A healthier religion
Jeff Zimmerman
There's no refuting that. The Catholic religion is one of discipline,
however. It has its rules and punishments, justly distributed, like any
other.
This is why you seemed to choose Biblical quotes that you put not only out
of context, but twisted to try and reduce Jesus to the level of a viscious
tryant. Nope- not the way it happened. Most of you remember the temptation
of Jesus on the mountain. Jesus was offered domination of all that was
before him, and he did not take it.
Now, on to the quotes:
> "But those mine enemies, which would not that I would reign over them,
> bring hither, and slay them before me." (Jesus) -- LUKE 19:27
Don't be silly. Jesus was telling a parable when he said this. While the
parable itself is somewhat badly translated and crude, it essentially
expresses what happens when one servant, guilty of taking the gold coin of
his master and not allowing it to grow with interest, accused his master
of crimes which he himself has committed.
Jesus never ordered the death of anyone. How's that for a good example?
> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
> peace, but a sword." (Jesus) -- MATTHEW 10:34
Again, unless the whole story is told, this quote is enough to send any
Catholic down the road of this new dazzling religion. Here's the rest:
"I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their
mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst
enemy will be the members of his own family.
"Whoever loves his father or mother more than me is not fit to be my
disciple; whoever loves his son or daughter more than me is not fit to be
my disciple. Whoever does not take up his cross and follow in my steps is
not fit to be my disciple.
"Whoever tries to gain his own life will lose it; but whoever loses
his life for my sake will gain it."
Tada. Essentially all this teaches us is that we are obligated to put
Jesus and God before our family. Sure we love and respect our families,
but given the choice, we must choose Jesus. Now how could there be a most
just lesson than that?
The reason our families become our worst enemies is that, if we put them
above God, then they jeapordize our relationship with God. This passage
isn't about the dangers of emnity, but misplaced love.
> Revelation reinforces this negative impression by suggesting that
> Jesus will one day return as king and kill all non-believers.
Those who leave un-Christian lives (ie- those who knowingly sin and revel
in the hurt of others- genuinely evil people) are killing themselves. Here
is an analogy. It is not of Biblical origin, but it fits. It's actually
from a science-fiction story some of you video game fans may have heard
of. A planet has human inhabitants that have polluted it, and so a force
from the planet is predicted to wipe out all that would destroy it-
including the human race, if necessary.
It's a matter of justice, though forgiveness and repentance also plays a
large role in our Catholic religion. Those who would forgive without the
presence of honest repentance are only giving the sinner license to offend
again. Brutal? Evil? No. Just.
Alright- I visited the site, and this is my honest critique of Pantheism.
It is like an extreme form of Catholic Modernism that leaves behind belief
in God or Jesus and just takes reverence in "Nature." It could technically
be labelled Modernist Paganism, though for the sake of Pantheists leading
good lives with Christian morals, I simply observe that Pantheism is
dangerously vulnerable to unCatholic morals.
It is not healthier, just less strict, and that's not really a good thing.
Peter Morris
Thank you for your considered response to my article.
Jeff Zimmerman <cfhsd...@warbarge.com> wrote:
>The Catholic religion is one of kindness and love of Jesus Christ and God.
These days it seems to be the case. But for many centuries various
churches appeared to consider the torture and burning of heretics at
the stake compatible with the teachings of Jesus.
Were the old churches wrong, or is it the case that the policy of the
modern churches of portraying Jesus as "love and light only" is one of
hiding his dark side, so as to not alarm the modern faithful?
Much as I would like to see Jesus as love and light only, reading the
Bible has convinced me he did have a dark side.
For instance, you did not deny the barbarity of Jehovah, as
illustrated by the destruction of Jericho. In view of his time and
place, the God that Jesus believed in would have been Jehovah, so I do
not see how Jesus could have avoided accepting the barbarity that
comes with Jehovah.
>> "But those mine enemies, which would not that I would reign over them,
>> bring hither, and slay them before me." (Jesus) -- LUKE 19:27
>Don't be silly. Jesus was telling a parable when he said this.
He was telling a parable, but what was the purpose in giving the
parable such an ending? It suggests to me he was thinking of behaving
similarly after he attained power.
>> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
>> peace, but a sword." (Jesus) -- MATTHEW 10:34
>Again, unless the whole story is told this quote is enough to send any
>Catholic down the road of this new dazzling religion. Here's the rest:
> "I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their
>mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst
>enemy will be the members of his own family.
> "Whoever loves his father or mother more than me is not fit to be my
>disciple; whoever loves his son or daughter more than me is not fit to be
>my disciple. Whoever does not take up his cross and follow in my steps is
>not fit to be my disciple.
> "Whoever tries to gain his own life will lose it; but whoever loses
>his life for my sake will gain it."
Some argue he uses the term "sword" metaphorically here. Nevertheless
this is quite fanatical language that could be expected to cause
trouble. Is it acceptable for a supposedly "perfect" religious leader
to use such language?
>> Revelation reinforces this negative impression by suggesting that
>> Jesus will one day return as king and kill all non-believers.
>Those who leave un-Christian lives (ie- those who knowingly sin and revel
>in the hurt of others- genuinely evil people) are killing themselves.
It is one thing for genuinely evil people to be "killing
themselves", but it is unacceptable to suggest as Revelation does,
that people be killed merely for not-believing. Actually Revelation
also says the non-believers will be tortured before being killed.
This is clearly an unacceptable attitude to have towards say Buddhists
who have done no wrong.
I appreciate the fact that many modern churches have distanced
themselves from such fundamentalist attitudes and wish to give the
world a message of love.
I don't object to Jesus being seen as the source of such a message,
but I feel uncomfortable with the tradition of portraying him as
perfect when I am quite sure he was not.
>Alright- I visited the site, and this is my honest critique of Pantheism.
>It is like an extreme form of Catholic Modernism that leaves behind belief
>in God or Jesus and just takes reverence in "Nature."
Scientific Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God, however we
live in a universe that allows love to exist in peoples hearts and
minds. That says something about the nature of the universe that in
spite of the suffering that also exists, makes it (and Nature) worth
revering I think.
Pantheism does not offer a saviour, and I don't believe any human
being is perfect. However, obtaining inspiration by picturing someone
such as Jesus or Buddha as having "moments of perfection" would seem
ok to me.
>It could be labelled Modernist Paganism, though for the sake of Pantheists leading
>good lives with Christian morals, I simply observe that Pantheism is
>dangerously vulnerable to unCatholic morals.
I think the Credo would satisfy most humanists, but Catholics may like
to have additional rules.
>It is not healthier, just less strict, and that's not really a good thing.
It depends.
Catholic doctrine has some specific faults.
For instance its opposition to contraception seems to me to be very
unhealthy. Over population threatens the well being of us all and
especially of families who have more children than they can adequately
provide for.
Furthermore, those of us who love planet earth hate to see its fragile
and beautiful ecosystems being destroyed by the economic activities
needed to sustain an increasing population.
On this issue, Scientific Pantheism is more strict than Christian
tradition, because although it recognises we might need to kill other
species to survive, it does not teach that we have a right to do so.
The Biblical claim that God will one day renew the earth is also very
unhealthy as it suggests its ok to be careless with this one.
If Catholic doctrine could attend to these concerns I would be much
happier with it.
Sincerely,
Peter Morris
Jeff Zimmerman
Peter Morris wrote:
> Dear Jeff,
>
> Thank you for your considered response to my article.
>
> Jeff Zimmerman <cfhsd...@warbarge.com> wrote:
>
> >The Catholic religion is one of kindness and love of Jesus Christ and God.
>
> These days it seems to be the case. But for many centuries various
> churches appeared to consider the torture and burning of heretics at
> the stake compatible with the teachings of Jesus.
Again, don't be silly! You are speaking of "Bloody Mary" who's horrendous policy of
burning her enemies was not that of either Catholicism or the Church. Besides, as a
Catholic I am an idealist as well. I admit that the Roman Catholic Church has had times
of weakness- any who deny this deny history. All the same, it is like democracy. As
Winston Churchill put it, it is the worst possible government, excepting all the
others.
In believeing faithfully in my religion, I have the freedom to remain cautious of my
Church. While I agree with our Pope's every word as it pertains to Catholicism, church
leaders- and history are not a role model.
You use historical accounts of treachery to make just your claim, but history is but a
cautionary tale. Think you not that the Catholic Church can learn from its mistakes?
The RCC is beyond its historical fallacies- and in the future will be beyond whatever
pety fallacies people accuse it of today. *ahem*:
"As we learn more of the conditions that affect the development of persons we feel the
obligation to improve the material conditions of mankind. In this way alone can we
un-derstand the more humane treatment of mental patients, the feeble-minded, and other
disadvantaged groups. In this sense there can be a development in the notions of
justice and the emergence of novel moral insight." -A Psychological Critique of
Relativism, Solomon Asch, Prof. of Pscychology at Swarthmore.
So you see, history proves nothing of the present.
> Were the old churches wrong, or is it the case that the policy of the
> modern churches of portraying Jesus as "love and light only" is one of
> hiding his dark side, so as to not alarm the modern faithful?
> Much as I would like to see Jesus as love and light only, reading the
> Bible has convinced me he did have a dark side.
When we are punished in school, at work, by parents, or by commanding authorities, it
is our natural tendencies to see our punisher as a being of brutal natures. This is an
animalistic, instinctive response, and cannot be confused with rational collecting of
evidence. For all that you have read of Jesus' so called "Dark Side" you seem to have
ignored his Example which is paramount to his words. The RCC follows Jesus' example and
his words.
Jesus' "dark side" was a side of justice, defined by Aristotle (As you can tell, I have
no fear of scripture that is not Catholic in origin) as being retributive (punishments
and rewards) or distributive (the just allocation of resources). This is morally just.
Besides, I've already shown that your examples have been but parables in Jesus' legacy,
and attempts, like other protestant defenders, to make us Catholics shoot ourselves in
the foot.
Although I recognize that as a cultural leader of Scientific Pantheism, it is your
obligation to spread your word, as it is for Catholics, and for this I respect you in
your attempt.
My suggestion is that you have to hit closer to home- you're not going to get people to
convert by bashing the religion that they most likely adhered to their entire lives.
Rather, show the vast similarities between Scientific Pantheism and Catholicism (And I
know there are many). That way Catholics can benefit from the coinciding morals of
Pantheism and Catholicism, for a gradual transition.
By calling Jesus a barbarian, you are only succeeding in pushing your "audience"
further away.
Scientific Pantheism has great virtues, but the key is that those virtues DO NOT
contradict Catholicism. I myself am environmentally conscious because I know the earth
and universe are sacred, even if it is because I am a Catholic and believe God created
these things that they might not be abused.
Yes we believe Jesus is perfect. We believe Jesus is God. That's the Trinity for you.
It is our way of life, and we can only regret it isn't yours, but that part of us is
not going to change.
What I'm trying to say is that Catholicism and Scientific Pantheism have a common
ground: the intent of respect and love towards our surroundings, society, culture, and
environment. Don't appeal to Catholics by showing us the differences between our
religions- rather, work on the similarities. The most success you're ever going to get
here is Catholic Pantheists still faithful to the Roman Catholic Church. There are some
people you just can't change.
Jeff Zimmerman
human life even more than you do. Since the valuing of human life seems to be one of
the cruxes of Scientific Pantheism, then I suppose Catholics have out-Pantheized the
Pantheists.
Goyra
<3707AAF0...@warbarge.com>...
> > But for many centuries various
> > churches appeared to consider the torture and burning of heretics at
> > the stake compatible with the teachings of Jesus.
> Again, don't be silly! You are speaking of "Bloody Mary" who's horrendous
policy of
> burning her enemies was not that of either Catholicism or the Church.
Apparently you have never heard of
the Inquisition?
Goyra
Goyra
> Oh, and by the way, Catholics don't use contraception because,
apparently, we value
> human life even more than you do.
No, that is not the reason. Catholics
(real ones) don't use contraception because
the pope tells them not to. If he had changed
his mind and told them to, they would.
So it all comes down to a decision made
by one particular pope on one particular day.
It has nothing to do with the values of
modern catholics.
Goyra
p.s. the logic which the church uses
to rule against contraception is made nonsense
by the findings of science. Full explanation at:
Peter Morris
>Oh, and by the way, Catholics don't use contraception because, apparently, we value
>human life even more than you do. Since the valuing of human life seems to be one of
>the cruxes of Scientific Pantheism, then I suppose Catholics have out-Pantheized the
>Pantheists.
I think sensible Catholics ignore this rule against contraception. Its
a rule made by priests to force lay people to share the frustration
that they endure through celebacy.
Why should anyone participate?
It has nothing to do with valuing human life, because eggs and sperm
are simply not human life.
We value the dignity of human life which includes such things as not
causing others to suffer.
Breeding like rabbits undermines human dignity, causes hardship to
women, results in destruction of the environment, and increases
tension between ethnic groups. In Rwanda the rising tension eventually
led to the tragedy we saw there.
If you truely valued human life you would promote contraception.
Peter
James T. Savidge
Peter Morris wrote:
>
> Jeff Zimmerman <cfhsd...@warbarge.com> wrote:
>
> >Peter Morris wrote:
>
> >> Dear Jeff,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your considered response to my article.
> >>
> >> Jeff Zimmerman <cfhsd...@warbarge.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Catholic religion is one of kindness and love of Jesus Christ and God.
> >>
> >> These days it seems to be the case. But for many centuries various
> >> churches appeared to consider the torture and burning of heretics at
> >> the stake compatible with the teachings of Jesus.
>
> >Again, don't be silly! You are speaking of "Bloody Mary" who's horrendous policy of
> >burning her enemies was not that of either Catholicism or the Church.
>
> I think the term "Bloody Mary" is questionable in two respects.
>
> First of all, the crimes were perpetrated by men. The concept of
> "Bloody Mary" simultaneously denegrates womanhood while providing a
> smoke screen for the real villians, who were the Pope and other male
> functionaries of the Church of those times
>
> The term also does not explain how the torture and burning of heretics
> was able to come about.
>
> To look for reasons, lets compare Christianity with Buddhism, which
> during its long history has not used such violence against heretics.
>
> Starting with the founders of these two religions we find:
>
> While Buddha invariably used calm language, Jesus sometimes used
> language that verged on the fanatical. He talked about slaying enemies
> with swords for instance.
>
> While Buddha was not offended by those who were not yet ready to
> accept his teachings Jesus proclaimed "Those who are not for me are
> against me", thus creating a tradition of religious intolerance.
>
> Although Buddha did not believe in a God, Jesus believed in a jealous
> God called Jehovah who wishes to kill all those who worship other Gods
> or fail to worship him.
>
> I think its fairly easy to see why the history of Christianity is
> barbaric compared to Buddhism, and also to understand that Jesus must
> bear significant responsibility for this.
I had a friend that grew up in Viet Nam and said that some of the worst wars in the country's
history were between Christians and Buddhists.
He said that the Buddhists were just as violent as the Christians.
I'll admit I don't have the full details as to which conflict(s) he may have been talking about.
I'm willing to read whatever information anyone has regarding this subject and whatever its true
history may be.
May God lead us to a fuller understanding of His truth and may His peace go with you.
James T. Savidge, <tsav...@fastlane.net>, Tuesday, April 6, 1999
--
1 Peter 3:8-15
[8] Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a
humble mind. [9] Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless,
for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing. [10] For "He that would love life
and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile; [11] let him
turn away from evil and do right; let him seek peace and pursue it. [12] For the eyes of the Lord
are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against
those that do evil." [13] Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is right? [14]
But even if you do suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be
troubled, [15] but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to
any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
Peter Morris
>Peter Morris wrote:
>> Dear Jeff,
>>
>> Thank you for your considered response to my article.
>>
>> Jeff Zimmerman <cfhsd...@warbarge.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The Catholic religion is one of kindness and love of Jesus Christ and God.
>>
>> These days it seems to be the case. But for many centuries various
>> churches appeared to consider the torture and burning of heretics at
>> the stake compatible with the teachings of Jesus.
>Again, don't be silly! You are speaking of "Bloody Mary" who's horrendous policy of
>burning her enemies was not that of either Catholicism or the Church.
I think the term "Bloody Mary" is questionable in two respects.
First of all, the crimes were perpetrated by men. The concept of
"Bloody Mary" simultaneously denegrates womanhood while providing a
smoke screen for the real villians, who were the Pope and other male
functionaries of the Church of those times
The term also does not explain how the torture and burning of heretics
was able to come about.
To look for reasons, lets compare Christianity with Buddhism, which
during its long history has not used such violence against heretics.
Starting with the founders of these two religions we find:
While Buddha invariably used calm language, Jesus sometimes used
language that verged on the fanatical. He talked about slaying enemies
with swords for instance.
While Buddha was not offended by those who were not yet ready to
accept his teachings Jesus proclaimed "Those who are not for me are
against me", thus creating a tradition of religious intolerance.
Although Buddha did not believe in a God, Jesus believed in a jealous
God called Jehovah who wishes to kill all those who worship other Gods
or fail to worship him.
I think its fairly easy to see why the history of Christianity is
barbaric compared to Buddhism, and also to understand that Jesus must
bear significant responsibility for this.
>Think you not that the Catholic Church can learn from its mistakes?
I believe that by relying more on doctrine and less on the Bible, the
Catholic Church is distancing itself from the concept of Jehovah and
the fundamentalist ideas of Jesus, and this will hopefully reduce the
likelyhood of repeating mistakes.
>Jesus' "dark side" was a side of justice, defined by Aristotle (As you can tell, I have
>no fear of scripture that is not Catholic in origin) as being retributive (punishments
>and rewards) or distributive (the just allocation of resources). This is morally just.
But it is not morally just to punish non-believers as called for by
the Bible. Why for example should peaceful Buddhists who have led
blameless lives be punished?
>Though I recognize that as a cultural leader of Scientific Pantheism, it is your
>obligation to spread your word, as it is for Catholics, and for this I respect you in
>your attempt.
>My suggestion is that you have to hit closer to home- you're not going to get people to
>convert by bashing the religion that they most likely adhered to their entire lives.
Well, my intention is not to bash, but rather express my personal
observations. If I am wrong I hope to be corrected. If I am right I
hope to contribute to development.
I am currently interacting with a variety of Christian religions, so
please excuse me if some of my observation would really be more
appropriate for a different denomination.
>Rather, show the vast similarities between Scientific Pantheism and Catholicism (And I
>know there are many). That way Catholics can benefit from the coinciding morals of
>Pantheism and Catholicism, for a gradual transition.
I am happy you see so much similarity, and the possibility of more to
come.
>By calling Jesus a barbarian, you are only succeeding in pushing your "audience"
>further away.
Well, I used the word barbaric to describe the destruction of Jericho,
but limited my criticism of Jesus to saying that although he had set
some good examples he had "some very wrong ideas".
I think that if Jesus was human enough to die on the cross he was
probably human enough to have wrong ideas as well. I think that it is
healthier to recognise his wrong ideas rather than pretend they don't
exist.
>Scientific Pantheism has great virtues, but the key is that those virtues DO NOT
>contradict Catholicism. I myself am environmentally conscious because I know the earth
>and universe are sacred, even if it is because I am a Catholic and believe God created
>these things that they might not be abused.
That is encouraging.
>Yes we believe Jesus is perfect. We believe Jesus is God.
These are tricky issues.
I think that Jesus had "moments (or periods) of perfection", and that
those moments were expressions of divinity.
However, if you believe Jesus is Jehovah, then there is an unpleasant
implication that Jesus was present at the destruction of Jericho
possibly gloating so to speak--What else would a jealous God do?
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and
woman, young and old and ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the
sword." JOSHUA 6:21.
Does Catholic doctrine contain anything to avoid this implication?
>Don't appeal to Catholics by showing us the differences between our
>religions- rather, work on the similarities.
It sounds nice, but if I did that I think I would put everyone to
sleep :)
Sincerely,
Peter Morris