorious Hitchens and Harris).

half-truths:

I respect your anger in the matter. I disagree that progressives are "communists," and unfortunately you've lost a little credibility with me, making that statement.

However, what is different about, not just Catholics, but any "absolute truth" proscriber, is just that: absolute certainty is a dangerous position to take when it is used to formulate policy and to dictate ways of life--witness the absolute certainty of our current administration regarding the "no doubt" and "slam dunk" WMD existances in Iraq.

And in the special situation of a religious certainty, it takes on an even bigger challenge of avoidance of hypocrisy because in essence, these are spokespeople for "God."

It is a very special claim to be accountable for representing the wishes of the creator of the universe. Therefore, it becomes even more necessary for those spokespeople to remain credible.

Thus, expect criticism where criticism is due.

What a sad little post. First, It is perfectly human to attempt to persuade others to share your point of view (as the author herself does). But when it comes to religions, it is not merely about a point of view, but about the eternal truths of the universe. What person, believing they hold truths about happiness in this life and the next, wouldn't want to invite others into the joy of that truth? And so, yes, we have been "remarkably consistent" (what a stupid comment) in our efforts to convert the world - as Jesus instructed us. Second, the Catholic Church is the largest charitable and educational institution in the world. It has done more good for the poor than any other group or agency in history. It does so at Jesus' command, and yes, hopes this encourages people to faith - but no requirement of faith is demanded. Certainly, Ms. Jacoby can recognize the great good work the Church accomplishes. Finally, the Inquisition is a sad sin on the part of the Church's very human members - - but please recognize that the number killed (historians say about 30,000) pales in comparison to the millions killed by the religion-less ideologies (Nazism and Communism) of this century. Hold whatever belief - or unbelief - you wish Ms. Jacoby, but please remove the plank in your eye before looking into ours.

The Pope finds himself in the same position as all other non-Muslims which is that of an infidel like the rest of us especially in that segment of militant Islamism which is seeming in control. Unfortunately for all of us, it is that subset which has set agenda and there is no bridging of that chasm. Because the Islamic faith is so fragmented within itself, the Pope has no one with whom to dialogue. There is no purpose of building a bridge that has no opposite shore to be completed upon.

The pope finds himself in the same position as all other non-Muslims which is that of an infidel like the rest of us especially in that segment of militant Islamism which is seeming in control. Unfortunately for all of us, it is that subset which has set agenda and there is no bridging of that chasm. Because the Islamic faith is so fragmented within itself, the Pope has no one with whom to dialogue. There is no purpose of building a bridge that has no opposite shore to be completed upon.

JEFF P -

You make a good point. The official viewpoint of the Catholic Church (this would be Benedict's position) as regards birth control alone flies in the face of both common sense & human compassion to an unpardonable degree.

Imagine preaching against the use of birth control devices and techniques in third world countries & cultures that are rife with both AIDS and unwanted pregnancies - and we're not even talking about abortion. Merely the simple use of condoms.

Catholics in more advanced nations simply ignore this nonsense and take care of their own procreative and reproductive issues the best way they see fit. Papal decrees are probably shunned to a monumental degree by many millions of Catholics, but third world countries - and this includes much of South America as well as Africa, are still vulnerable to the medievalism of the Church and in particular, the current Pope.

Papal authority in matters both Ex Cathedra and otherwise seem based on little more than thin air, a vivid imagination, and a willing flock.

Notice how Ms. Jacoby ignores the doctrine of conversion by the sword for another semi-prominent religion, and that Catholics were also rounded up in the concentration camps in Germany as well.

The Inquisition was indeed very tragic and appaling. It was also in its prime nearly 500 years ago, and was cancelled 200 years ago. When the facts came out about who did what during the Inquisition times, it was revealed that churches protesting the Vatican were far crueler to people for heresy than Rome was (See Pope John Paul II's Inquisition Symposium).

It's long been the tactic of prominent secular athiests (who claim to be progressive but are nothing of the sort) to attack the Catholic church. They aren't fighting back, so attacking them makes you feel good about what you're saying.

Where's the vitriolic written attacks against all the fatwas from imams, honor killings, and the forced conversions that have occurred in the last century?

This woman is a coward.

I can accept criticism of my faith, but if she were truly progressive (a weak title for a communist) then she would demand equal treatment of atheists in the muslim world. Instead, we get tired article after tired article about how bad Christians are.

And really- going after the high holy man of a church because *gasp* he wants to convert everyone? She tries to convert to atheism, the one true non-religious religion. What's the difference?

So Chuck, how abou this?

Our heritage of beliefs is provided to us by the previous generation, and this inheritance is contingent upon time in history, and location upon the earth. This time and locaion is merely a setting, where the formation of an inner will comes into being, and personal movitations come to operate. This setting for the formation of our personalities and beliefs is very different from place to place and from epoch to epoch, and is based on many, many things that have no existence at all, other than as markers, and interpretive categorizations within our own minds.

No matter what any one of us has been taught to believe, or what we think we have figured out about the world, it is not credible to suppose that any other person who was "set" on this earth, within the "setting" of their birth is any more or less favored by God, merely by the "accident" of birth. And therefore, to assert and assume the superiority of one religious truth over another is absurd, even if you do yourself, matintain some sort of belief.

I know it is hard, to consider this broader view, that perhaps it is not self-consistent, or at least not apparently so. But neither does it make any sense that each person's subjective experience should be granted legitimacy to dominaate all others. For how can each of the many be dominant and right?

Sorry to inform you of this Ms. Jacoby. but some of us protestants still protest and one of the things I protest is the loose usage of the word Protestant. Most so-called evangelicals hail from faiths that are off shoots of the Irwinites not the core Protestant Reformation Churches.

If you don't think your religion is "truer," what's the point? What's the point of holding any view on anything unless you think it's "truer?" You obviously believe your view on religion is correct, and the Pope's is inferior, and he doesn't find that insulting. He just thinks his view is correct.

Susan, shall we move the furniture back toward the walls so you can have more room to chase your tail?

Chuck, with all due respect it doesn't lessen the absolute absurdity of the methods of the inquisition to downplay it or to suggest that "well the secular government's methods were worse!" Who gave the "secular authorities" their authority during the 16th century? I wonder if it's helpful to be reminded, on a daily basis perhaps, of the harm that's historically come to humanity in the name of "salvation."

And what of modern-day catholicism with the emphasis of avoidance of condoms at all cost--even to the extent of bishops telling lies to Africans regarding the increased risk of HIV transmission by USING them, or the back-and-forth revelations for parents who fortunatly don't have to suffer the thought of LIMBO for their stillborns, or modern-day witch hunts that have targeted kids and women in African communities, or the absolute sexual-abuse scandals that headline papers on a routine basis? There are plenty of things to choose from, by an agency that describes itself as the keeper of the "fullness of truth." It's that, above anything else, that is most repulsive, dividing, deceiving and harmful.

And believe it or not I actually think the RCC is one of the more "liberal" churches in regard to the somewhat-acceptance of the sciences and scientific method, although there would be good argument against me in that comment as well.

Im Egyptian and am fully aware of the Catholic schools in Egypt much much more than Ms. Jacoby. For non-Christian students there is absolutely no proselytizing. 99.999% of Muslims who attended Catholic schools never convert.

But thanks for the "insight" Ms Jacoby.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Susan, are there any religious believers - or nonbelievers - who do not consider their beliefs to be correct? And if their beliefs are correct, would they not want others to understand and accept them?

The Pope is not hiding anything. It has always been the belief of the Catholic Church that the fullness of truth resides in its teaching. Anything less than that fullness is deficient. Since that fullness of truth is the road to salvation - from the CC's point of view - why would they not want others to accept it?

By the way, I love the continuous inquisition stuff. It displays your bias better than anything any of us could write. You might want to take a look at the judicial methods of secular authorities in the 16th century just to gain a little perspective, however.

I wonder what would happen if there suddenly was a desire among the masses for conversion to Catholicism? It's hard to imagine the Vatican gearing up for something like that, or society falling for it at this point.

Now that I think about it, I figure current church leaders are mainly concentrating on holding on to their own cushy jobs. Maybe raking in money through real estate deals, book sales and tourist admissions to the Vatican and other shrines that even non-catholics flock to see. I think they've pretty much given up on increasing income through membership and I doubt many of them have the heart for proselytizing ideas they don't really believe themselves.

Remember, Catholics are not "bible believers" like the fundamentalists. Catholic schools and universities are known for being academically rigorous. They even teach evolution!

That celebrity baptism was probably just a big publicity stunt.

Here I go with the post that did not want to go trough in another tread. Apologize crashing in this tread Susan.

Spiderman2 wrote:

"And I will give him the morning star" Rev 2:28

For me it sounded like something beautiful and well written in the bible, and I assumed that must have a profound meaning as S2 explained: "a very deep metaphor".

The trouble is that metaphors need context to be understood, so I went to read the source.

What I found few verses before was that a woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, was misleading "my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols."

Then Jesus says: "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead."

If my interpretation is correct the whole meaning of the metaphor is: behave and you will get "morning stars", that is, good things like eternal life, no trip to hell and even mundane kingdoms, otherwise, bed of intense suffering and killing of your children.

Can anybody please help me with this: did I understood correctly that Jesus was the person talking and that he indeed said that was going to kill her innocent children?

Also, is this the Jesus that is praised as just and pure love?

Peace to all and best wishes,

JAC

Sorry Susan, just checking what is happening with this crazy web site.

No matter how I try to post in another thread, the post never appear.

JAC