Papal Encyclical on Newageism in the Works
Edward Thorne
I understand that the Pope is preparing an encyclical letter on
newageism, to be issued in the not too distant future.
It will re-emphasize 5 principle Christian beliefs, which are:
o The existence of a Creator
o The reality of prayer to God, a meeting of two persons. This
prayer should have the character of adoration, petition, and
thanksgiving offered by the creature to the Creator, and which is more
than just an act of self-discovery.
o The reality of human sin and the need for a Redeemer.
o The significance of suffering and of death.
o The necessity of love and of work, not mere thought, to change
the world.
This should be very interesting to see the reaction of all those who
want to establish an identity between mankind and the universe, or
mankind and plants and animals.
I can hear the shrieks of protest now: “He’s sanctioning people eating
the flesh of dead animals!”
But, of course, new ageism goes beyond mere ‘bambi-loving’, it is a
movement that is subversive of the most basic doctrines of
Christianity.
It is a movement that mixes pantheism, paganism --especially the
Celtic variety --and , nature worship, especially of the earth goddess.
I expect JP II’s encyclical to be right on the money, as usual.
"The Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world, Alleluia. It is
all embracing and knows man's utterance, alleluia, alleluia.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
--Ed
RobinOak
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6kifle$n...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>I understand that the Pope is preparing an encyclical letter on
>newageism, to be issued in the not too distant future.
Good.
That means that we must be getting *through* to him, if he feels we warrant
this much attention.
>It will re-emphasize 5 principle Christian beliefs, which are:
>
>o The existence of a Creator
Fine.
>o The reality of prayer to God, a meeting of two persons. This
>prayer should have the character of adoration, petition, and
>thanksgiving offered by the creature to the Creator, and which is more
>than just an act of self-discovery.
Fine, but nothing wrong with self-discovery, either, if it stays balanced.
>o The reality of human sin and the need for a Redeemer.
Fine, but I understand it differently I suspect.
>o The significance of suffering and of death.
Of *course*!
>o The necessity of love and of work, not mere thought, to change
>the world.
Um.
Where do actions originate?
Does the phrase "THOUGHT, WORD, and *deed*" ring any bells.... <g>
>This should be very interesting to see the reaction of all those who
>want to establish an identity between mankind and the universe, or
>mankind and plants and animals.
Ah, but there is a connection between mankind [sic], the universe, the plants,
and the animals.
Siddown, *eat*.... <smile>
>I can hear the shrieks of protest now: “He’s sanctioning people eating
>the flesh of dead animals!”
C'mon, Ed, that's a cartoon version ......
>But, of course, new ageism goes beyond mere ‘bambi-loving’, it is a
>movement that is subversive of the most basic doctrines of
>Christianity.
Maybe, maybe not. It really depends on whom you're talking to.
>It is a movement that mixes pantheism, paganism --especially the
>Celtic variety --and , nature worship, especially of the earth goddess.
<smile>
"It's not NICE to fool Mother NATURE!"
>I expect JP II’s encyclical to be right on the money, as usual.
Considering the source, it will probably get the attention of the "creation
spirituality" people, I imagine....
Edward Thorne
In <6kk03a$pol$1...@nw003t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>Edward Thorne wrote in message
<6kifle$n...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>I understand that the Pope is preparing an encyclical letter on
>>newageism, to be issued in the not too distant future.
>
>Good.
>
>That means that we must be getting *through* to him, if he feels we
warrant
>this much attention.
>
>
>>It will re-emphasize 5 principle Christian beliefs, which are:
>>
>>o The existence of a Creator
>
>Fine.
>
>
>>o The reality of prayer to God, a meeting of two persons. This
>>prayer should have the character of adoration, petition, and
>>thanksgiving offered by the creature to the Creator, and which is
more
>>than just an act of self-discovery.
>
>Fine, but nothing wrong with self-discovery, either, if it stays
balanced.
That is a big IF.
>
>
>>o The reality of human sin and the need for a Redeemer.
>
>Fine, but I understand it differently I suspect.
If you are a Catholic, how can your understanding be different from the
church's?
>
>
>>o The significance of suffering and of death.
>
>Of *course*!
>
>
>>o The necessity of love and of work, not mere thought, to change
>>the world.
>
>Um.
>
>Where do actions originate?
>
>Does the phrase "THOUGHT, WORD, and *deed*" ring any bells.... <g>
>
>
>>This should be very interesting to see the reaction of all those who
>>want to establish an identity between mankind and the universe, or
>>mankind and plants and animals.
>
>
>Ah, but there is a connection between mankind [sic], the universe, the
plants,
>and the animals.
>
>Siddown, *eat*.... <smile>
Well, we are physically dependent on others, but that does not
establish identity with them.
>
>
>>I can hear the shrieks of protest now: “He’s sanctioning people
eating
>>the flesh of dead animals!”
>
>C'mon, Ed, that's a cartoon version ......
Well, was Ted Kacinski a cartoon?
Are the people who run in front of hunters cartoons?
Are the people who throw paint on those wearing mink coats cartoons?
Are those who tell us that we are eating animals that have as just much
right to live as we do cartoons?
Are the PETA people cartoons?
If so, there will be a lot of funny papers around! :-)
>
>
>>But, of course, new ageism goes beyond mere ‘bambi-loving’, it is a
>>movement that is subversive of the most basic doctrines of
>>Christianity.
>
>Maybe, maybe not. It really depends on whom you're talking to.
Obviously, but a person who is a conscientious Catholic cannot fall for
newageism; that is because the two are incompatible.
>
>
>>It is a movement that mixes pantheism, paganism --especially the
>>Celtic variety --and , nature worship, especially of the earth
goddess.
>
><smile>
>
>"It's not NICE to fool Mother NATURE!"
Hmmnn ...what does that mean?
>
>
>>I expect JP II’s encyclical to be right on the money, as usual.
>
>Considering the source, it will probably get the attention of the
"creation
>spirituality" people, I imagine....
What is creation spiritually?
In context, it looks as if it refers to the individual creation by God
of each spiritual soul.
Of course, newageism doesn't believe that; it believes that we are all
emanations from the world soul, and that our true destiny is in
annihilating ourselves by merging back into that one soul.
That is pantheism at its worst!
"The Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world, Alleluia. It is
all embracing and knows man's utterance, alleluia, alleluia.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
"The Lord has risen, alleluia. And has appeared to Simon, alleluia,
alleluia."
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."
--Ed
>
>
>
>
Padraic42
In article <6kk03a$pol$1...@nw003t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>Edward Thorne wrote in message <6kifle$n...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>I understand that the Pope is preparing an encyclical letter on
>>newageism, to be issued in the not too distant future.
>
>Good.
>
>That means that we must be getting *through* to him, if he feels we warrant
>this much attention.
Which means the dangers it poses is greater than even we thought.
Pax Christi, Pat
"If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his
cross and
follow me" (Matt. 16:24)
Stephanie Rendino
In article <6knrg9$j...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I didn't want to give newageism the dignity of two capital letters.
>
Remember, troops, newage rhymes with sewage.
Edward Thorne
In <199805292302...@ladder03.news.aol.com> padr...@aol.com
(Padraic42) writes:
>
>In article <6kk03a$pol$1...@nw003t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>>Edward Thorne wrote in message
<6kifle$n...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>>>I understand that the Pope is preparing an encyclical letter on
>>>newageism, to be issued in the not too distant future.
>>
>>Good.
>>
>>That means that we must be getting *through* to him, if he feels we
warrant
>>this much attention.
>
> Which means the dangers it poses is greater than even we thought.
They are.
Newageism, which is nothing more than pantheism with a modern overlay,
seems to be saturating our culture.
Otherwise sensible Christians seem to be falling for its phoney
message.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
"The Lord has risen, alleluia. And has appeared to Simon, alleluia,
alleluia."
--Ed
Theodore M. Seeber
On 30 May 1998, Edward Thorne wrote:
> They are.
>
> Newageism, which is nothing more than pantheism with a modern overlay,
> seems to be saturating our culture.
Took me two reads to read that as "New-Age-ISM". I was begining to wonder
why the Newageans were invading America....And just where is Newary,
anyway?
:-)
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
If you believe in puting the 'ethics' back into government, click on the
above link.
Edward Thorne
In <Pine.GSO.3.96.98052...@user2.teleport.com>
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> writes:
>
>On 30 May 1998, Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> They are.
>>
>> Newageism, which is nothing more than pantheism with a modern
overlay,
>> seems to be saturating our culture.
>
>Took me two reads to read that as "New-Age-ISM". I was begining to
wonder
>why the Newageans were invading America....And just where is Newary,
>anyway?
>:-)
>Ted
>
LOL
I didn't want to give newageism the dignity of two capital letters.
"The Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world, Alleluia. It is
all embracing and knows man's utterance, alleluia, alleluia.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
--Ed
Edward Thorne
In <6knvha$r...@ocean.CAM.ORG> be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) writes:
>
>In article <6knrg9$j...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>
Interesting.
Vinny C
Edward Thorne wrote:
>
> In <6knvha$r...@ocean.CAM.ORG> be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino) writes:
> >
> >In article <6knrg9$j...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
> >Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>I didn't want to give newageism the dignity of two capital letters.
> >>
> >
> >Remember, troops, newage rhymes with sewage.
>
> Interesting.
Actually, it doesn't rhyme. The pronounciation from my experience is
hyphenated..as in "New-Age".
Know what does rhyme? "Pope" and "dope". Hey, I didn't make the
language.
I know, Ed, I know, it's blasphemy.
VC
Edward Thorne
YOu know, I have often thought that the worst kind of anti-Catholic is
often an ex-Catholic, like Vinny here, and Laura.
"They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, alleluia. ANd began to
speak of the wonderful works of God. Alleluia, alleluia.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
GO CAPS!
--Ed
Vinny C
Edward Thorne wrote:
>
> In <357117...@erols.com> Vinny C <bla...@erols.com> writes:
> >
> >Edward Thorne wrote:
> >> >>I didn't want to give newageism the dignity of two capital
> letters.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Remember, troops, newage rhymes with sewage.
> >>
> >> Interesting.
> >
> >Actually, it doesn't rhyme. The pronounciation from my experience is
> >hyphenated..as in "New-Age".
> >
> >Know what does rhyme? "Pope" and "dope". Hey, I didn't make the
> >language.
> >
> >I know, Ed, I know, it's blasphemy.
> >
> >VC
>
> YOu know, I have often thought that the worst kind of anti-Catholic is
> often an ex-Catholic, like Vinny here, and Laura.
Depends on what you mean by "worst", I suppose...I'm not sure I'd agree
with you, though. Both Laura and myself have left the church, which in
its own right, I think is rather respectful of the church. We make no
claims that we are still members, we agree and disagree on the issues we
see fit; we're not hypocritical. If we wished, we could have stayed with
the church, and still held our current views. In my opinion, that would
have made the church look worse. As it is, I live a more moral life than
many Catholics I know.
Of course, when people start off in the church and leave it once they get
older, have more schooling, and generally have more world experience, it
doesn't speak well of the church.
This isn't to say that there aren't very intelligent Catholics out there;
I know a nice number of them...they just also happen to be
non-judgemental, have senses of humor, and have open minds to let
individuals do what they want so long as they're not hurting others.
There's only three kinds of Catholics in my mind...blind catholics, who
follow out of fear, ignorance, convenience, or in hypocracy; "real"
catholics, who actually know their stuff and stay for whatever reason,
and ex-catholics, who leave for a variety of reasons. My own estimation?
80% blind, 20% real of those still catholic. My experience lends
evidence to my theory.
VC
Some of my friends call me Vin. Know what rhymes with Vin? Sin!
RobinOak
Silly Section:
And 'bobbin' rhymes with 'Robin'... hmm... <this good get to be a good bit,
here...> let's see... "Dammit" rhymes with "Janet" <"Rocky Horror Picture
Show"> .... "park" rhymes with "Mark"... "Cat" rhymes with "Pat"... "Bed"
rhymes with "Ed"...
Legatus & Bam-Bam, I can't think of a rhyme for you. I'm sorry!!! <ggggg>
Serious Section:
Vinny C wrote in message <357268...@erols.com>...
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>>
>> In <357117...@erols.com> Vinny C <bla...@erols.com> writes:
>> >
>> >Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> >> >>I didn't want to give newageism the dignity of two capital
>> letters.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Remember, troops, newage rhymes with sewage.
>> >>
>> >> Interesting.
>> >
>> >Actually, it doesn't rhyme. The pronounciation from my experience is
>> >hyphenated..as in "New-Age".
>> >
>> >Know what does rhyme? "Pope" and "dope". Hey, I didn't make the
>> >language.
>> >
>> >I know, Ed, I know, it's blasphemy.
>> >
>> >VC
>>
>> YOu know, I have often thought that the worst kind of anti-Catholic is
>> often an ex-Catholic, like Vinny here, and Laura.
>
>Depends on what you mean by "worst", I suppose...I'm not sure I'd agree
>with you, though. Both Laura and myself have left the church, which in
>its own right, I think is rather respectful of the church. We make no
>claims that we are still members, we agree and disagree on the issues we
>see fit; we're not hypocritical. If we wished, we could have stayed with
>the church, and still held our current views.
Add me to that list along with you and Laura. I feel/felt that if I went
back, I'd probably cause more trouble than I'm worth.
I've been meeting a few people here and there recently though, that belong to
the community, but continue to hold their own views and cosmologies. They want
the church for the *community* it provides but go their own ways in their
minds. Regarding all *sorts* of things. I even met a Catholic Buddhist.
<boggle...> One who <also> believes in reincarnation and animal spirit
guides. <hello, New Age....> <smile> One or two I've met who <also> see the
central story primarily as myth. <as I do> They've managed to get past the
childhood picture we all had of the dogmas, shrug their shoulders at the
continuing patriarchial structure <of both the political instituion and the
mythology...> and pretty much go their own merry ways quietly while attending
mass and belonging to the community.
I can pray or hold circle with these people; we can share our *spirituality*
and help each other on our paths without ever once feeling the need to engage
in polemical football. There's no need or desire for that, because underlying
all the religious superficials there is a shared, profound awareness that
behind all the veils and masks and stories, there is an Originator, a Deity, a
God/dess. The stories and outward forms are there to help us, but the masks
and myths are not the reality.
I admire people like this, because they have managed to wrap their minds
around quite a bit of stuff that I cannot. And they're more flexible than I
am.
> In my opinion, that would
>have made the church look worse. As it is, I live a more moral life than
>many Catholics I know.
I'm not sure I do <live a more moral life>. Then again, I'm trying to break
myself of the habit of determining who's moral and who's not. I know that
rules in and of themselves don't cut it for me. That stopped working with me
when I was about 12 years old.... there have to be reasons behind it, and the
basis of the reasons has to be love and compassion. Rules for their own sake,
or rules for the sake of *control* by an institution don't cut it with me.
>Of course, when people start off in the church and leave it once they get
>older, have more schooling, and generally have more world experience, it
>doesn't speak well of the church.
Or of the adult religious education provided by the church.
Why are we reading posting here, then, if we three have lost *all* interest in
the RCC?
The "Baltimore Catechism" picture we still carry in our minds is a cartoon
version of Catholicism. It's not going to cut it with you and me. And yet,
there is much much *more* to be had in the way of spiritual gems, from a 2,000
year old tradition. There's a lot of absolute trash, too, particularly in the
anti-woman, anti-flesh, anti-earth strain among many of the Church Fathers.
I may never go back to the RCC officially. But at the very least, I want what
I am rejecting to be the real thing, and not a straw man version. Or a cartoon
version, designed for children.
<did you know, for instance, that for the first few hundred years,
reincarnation was left an open question, until Origen's work was set aside? I
learned that here... along with a lot of other things...>
>This isn't to say that there aren't very intelligent Catholics out there;
>I know a nice number of them...they just also happen to be
>non-judgemental, have senses of humor, and have open minds to let
>individuals do what they want so long as they're not hurting others.
Gosh, they sound just like PAGANS..... <starting to laugh....>
Or, they sound like solid, spiritual people. Not all Catholics are. Nor are
all Pagans.... <smile>
>There's only three kinds of Catholics in my mind...blind catholics, who
>follow out of fear, ignorance, convenience, or in hypocracy; "real"
>catholics, who actually know their stuff and stay for whatever reason,
>and ex-catholics, who leave for a variety of reasons. My own estimation?
> 80% blind, 20% real of those still catholic. My experience lends
>evidence to my theory.
I'm not prepared to set percentages. I'd also add a few more groups,
particularly the group that stays because of the community, the justice/peace
infrastructure, the sacraments, and the story of the Christ. In the past,
I've known even priests who believed in the "cosmic Christ", who accepted
reincarnation, who call on the Goddess. I've spoken with Catholic people who
are farther in the 'left wing' than even I am, regarding the meaning and
message of the Cross.
I think anyone who spends this much time talking about all of these issues is
just struggling toward the Light, in whatever ways we are able to, in whatever
ways our minds and our backgrounds allow us to.
>VC
>
>Some of my friends call me Vin. Know what rhymes with Vin? Sin!
Also: 'Gin', 'Win', 'Grin'....... <smile>
Naomi Young
RobinOak wrote:
> Legatus & Bam-Bam, I can't think of a rhyme for you. I'm sorry!!! <ggggg>
>
Pegasus and Jam-Slam.
Naomi
Legatus
In article <6ku2g1$nts$1...@nw003t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> wrote:
> Silly Section:
>
> And 'bobbin' rhymes with 'Robin'... hmm... <this good get to be a good bit,
> here...> let's see... "Dammit" rhymes with "Janet" <"Rocky Horror Picture
> Show"> .... "park" rhymes with "Mark"... "Cat" rhymes with "Pat"... "Bed"
> rhymes with "Ed"...
>
> Legatus & Bam-Bam, I can't think of a rhyme for you. I'm sorry!!! <ggggg>
Legatus...."he's got us", "He bought us" or "legatus-shot-us"...I can't
come up with anything for BAM ma'am.
-serious section snipped- (I mean REALLY, are you trying to elevate the debate?)
Steve
Legatus
In article <3572C323...@mindless.com>, wheel...@mindless.com wrote:
> RobinOak wrote:
>
> > Legatus & Bam-Bam, I can't think of a rhyme for you. I'm sorry!!! <ggggg>
> >
>
> Pegasus and Jam-Slam.
> Naomi
Well, as you're gonna pronounce it correctly, suddenly I rhyme with half
the animal kingdom...moose, goose, "leg 'o moose"?
Steve
Edward Thorne
[snip]
>> YOu know, I have often thought that the worst kind of anti-Catholic
is
>> often an ex-Catholic, like Vinny here, and Laura.
>
>Depends on what you mean by "worst", I suppose...I'm not sure I'd
agree
>with you, though. Both Laura and myself have left the church, which
in
>its own right, I think is rather respectful of the church.
Well, you did the honest thing, that is, you left the church because
you longer accept its teachings.
I say it is honest, because, there are people who want to disagree with
the church's teachings, and still in the church, trying to remake the
church into their image of what it ought to be. Truly, they are wolves
in sheep's clothing.
However, I don't think that it is a good thing that you left the
church.
In Vinny's case, according to him, he received such an indifferent
Catholic education that he has no real idea of what the church is, or
what it teaches. Accordingly, he lapsed into a self-procalimed
agnosticism.
Vinny keeps on looking, that is why he is here. Maybe, his search,
like that of so many other ex-Catholics, will bring him back to the
church.
We make no
>claims that we are still members, we agree and disagree on the issues
we
>see fit; we're not hypocritical. If we wished, we could have stayed
with
>the church, and still held our current views. In my opinion, that
would
>have made the church look worse. As it is, I live a more moral life
than
>many Catholics I know.
>
>Of course, when people start off in the church and leave it once they
get
>older, have more schooling, and generally have more world experience,
it
>doesn't speak well of the church.
Well, I have had lots of experience, have "seen the world", almost gave
up the faith because the struggle was so fatiguging. But, a little
voice kept saying to me. "Lord, to whom shall we go? You alone have the
words of eternal life."
>
>This isn't to say that there aren't very intelligent Catholics out
there;
>I know a nice number of them...they just also happen to be
>non-judgemental, have senses of humor, and have open minds to let
>individuals do what they want so long as they're not hurting others.
Of course, that 'not hurting others' refers to this life. But what if
one does what he wants and causes others to receive eternal hurt?
>
>There's only three kinds of Catholics in my mind...blind catholics,
who
>follow out of fear,
I know of no Catholics who are Catholics out of fear.
> ignorance,
I cannot conceive of an ignorant person being a Catholic, or remaining
in the church.
>convenience,
Convenience? That is a crock! It is hardly 'convenient' being a
Catholic these days.
Look at all the prejudice that we have to put up with, from associates,
the media, the 'smart set', and the like.
>or in hypocracy;
You know, it is really hard work to be a pretend Catholic. Such a
person is certifiable as insane and placement in an institution.
"real"
>catholics, who actually know their stuff and stay for whatever reason,
And let's hope that they are living their faith as it ought to be
lived.
>and ex-catholics, who leave for a variety of reasons. My own
estimation?
> 80% blind, 20% real of those still catholic. My experience lends
>evidence to my theory.
But, your experience is rather limited and confining, and certainly
does not include real Catholics, from what you have said.
Judging from the quality of Catholic education that you have testified
to, I can understand how you got to your conclusion, however.
>
>VC
>
>Some of my friends call me Vin. Know what rhymes with Vin? Sin!
Also, din, like in useless noise, and nin, like in ninny.
Edward Thorne
In <6ku2g1$nts$1...@nw003t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
[snip]
>Add me to that list along with you and Laura. I feel/felt that if I
went
>back, I'd probably cause more trouble than I'm worth.
>
>I've been meeting a few people here and there recently though, that
belong to
>the community, but continue to hold their own views and cosmologies.
They want
>the church for the *community* it provides but go their own ways in
their
>minds.
Robin, that is a contradiction in terms. How can a person stay in the
church for the 'community' when there is no community of ideas between
them and the church?
They have 2 choices, either make their beliefs common with what the
church teaches, or ...leave. You, like Vinny, at least have chosen the
honest course, although the incorrect one, and have left.
Regarding all *sorts* of things. I even met a Catholic Buddhist.
A person cannot be a Catholic and a Buddhist; the two religions are
incompatible.
A Catholic may adopt Zen techniques of meditation, but that is
different from being a Buddhist.
><boggle...> One who <also> believes in reincarnation and animal
spirit
>guides. <hello, New Age....> <smile>
Well, that goes to show far we have declined in the last 35 years of
so.
One or two I've met who <also> see the
>central story primarily as myth. <as I do>
Are you referring to the Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Resurrection
of Jesus" You believe that is a myth? How sad.
They've managed to get past the
>childhood picture we all had of the dogmas, shrug their shoulders at
the
>continuing patriarchial structure <of both the political instituion
and the
>mythology...> and pretty much go their own merry ways quietly while
attending
>mass and belonging to the community.
How sad! Alas, there is nothing communal between them and the church,
and fellow Catholics. Frankly, they are living a lie. Maybe they are
only dabbling really don't believe what they are telling you. Such
things are trendy, nowadays, and perhaps they don't want to be seen
going against the grain.
>
>I can pray or hold circle with these people; we can share our
*spirituality*
>and help each other on our paths without ever once feeling the need to
engage
>in polemical football. There's no need or desire for that, because
underlying
>all the religious superficials there is a shared, profound awareness
that
>behind all the veils and masks and stories, there is an Originator, a
Deity, a
>God/dess.
Nope! No goddess!
[snip]
>I'm not sure I do <live a more moral life>. Then again, I'm trying to
break
>myself of the habit of determining who's moral and who's not.
While it is good to not judge the state of another's soul, do you not
judge the morality of their ACTIONS?
I know that
>rules in and of themselves don't cut it for me.
Do you live the life of an anarchist? Do you think that you are
morally autonomous, and can do what you please?
That stopped working with me
>when I was about 12 years old.... there have to be reasons behind it,
and the
>basis of the reasons has to be love and compassion. Rules for their
own sake,
>or rules for the sake of *control* by an institution don't cut it with
me.
How about the 'love of God'? Isn't that reason enough for you?
>
>
>>Of course, when people start off in the church and leave it once they
get
>>older, have more schooling, and generally have more world experience,
it
>>doesn't speak well of the church.
>
>Or of the adult religious education provided by the church.
Well, you have a point there. It also speaks volumes about the poor
state of catechesis for young people as well.
The bishops are finally waking up to the fact that all repeat ALL
catechetical texts but one are seriously deficient on how they present
the faith.
>
>Why are we reading posting here, then, if we three have lost *all*
interest in
>the RCC?
That is a good question. Obvioiusly, you are not in sync with most of
the people here.
>
>The "Baltimore Catechism" picture we still carry in our minds is a
cartoon
>version of Catholicism. It's not going to cut it with you and me.
If you are old enough to have studied the Balto Cat, you never received
much religious instruction beyond grammar school. I would not be
surprised if that were the case.
And yet,
>there is much much *more* to be had in the way of spiritual gems, from
a 2,000
>year old tradition. There's a lot of absolute trash, too, particularly
in the
>anti-woman, anti-flesh, anti-earth strain among many of the Church
Fathers.
Ho, ho! Now you are getting polemical!
>
>I may never go back to the RCC officially. But at the very least, I
want what
>I am rejecting to be the real thing, and not a straw man version. Or a
cartoon
>version, designed for children.
>
><did you know, for instance, that for the first few hundred years,
>reincarnation was left an open question, until Origen's work was set
aside? I
>learned that here... along with a lot of other things...>
It wasn't so much reincarnation as it was that Origen believed that all
the damned would one day be saved. But he was an allegorizing
Platonist and his views were not widely accepted.
[snip]
>I've known even priests who believed in the "cosmic Christ", who
accepted
>reincarnation, who call on the Goddess. I've spoken with Catholic
people who
>are farther in the 'left wing' than even I am, regarding the meaning
and
>message of the Cross.
In this day and age, I am not surprised.
[snip]
Padraic42
>
>In article <6knrg9$j...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>I didn't want to give newageism the dignity of two capital letters.
>>
>
>Remember, troops, newage rhymes with sewage.
And their 'beliefs' equal it.
I recall when a hurricane was threatening the East Coast of the US (I forget
which), and it suddenly changed direction and missed the Carolina's and
Virginia coast. (Pretty much hitting Jersey and NY)
New Age Wiccans claimed credit as did Pat Robertson.
Compairing the two (Robertson is hardly a person I 'like' using but it fits),
Robertson claimed his prayers to God (and those of his followers) chaged the
hurricanes course. (TRanslation: The power of God by his intercession changed
the course)
The Wiccans claimed that 'they', through there 'magic' changed the course.
Humans, through incantations, etc., changed nature by 'their' power and
authority.
Wheras with Christians, God, by His power and authority changed nature.
BIG difference.
Vinny C
Padraic42 wrote:
> I recall when a hurricane was threatening the East Coast of the US (I forget
> which), and it suddenly changed direction and missed the Carolina's and
> Virginia coast. (Pretty much hitting Jersey and NY)
<snip>
> Wheras with Christians, God, by His power and authority changed nature.
>
> BIG difference.
Didn't anyone say that hurricane just changed course, as hurricanes tend
to do?
Why didn't Pat Robertson's tribe just pray that the hurricane stop?
I can't stand that guy.
VC
RobinOak
Vinny C wrote in message <357458...@erols.com>...
Better still, why didn't they pray that the storm would just blow out
harmlessly to sea, affecting no one. <who knows, it might have worked....>
>I can't stand that guy.
Me either.
RobinOak
Padraic42 wrote in message
<199806021207...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>In article <6knvha$r...@ocean.CAM.ORG>, be...@CAM.ORG (Stephanie Rendino)
writes:
>
>>
>>In article <6knrg9$j...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Edward Thorne <eth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>I didn't want to give newageism the dignity of two capital letters.
>>>
>>
>>Remember, troops, newage rhymes with sewage.
>
>And their 'beliefs' equal it.
>
forget
>which), and it suddenly changed direction and missed the Carolina's and
>Virginia coast. (Pretty much hitting Jersey and NY)
>
Here we go.... <sigh>
> Compairing the two (Robertson is hardly a person I 'like' using but it
fits),
>Robertson claimed his prayers to God (and those of his followers) chaged the
>hurricanes course. (TRanslation: The power of God by his intercession
changed
>the course)
>
> The Wiccans claimed that 'they', through there 'magic' changed the course.
Then the NJ Wiccans got a real bum rap on that one, because Jersey got hit in
that storm, no?
> Humans, through incantations, etc., changed nature by 'their' power and
>authority.
Planes.
Trains.
Automobiles...
Medicine.
Laser surgery.
Cars.
COMPUTERS.
Satellites.
Nuclear weaponry.
Nuclear power.
That nice new **unscented** "Off" bug spray, that keeps one from becoming a
mosquito feast on long summer evenings.... they really improved that stuff.
It used to stink like anything.
Can we change nature by our 'power'? You tell me.
Even as recently as 30 years ago, would we have been having this conversation
on *this* medium, over the Internet? Can we 'change nature'? Do we 'have
power'?
You tell me.
Explain to me what nuclear technology is, if it's not a form of *human power*.
The question is: **how** do we *use* our powers....
> Wheras with Christians, God, by His power and authority changed nature.
He gave humans 'dominion' over the rest of it. Or so it says in Genesis. S/he
didn't 'change nature'... S/he created it.
> BIG difference.
There is such a thing as grasping for and calling on external authority mainly
in order to prop up one's own.
<shrug>
Vinny C
Edward Thorne wrote:
> Robin, that is a contradiction in terms. How can a person stay in the
> church for the 'community' when there is no community of ideas between
> them and the church?
Friends aren't chosen on the basis of agreement of all values, just some
major ones. You can be in a community where people don't all agree on
the specifics but agree on the general motivations.
>
> They have 2 choices, either make their beliefs common with what the
> church teaches, or ...leave. You, like Vinny, at least have chosen the
> honest course, although the incorrect one, and have left.
Again, I would have to say that it is the correct one. I don't know if I
speak for Robin, but I know my views will never fully align with the
church, regardless of during the course of time I agree with it on
certain issues. The question would keep popping up "Why are you here if
you don't believe what we believe?" and I wouldn't be able to answer
them.
> ><boggle...> One who <also> believes in reincarnation and animal
> spirit
> >guides. <hello, New Age....> <smile>
>
> Well, that goes to show far we have declined in the last 35 years of
> so.
People like to pick and choose now...if it works, it works...the only
problem is that if pressed, people would have to work out many of the
details for themselves...the advantage that organized religions have is
that they've had people working out the details for hundreds of years.
> One or two I've met who <also> see the
> >central story primarily as myth. <as I do>
>
> Are you referring to the Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Resurrection
> of Jesus" You believe that is a myth? How sad.
Birth...seems historically supported. Passion...seems logical that he
would get tortured for his beliefs...Death...logically
inevitable...Resurrection...that's where it loses me.
> How sad! Alas, there is nothing communal between them and the church,
> and fellow Catholics. Frankly, they are living a lie. Maybe they are
> only dabbling really don't believe what they are telling you. Such
> things are trendy, nowadays, and perhaps they don't want to be seen
> going against the grain.
Maybe they really don't believe what the church says, and it's not as
much of a lie as a self-deception about being catholic. Each person is
an individual, but I find it hard to believe that most of teh people are
faking problems with the church's doctrine to be "cool".
> >I can pray or hold circle with these people; we can share our
> *spirituality*
> >and help each other on our paths without ever once feeling the need to
> engage
> >in polemical football. There's no need or desire for that, because
> underlying
> >all the religious superficials there is a shared, profound awareness
> that
> >behind all the veils and masks and stories, there is an Originator, a
> Deity, a
> >God/dess.
>
> Nope! No goddess!
You better hope not, Ed, or your afterlife may be a bit unpleasant...
Oddly enough, I had a dream once where I was with, what seemed to be, a
Goddess...I remember being extremely injured in the dream, and being
healed.
The agnostic part of me questions, the scientist part of me looks for
other answers, but the spiritual part of me believes.
> >I'm not sure I do <live a more moral life>. Then again, I'm trying to
> break
> >myself of the habit of determining who's moral and who's not.
>
> While it is good to not judge the state of another's soul, do you not
> judge the morality of their ACTIONS?
I attempt to evaluate tham, but I don't judge them. Or their actions.
It was presumptuous of me to say I was more moral than others. Can I
take my statement in my previous post back?
> I know that
> >rules in and of themselves don't cut it for me.
>
> Do you live the life of an anarchist? Do you think that you are
> morally autonomous, and can do what you please?
Not believing in "rules for the sake of rules" does not make one an
anarchist. Personally, I think that the 21 drinking age is foolish as a
general rule. (I'm more in favor of a harsher penalty for breaking other
laws while under the influence). I break that rule at my own discretion,
knowing full well what the penalty is. Does that make me an anarchist?
I think that the voting age should remain at 18...am I still an
anarchist?
> That stopped working with me
> >when I was about 12 years old.... there have to be reasons behind it,
> and the
> >basis of the reasons has to be love and compassion. Rules for their
> own sake,
> >or rules for the sake of *control* by an institution don't cut it with
> me.
>
> How about the 'love of God'? Isn't that reason enough for you?
People love their gods differently. Some would sacrifice their kid for
the love of god. How's that for reason?
Some people dedicate a portion of their meal or drink for their god. To
me, that shows love more than denying a person to marry who they want.
> >>Of course, when people start off in the church and leave it once they
> get
> >>older, have more schooling, and generally have more world experience,
> it
> >>doesn't speak well of the church.
> >
> >Or of the adult religious education provided by the church.
>
> Well, you have a point there. It also speaks volumes about the poor
> state of catechesis for young people as well.
Speaking only for my area, Catholic elementary schools have done an
amazing job of driving youth out of the church, myself included.
The church's archaic positions on issues will continue to drive youth
away fro mit and into the chaos of a commercial, plastic, materialistic
society, much to their peril. I fear for the future.
> The bishops are finally waking up to the fact that all repeat ALL
> catechetical texts but one are seriously deficient on how they present
> the faith.
Texts don't represent the Church to people, Ed, other people, like
priests, nuns, ect., do. A good teacher will make people regard the
church better...a poor one will make people despise it. It's like a
school subject...a good prof will make you like biology, a bad one will
not.
> >Why are we reading posting here, then, if we three have lost *all*
> interest in
> >the RCC?
>
> That is a good question. Obvioiusly, you are not in sync with most of
> the people here.
I am so very tempted to challenge that with a roll call, where everyone
would post their true feelings and standings with the RCC.
Unfortunately, my brief history with this ng gives me little courage to
start that thread. Anyone who wishes, please do.
> And yet,
> >there is much much *more* to be had in the way of spiritual gems, from
> a 2,000
> >year old tradition. There's a lot of absolute trash, too, particularly
> in the
> >anti-woman, anti-flesh, anti-earth strain among many of the Church
> Fathers.
>
> Ho, ho! Now you are getting polemical!
So?
> >I've known even priests who believed in the "cosmic Christ", who
> accepted
> >reincarnation, who call on the Goddess. I've spoken with Catholic
> people who
> >are farther in the 'left wing' than even I am, regarding the meaning
> and
> >message of the Cross.
>
> In this day and age, I am not surprised.
Well, to each their own...more power to them.
VC
RobinOak
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6kvjqu$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <6ku2g1$nts$1...@nw003t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>>
>
>[snip]
>
>>Add me to that list along with you and Laura. I feel/felt that if I
>went
>>back, I'd probably cause more trouble than I'm worth.
>>
>>I've been meeting a few people here and there recently though, that
>belong to
>>the community, but continue to hold their own views and cosmologies.
>They want
>>the church for the *community* it provides but go their own ways in
>their
>>minds.
>
>Robin, that is a contradiction in terms. How can a person stay in the
>church for the 'community' when there is no community of ideas between
>them and the church?
You've just described pretty well why I left, and have no plans to really go
back. Just so.
I couldn't do that, either. That's the THING, right there... what you've just
said.
>They have 2 choices, either make their beliefs common with what the
>church teaches, or ...leave. You, like Vinny, at least have chosen the
>honest course, although the incorrect one, and have left.
>
> Regarding all *sorts* of things. I even met a Catholic Buddhist.
>
>A person cannot be a Catholic and a Buddhist; the two religions are
>incompatible.
<shrug> You'd think so, wouldn't you.....
>A Catholic may adopt Zen techniques of meditation, but that is
>different from being a Buddhist.
That's not what this person said....
>><boggle...> One who <also> believes in reincarnation and animal
>spirit
>>guides. <hello, New Age....> <smile>
>
>Well, that goes to show far we have declined in the last 35 years of
>so.
You got something against lions??? <g>
> One or two I've met who <also> see the
>>central story primarily as myth. <as I do>
>
>Are you referring to the Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Resurrection
>of Jesus" You believe that is a myth? How sad.
"Myth" does not necessarily mean *falsehood*, Ed.
Myths have great power. And great truth. But they carry *mythic* truth, more
than literal historical truth regarding details. Think 'epic drama', not
'fairy tale' or 'lie'.
What does the story <the 'myth'> of Prometheus teach? That for every gift we
receive <fire, in his case> a price has to be paid. And somebody has to pay
that price, in some form of self-sacrifice. Prometheus gave humans the gift of
fire, and for that he had to suffer... and we benefited greatly from his
sacrifice. That's a 'myth.' Was there ever a REAL Prometheus, who really got
chained to a mountainside?
The important point about mythic truth isn't whether there was ever a real
Prometheus who was chained to a mountain. The point is: gifts carry prices.
And the self-sacrifice of the one, for the good of all, is a holy thing. And a
necessary thing.
> They've managed to get past the
>>childhood picture we all had of the dogmas, shrug their shoulders at
>the
>>continuing patriarchial structure <of both the political instituion
>and the
>>mythology...> and pretty much go their own merry ways quietly while
>attending
>>mass and belonging to the community.
>
>How sad! Alas, there is nothing communal between them and the church,
>and fellow Catholics. Frankly, they are living a lie. Maybe they are
>only dabbling really don't believe what they are telling you. Such
>things are trendy, nowadays, and perhaps they don't want to be seen
>going against the grain.
Well, that's more or less my own take on it, too. "Living a lie." Can't do
it, myself.
>>
>>I can pray or hold circle with these people; we can share our
>*spirituality*
>>and help each other on our paths without ever once feeling the need to
>engage
>>in polemical football. There's no need or desire for that, because
>underlying
>>all the religious superficials there is a shared, profound awareness
>that
>>behind all the veils and masks and stories, there is an Originator, a
>Deity, a
>>God/dess.
>
>Nope! No goddess!
Yes yes yes yes YES!!!! <GG> PRAISE GODDESS, somebody say, AMEN!! <shake
that tambourine....beat dem drums....boom bada boom bada boom....>
Big Mama LUVS yooooou, Ed.... She LOVES you..... <giggling>
>
>[snip]
>
>>I'm not sure I do <live a more moral life>. Then again, I'm trying to
>break
>>myself of the habit of determining who's moral and who's not.
>
>While it is good to not judge the state of another's soul, do you not
>judge the morality of their ACTIONS?
Not really. Only when they impinge on me or cause very obvious harm to the
community. <which is why we have laws...>
Ed, here's the thing.... lately I have been getting an overdose of karma.
Meaning:
Lately, each and *every* time I make some kind of pronouncement regarding
morality, events arrange themselves so that I get kicked right in the pants
with a very similiar thing, or the SAME thing I was previously declaiming
about in such a superior <and prideful> way.
This has been happening SO MUCH lately, that it doesn't take a spiritual
rocket scientist to figure out that Big Mama is trying to *tell* me
something.... something as in, "Do unto others". "The measure that you measure
with will be used to measure you." Walk a mile in someone else's shoes...
here's the shoes.... shoe on the other footsie, dear?? <g>
Sometimes it pays to just keep your mouth *shut*....
>
> I know that
>>rules in and of themselves don't cut it for me.
>
>Do you live the life of an anarchist? Do you think that you are
>morally autonomous, and can do what you please?
That's 'heretic and anarchist,' if you please.... <hi Bam-Bam...> <|:D
I'm quoting the Malleus.... ironically, of course....
> That stopped working with me
>>when I was about 12 years old.... there have to be reasons behind it,
>and the
>>basis of the reasons has to be love and compassion. Rules for their
>own sake,
>>or rules for the sake of *control* by an institution don't cut it with
>me.
>
>How about the 'love of God'? Isn't that reason enough for you?
The love of God is reason enough for *what*? Going back to the church?
Do you not think that others outside your church can feel the love of God?
They do.
>>>Of course, when people start off in the church and leave it once they
>get
>>>older, have more schooling, and generally have more world experience,
>it
>>>doesn't speak well of the church.
>>
>>Or of the adult religious education provided by the church.
>
>Well, you have a point there. It also speaks volumes about the poor
>state of catechesis for young people as well.
It must be deplorable, really. But I wouldn't know. <though I will say that
this new 'user-friendly' Baptism pamphlet I found really boggled my EYES right
out... whoa.... I had to sit down when I read *that*....>
>The bishops are finally waking up to the fact that all repeat ALL
>catechetical texts but one are seriously deficient on how they present
>the faith.
Hmm. Well, maybe they might like to think about doing something to help that
situation improve....
>>
>>Why are we reading posting here, then, if we three have lost *all*
>interest in
>>the RCC?
>
>That is a good question. Obvioiusly, you are not in sync with most of
>the people here.
I'm not in sync with most people. I've always been this way.
You get used to it after a while.
>>
>>The "Baltimore Catechism" picture we still carry in our minds is a
>cartoon
>>version of Catholicism. It's not going to cut it with you and me.
>
>If you are old enough to have studied the Balto Cat, you never received
>much religious instruction beyond grammar school. I would not be
>surprised if that were the case.
I went through 12 years of Catholic schooling and one semester of Catholic
college. Took lots of theology classes, yes indeed... and did a good bit of
outside reading on my own, too.
Actually, back then, after high school, what I wanted most of all was to study
theology and ancient biblical languages as major subjects. But I didn't think
it would be terribly practical....
> And yet,
>>there is much much *more* to be had in the way of spiritual gems, from
>a 2,000
>>year old tradition. There's a lot of absolute trash, too, particularly
>in the
>>anti-woman, anti-flesh, anti-earth strain among many of the Church
>Fathers.
>
>
>Ho, ho! Now you are getting polemical!
<smacking wrist, smacking wrist...>
>>
>>I may never go back to the RCC officially. But at the very least, I
>want what
>>I am rejecting to be the real thing, and not a straw man version. Or a
>cartoon
>>version, designed for children.
>>
>><did you know, for instance, that for the first few hundred years,
>>reincarnation was left an open question, until Origen's work was set
>aside? I
>>learned that here... along with a lot of other things...>
>
>It wasn't so much reincarnation as it was that Origen believed that all
>the damned would one day be saved. But he was an allegorizing
>Platonist and his views were not widely accepted.
And, he *lost his marbles*, tsk tsk tsk... <G>
He wound up castrating himself.
Talk about having a Bad Theology Day, sheesh.....
>
>[snip]
>
>>I've known even priests who believed in the "cosmic Christ", who
>accepted
>>reincarnation, who call on the Goddess. I've spoken with Catholic
>people who
>>are farther in the 'left wing' than even I am, regarding the meaning
>and
>>message of the Cross.
>
>In this day and age, I am not surprised.
Ah, but this was 20 years ago, when I was in college.....
Edward Thorne
In <6l1uts$mdf$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
[snip]
>> Humans, through incantations, etc., changed nature by 'their' power
and
>>authority.
>
>Planes.
>Trains.
>Automobiles...
>Medicine.
>Laser surgery.
>Cars.
>COMPUTERS.
>Satellites.
>Nuclear weaponry.
>Nuclear power.
>That nice new **unscented** "Off" bug spray, that keeps one from
becoming a
>mosquito feast on long summer evenings.... they really improved that
stuff.
>It used to stink like anything.
>
>Can we change nature by our 'power'? You tell me .
None of this is a 'change of nature', but adapting the powers of nature
--that is, God's creation at work --to help mankind.
>
>Even as recently as 30 years ago, would we have been having this
conversation
>on *this* medium, over the Internet? Can we 'change nature'? Do we
'have
>power'?
>
>You tell me.
Again, there is no change to the powers of God's created universe.
>
>Explain to me what nuclear technology is, if it's not a form of *human
power*.
Well, do you invest atom power plants with human qualities?
I repeat, nuclear technology is nothing more than adapting the power of
God's created universe for the benefit of mankind.
You tell me, what is wrong with that?
>
>The question is: **how** do we *use* our powers....
If we use the power of nature to our benefit, or if, driven by a
sinfully-minded will, we use to our detriment.
>
>
>> Wheras with Christians, God, by His power and authority changed
nature.
No, God did not change nature, it is still the same nature that he
created in the beginning.
>
>He gave humans 'dominion' over the rest of it. Or so it says in
Genesis. S/he
>didn't 'change nature'... S/he created it.
>
>> BIG difference.
>
>There is such a thing as grasping for and calling on external
authority mainly
>in order to prop up one's own.
>
><shrug>
>
Well, how about using the powers of your intellect to explore the truth
concerning the existence of God.
Edward Thorne
In <357512...@erols.com> Vinny C <bla...@erols.com> writes:
>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
>
>> Robin, that is a contradiction in terms. How can a person stay in
the
>> church for the 'community' when there is no community of ideas
between
>> them and the church?
>
>Friends aren't chosen on the basis of agreement of all values, just
some
>major ones. You can be in a community where people don't all agree on
>the specifics but agree on the general motivations.
That is like saying that there is a community of interest between
people who believe in the democratic free enterprise system, and those
who believe in communism. After all, they both want freedom, peace and
prosperity, do they not? An extreme example, I admit ...but general
motivations are not good enough.
>
>>
>> They have 2 choices, either make their beliefs common with what the
>> church teaches, or ...leave. You, like Vinny, at least have chosen
the
>> honest course, although the incorrect one, and have left.
>
>Again, I would have to say that it is the correct one. I don't know
if I
>speak for Robin, but I know my views will never fully align with the
>church, regardless of during the course of time I agree with it on
>certain issues. The question would keep popping up "Why are you here
if
>you don't believe what we believe?" and I wouldn't be able to answer
>them.
Well, more things are wrought by the power of prayer than this world
dreams of.
>
>> ><boggle...> One who <also> believes in reincarnation and animal
>> spirit
>> >guides. <hello, New Age....> <smile>
>>
>> Well, that goes to show far we have declined in the last 35 years of
>> so.
>
>People like to pick and choose now...if it works, it works...the only
>problem is that if pressed, people would have to work out many of the
>details for themselves...the advantage that organized religions have
is
>that they've had people working out the details for hundreds of years.
>
>> One or two I've met who <also> see the
>> >central story primarily as myth. <as I do>
>>
>> Are you referring to the Incarnation, Passion, Death, and
Resurrection
>> of Jesus" You believe that is a myth? How sad.
>
>Birth...seems historically supported. Passion...seems logical that he
>would get tortured for his beliefs...Death...logically
>inevitable...Resurrection...that's where it loses me.
There is more contemporary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, for
example, than for Julius Caesar's Gallic conquest.
>
>
>> How sad! Alas, there is nothing communal between them and the
church,
>> and fellow Catholics. Frankly, they are living a lie. Maybe they are
>> only dabbling really don't believe what they are telling you. Such
>> things are trendy, nowadays, and perhaps they don't want to be seen
>> going against the grain.
>
>Maybe they really don't believe what the church says, and it's not as
>much of a lie as a self-deception about being catholic. Each person
is
>an individual, but I find it hard to believe that most of teh people
are
>faking problems with the church's doctrine to be "cool".
Hmmnn ...who knows?
So, you won't judge Hitler's actions, for example?
>It was presumptuous of me to say I was more moral than others. Can I
>take my statement in my previous post back?
Sure, that's easy!
>
>> I know that
>> >rules in and of themselves don't cut it for me.
>>
>> Do you live the life of an anarchist? Do you think that you are
>> morally autonomous, and can do what you please?
>
>Not believing in "rules for the sake of rules" does not make one an
>anarchist. Personally, I think that the 21 drinking age is foolish as
a
>general rule. (I'm more in favor of a harsher penalty for breaking
other
>laws while under the influence). I break that rule at my own
discretion,
>knowing full well what the penalty is. Does that make me an
anarchist?
So, what rules do you intend to keep? Paying your income tax, for
example?
>I think that the voting age should remain at 18...am I still an
>anarchist?
Do you think that non-citizens should be allowed to break the law by
voting?
>
>> That stopped working with me
>> >when I was about 12 years old.... there have to be reasons behind
it,
>> and the
>> >basis of the reasons has to be love and compassion. Rules for
their
>> own sake,
>> >or rules for the sake of *control* by an institution don't cut it
with
>> me.
>>
>> How about the 'love of God'? Isn't that reason enough for you?
>
>People love their gods differently. Some would sacrifice their kid
for
>the love of god. How's that for reason?
How about using your reason to learn more about God from his created
universe?
[snip]
>> >Or of the adult religious education provided by the church.
>>
>> Well, you have a point there. It also speaks volumes about the poor
>> state of catechesis for young people as well.
>
>Speaking only for my area, Catholic elementary schools have done an
>amazing job of driving youth out of the church, myself included.
Well, that doens't speak well for the Catholic education in your area.
>
>The church's archaic positions on issues will continue to drive youth
>away fro mit and into the chaos of a commercial, plastic,
materialistic
>society, much to their peril. I fear for the future.
No, the church guards well the deposit of faith left to it by Jesus and
the APostles.
>
>> The bishops are finally waking up to the fact that all repeat ALL
>> catechetical texts but one are seriously deficient on how they
present
>> the faith.
>
>Texts don't represent the Church to people, Ed, other people, like
>priests, nuns, ect., do.
Well, your priests and nuns didn't do a good job, from what you tell
me, and that was compounded because they didn't have good teaching
materials to teach from.
[snip]
>> And yet,
>> >there is much much *more* to be had in the way of spiritual gems,
from
>> a 2,000
>> >year old tradition. There's a lot of absolute trash, too,
particularly
>> in the
>> >anti-woman, anti-flesh, anti-earth strain among many of the Church
>> Fathers.
>>
>> Ho, ho! Now you are getting polemical!
>
>So?
>
Padraic42
>
>> Robin, that is a contradiction in terms. How can a person stay in the
>> church for the 'community' when there is no community of ideas between
>> them and the church?
>
>Friends aren't chosen on the basis of agreement of all values, just some
>major ones. You can be in a community where people don't all agree on
>the specifics but agree on the general motivations.
Like Hilter and Stalin?
Sooner or later, a conflict will occur. Some in the New Age may be
'friendly' toward Christians and Christianty, but sooner or later this will not
be possible.
The Church thought that the Concordant signed with Germany would protect
Caholics in Germany. But the pact was broken by Germany even before the ink
dried. BTW, if you want an example of a New Age mentality in charge of a
State, look to Germany, 1932-45.
Padraic42
In article <357458...@erols.com>, Vinny C <bla...@erols.com> writes:
>Padraic42 wrote:
>> I recall when a hurricane was threatening the East Coast of the US (I
>forget
>> which), and it suddenly changed direction and missed the Carolina's and
>> Virginia coast. (Pretty much hitting Jersey and NY)
>
><snip>
>
>> Wheras with Christians, God, by His power and authority changed nature.
>>
>> BIG difference.
>
>Didn't anyone say that hurricane just changed course, as hurricanes tend
>to do?
>
>Why didn't Pat Robertson's tribe just pray that the hurricane stop?
>
>I can't stand that guy.
I don't like him either, I think he's a closet anti-catholic, but since he
needs us.....
But I digress. The point wasn't who prayed and for what. The point was that
one prayed to God asking for His help, the other felt they did it without God.
Padraic42
In article <6l1uts$mdf$1...@nw001t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>> The Wiccans claimed that 'they', through there 'magic' changed the course.
>
>Then the NJ Wiccans got a real bum rap on that one, because Jersey got hit in
>that storm, no?
Maybe they didn't get their spells right? :-)
janet
In article <199806040229...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Padraic42
<padr...@aol.com> said unto us:
>In article <6l1uts$mdf$1...@nw001t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>>> The Wiccans claimed that 'they', through there 'magic' changed the course.
>>
>>Then the NJ Wiccans got a real bum rap on that one, because Jersey got hit in
>>that storm, no?
>
> Maybe they didn't get their spells right? :-)
>
RO, think about the CONSEQUENCES!!! Ack!!! Oh, mother, if the law of
three fold return WORKS, what comes back at you for *diverting a
storm*?????? (grinning, running, ducking.........)
--
janet
Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure;
I am sure, however, that 'en famille', they play Mozart
Karl Barth
RobinOak
janet wrote in message <200TJRAm...@allestree.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <199806040229...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Padraic42
><padr...@aol.com> said unto us:
>>In article <6l1uts$mdf$1...@nw001t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
>><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>>
>>>> The Wiccans claimed that 'they', through there 'magic' changed the
course.
>>>
>>>Then the NJ Wiccans got a real bum rap on that one, because Jersey got hit
in
>>>that storm, no?
>>
>> Maybe they didn't get their spells right? :-)
>>
>Ohhhhhhhhh, ack!!!
>
>RO, think about the CONSEQUENCES!!! Ack!!! Oh, mother, if the law of
>three fold return WORKS, what comes back at you for *diverting a
>storm*?????? (grinning, running, ducking.........)
.....I'll tell you exactly what happens.......
......... **Lactose Intolerance***. . . . .
Thunder & lightning.... aaaaaack.......
RobinOak
Padraic42 wrote in message
<199806040229...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>In article <357458...@erols.com>, Vinny C <bla...@erols.com> writes:
>
>>Padraic42 wrote:
>>> I recall when a hurricane was threatening the East Coast of the US (I
>>forget
>>> which), and it suddenly changed direction and missed the Carolina's and
>>> Virginia coast. (Pretty much hitting Jersey and NY)
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Wheras with Christians, God, by His power and authority changed nature.
>>>
>>> BIG difference.
>>
>>Didn't anyone say that hurricane just changed course, as hurricanes tend
>>to do?
>>
>>Why didn't Pat Robertson's tribe just pray that the hurricane stop?
>>
>>I can't stand that guy.
>
>I don't like him either, I think he's a closet anti-catholic, but since he
>needs us.....
>
> But I digress. The point wasn't who prayed and for what. The point was
that
>one prayed to God asking for His help, the other felt they did it without
God.
That depends on your view of God, and how S/he acts in the world. Maybe the
spellcasters felt they were doing it *with* God's help too. You're assuming
that they felt God wasn't part of the equation. <and you know what Sister
Said: "When you assume, you make an "Ass" out of "U" and "Me"....>
<ass+u+me>...
Does God ever work *through* the agency of other human beings?
And if S/he doesn't, then why are you bothering with spiritual and corporal
works of mercy? Just sit back and let God do all the work, right? <That's
"Quietism", a heresy.... bzzzt, no points....>
<.... you know, if people really focused properly, we probably *could* divert
a storm out to sea... then again, considering it went to N Jersey, maybe that
*is* 'out to sea'.....I'm from there, so I'm allowed to diss it.....well, it
was *almost* out to sea... maybe it hit Margate, or sumpthin...>
Edward Thorne
In <6l4so1$eq5$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>Edward Thorne wrote in message <6kvjqu$1...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>In <6ku2g1$nts$1...@nw003t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
>><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>>>
>>
[snip]
>>Robin, that is a contradiction in terms. How can a person stay in
the
>>church for the 'community' when there is no community of ideas
between
>>them and the church?
>
>You've just described pretty well why I left, and have no plans to
really go
>back. Just so.
>
>I couldn't do that, either. That's the THING, right there... what
you've just
>said.
Well, that is too bad. You have lost the faith. Why? Whatever made
you do that?
[snip]
>>
>>A person cannot be a Catholic and a Buddhist; the two religions are
>>incompatible.
>
><shrug> You'd think so, wouldn't you.....
...not me alone, Robin, even a Buddhist would think so.
>
>
>>A Catholic may adopt Zen techniques of meditation, but that is
>>different from being a Buddhist.
>
>That's not what this person said....
I understand that. I was trying to put a 'soft touch' to it, if you
understand me.
>
>
>>><boggle...> One who <also> believes in reincarnation and animal
>>spirit
>>>guides. <hello, New Age....> <smile>
>>
>>Well, that goes to show far we have declined in the last 35 years of
>>so.
>
>You got something against lions??? <g>
I have nothing against lions, because they are part of God's creation.
However, if a lion were to attack my physical being, then I might
retaliate in kind.
>
>
>> One or two I've met who <also> see the
>>>central story primarily as myth. <as I do>
>>
>>Are you referring to the Incarnation, Passion, Death, and
Resurrection
>>of Jesus" You believe that is a myth? How sad.
>
>"Myth" does not necessarily mean *falsehood*, Ed.
Well, you didn't answer the question, did you? That is sadder still.
[snip]
>What does the story <the 'myth'> of Prometheus teach? That for every
gift we
>receive <fire, in his case> a price has to be paid. And somebody has
to pay
>that price, in some form of self-sacrifice. Prometheus gave humans the
gift of
>fire, and for that he had to suffer... and we benefited greatly from
his
>sacrifice. That's a 'myth.' Was there ever a REAL Prometheus, who
really got
>chained to a mountainside?
I'd rather believe in the gospel.
[snip]
>>How sad! Alas, there is nothing communal between them and the
church,
>>and fellow Catholics. Frankly, they are living a lie. Maybe they are
>>only dabbling really don't believe what they are telling you. Such
>>things are trendy, nowadays, and perhaps they don't want to be seen
>>going against the grain.
>
>Well, that's more or less my own take on it, too. "Living a lie."
Can't do
>it, myself.
Well, that is honest, but still sad.
>
>
>>>
>>>
[snip]
>>
>>Nope! No goddess!
>
>Yes yes yes yes YES!!!! <GG> PRAISE GODDESS, somebody say, AMEN!!
<shake
>that tambourine....beat dem drums....boom bada boom bada boom....>
>
>Big Mama LUVS yooooou, Ed.... She LOVES you..... <giggling>
How can a Catholic get to believe such nonsense?
Surely, no one really believes in it, do they? Isn't it all just a
sham?
>
>
>>
[snip]
>
>
>Not really. Only when they impinge on me or cause very obvious harm to
the
>community. <which is why we have laws...>
>
>Ed, here's the thing.... lately I have been getting an overdose of
karma.
There is no such thing as karma. It is based on the theory of pantheism
and reincarnation.
[snip]
>>
>>How about the 'love of God'? Isn't that reason enough for you?
>
>The love of God is reason enough for *what*? Going back to the
church?
>
>Do you not think that others outside your church can feel the love of
God?
>
>They do.
Sure, God loves everybody, even those who do not love him.
He died for us because he loves us so much.
That is a lesson in _real_ sacrifice.
>
>
>>>>
[snip]
[snip]
>>
>>It wasn't so much reincarnation as it was that Origen believed that
all
>>the damned would one day be saved. But he was an allegorizing
>>Platonist and his views were not widely accepted.
>
>And, he *lost his marbles*, tsk tsk tsk... <G>
>
>He wound up castrating himself.
>
>Talk about having a Bad Theology Day, sheesh.....
>
>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>I've known even priests who believed in the "cosmic Christ", who
>>accepted
>>>reincarnation, who call on the Goddess. I've spoken with Catholic
>>people who
>>>are farther in the 'left wing' than even I am, regarding the meaning
>>and
>>>message of the Cross.
>>
>>In this day and age, I am not surprised.
>
>
>Ah, but this was 20 years ago, when I was in college.....
As I said, I am not surprised.
YOu were going to high school and college at a bad time.
"They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, alleluia. ANd began to
speak of the wonderful works of God. Alleluia, alleluia.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
YEAH, CAPS.
LORD STANLEY, HERE WE COME!
GO CAPS!
--Ed
Edward Thorne
In <199806040229...@ladder03.news.aol.com> padr...@aol.com
(Padraic42) writes:
[snip]
>>major ones. You can be in a community where people don't all agree
on
>>the specifics but agree on the general motivations.
>
>Like Hilter and Stalin?
>
> Sooner or later, a conflict will occur. Some in the New Age may be
>'friendly' toward Christians and Christianty, but sooner or later this
will not
>be possible.
>
> The Church thought that the Concordant signed with Germany would
protect
>Caholics in Germany. But the pact was broken by Germany even before
the ink
>dried. BTW, if you want an example of a New Age mentality in charge
of a
>State, look to Germany, 1932-45.
That is because it was founded on romantic nationalism,
anti-Christianism, and neo-paganism.
And look what neo-paganism got us: 50 000 000 dead! And, nations
destroyed and lives ruined.
Padraic42
In article <200TJRAm...@allestree.demon.co.uk>, janet
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <199806040229...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Padraic42
><padr...@aol.com> said unto us:
>>In article <6l1uts$mdf$1...@nw001t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
>><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>>
>>>> The Wiccans claimed that 'they', through there 'magic' changed the
>course.
>>>
>>>Then the NJ Wiccans got a real bum rap on that one, because Jersey got hit
>in
>>>that storm, no?
>>
>> Maybe they didn't get their spells right? :-)
>>
>Ohhhhhhhhh, ack!!!
>
>RO, think about the CONSEQUENCES!!! Ack!!! Oh, mother, if the law of
>three fold return WORKS, what comes back at you for *diverting a
>storm*?????? (grinning, running, ducking.........)
>
I often wondered what ancient pagan Celts in Eire thought when they had a
human sacrifice to the 'goddess' in order to keep her happy and let their crops
grow, and noticed that 'unbelieving' Christians got the same rain and sunshine
they did without her 'influence'?
janet
In article <199806051353...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Padraic42
<padr...@aol.com> said unto us:
> I often wondered what ancient pagan Celts in Eire thought when they had a
>human sacrifice to the 'goddess' in order to keep her happy and let their crops
>grow, and noticed that 'unbelieving' Christians got the same rain and sunshine
>they did without her 'influence'?
?
I thought that by the time the christians got there, the human sacrifice
had been long gone?
(But they probably just thought that their sacrifices, of whatever sort,
were enough... but then again, that doesn't really seem to be EXACTLY
the idea of sacrifice that I thought the Celts worked with...??)
RobinOak
Padraic42 wrote in message
<199806051353...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
On storms, and "deflecting" them...
[]
> I often wondered what ancient pagan Celts in Eire thought when they had a
>human sacrifice to the 'goddess' in order to keep her happy and let their
crops
>grow, and noticed that 'unbelieving' Christians got the same rain and
sunshine
>they did without her 'influence'?
Which of the following things bothers you more...
1. the very *idea* of a feminine side of the Divine;
2. the idea that some people don't hold to your exact religious paradigm, but
still manage to live happy, spiritual, and fulfilling lives.
?
Human sacrifice was an ancient practice in many cultures, yes.
It was replaced by pogroms, persecutions, religious wars, witch-burnings,
random drive-by shootings, muggings and vicious murders, many of which are now
"glorified" by modern media.
Which is "better"? *Neither* is preferable. But which is less bad?
Pat, read the newspapers. The Celts may have practiced human sacrifice a very
very long time ago. But read the newspapers today: we have no religious
justification whatsoever for what we're *still* doing, as a species.
And these are so-called "Christian" cultures where it's happening.
Padraic42
In article <6l7jcl$oqn$1...@nw003t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>That depends on your view of God, and how S/he acts in the world. Maybe the
>spellcasters felt they were doing it *with* God's help too. You're assuming
>that they felt God wasn't part of the equation. <and you know what Sister
>Said: "When you assume, you make an "Ass" out of "U" and "Me"....>
><ass+u+me>...
>
I don't 'assume' anything. But I guess you 'assume' God is a she/he? One
doesn't ask God for assistance by 'magic' spells. As I recall Wiccan's hold
that they can 'create' their own reality, and make changes based on 'their'
power, not a god or goddess.
>Does God ever work *through* the agency of other human beings?
Sure He has, and does. But not in the manner used by Wiccans and other
neo-pagans of the New Age.
" For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it
to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature,
namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things
that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew
God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile
in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be
wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for
images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles..... they
exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature
rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen." (Rom. 1:19-22; 25)
How crystals do you have Robin? Pyramids? Whatever?
....
RobinOak
Padraic42 wrote in message
<199806060210...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
[]
>>>human sacrifice to the 'goddess' in order to keep her happy and let their
>>crops
>>>grow, and noticed that 'unbelieving' Christians got the same rain and
>>sunshine
>>>they did without her 'influence'?
>>
>>Which of the following things bothers you more...
>>
>>1. the very *idea* of a feminine side of the Divine;
>>
> What bothers me is God identifying Himself as the Father and you deciding
>that you know better.
Your 'male' god, Pat, is as much a human, cultural/historical construction as
any other god we have created for ourselves in our history.
I do know better, yes. As it happens.
Even your own tradition holds that 'God' has *no* gender. He/She/It is a pure
spirit, the 'burning bush' of Moses. Jesus was human, and so he had gender.
But his Mother/Father was God. And God *has* no gender. Which means that it
makes just as much sense to call God "mother" as it does to call God "Father."
>
>>2. the idea that some people don't hold to your exact religious paradigm,
but
>>still manage to live happy, spiritual, and fulfilling lives.
>>
> You mean have deluded themselves into thinking they have a happy,
spiritually
>fulfilled life?
You say deluded. That's your opinion, and your bigotry.
>>?
>>
>>Human sacrifice was an ancient practice in many cultures, yes.
>>
>>It was replaced by pogroms, persecutions, religious wars, witch-burnings,
>>random drive-by shootings, muggings and vicious murders, many of which are
>>now
>>"glorified" by modern media.
>>
> Yup, they took it from their pagan rituals and 'modernized' it. :-)
These are "Christians" doing these things. And it was "Christians" who started
and maintained the wars of religion and other persecutions.
>
>>Which is "better"? *Neither* is preferable. But which is less bad?
>>
> Gee, do you want to die by poison or burning? Gee, Robin, that's a tuff
one.
I'd rather live in a world where people stopped fighting and killing over
religion and over differing god-concepts.
>
>>Pat, read the newspapers. The Celts may have practiced human sacrifice a
>>very
>>very long time ago. But read the newspapers today: we have no religious
>>justification whatsoever for what we're *still* doing, as a species.
>>
> Agreed, and the Church ahs always tried to show that there is no
>justification for them. But that doens't relate here does it?
The Church has not 'always tried to show' that, no. The Church was behind much
of this, Pat.
> Or maybe it does. Seems that some justify their actions by saying they're
>living happy, spiritually fulfilled lives by creating a goddess to follow.
>
>>And these are so-called "Christian" cultures where it's happening.
>
> Yup, too bad they don't realize they aren't.
I agree, too bad they don't realize that they aren't truly Christian.
Padraic42
In article <6l9lqa$9i$1...@nw001t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>Padraic42 wrote in message
><199806051353...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>
>On storms, and "deflecting" them...
>
>[]
>
>> I often wondered what ancient pagan Celts in Eire thought when they had a
>>human sacrifice to the 'goddess' in order to keep her happy and let their
>crops
>>grow, and noticed that 'unbelieving' Christians got the same rain and
>sunshine
>>they did without her 'influence'?
>
>Which of the following things bothers you more...
>
>1. the very *idea* of a feminine side of the Divine;
>
What bothers me is God identifying Himself as the Father and you deciding
that you know better.
>2. the idea that some people don't hold to your exact religious paradigm, but
>still manage to live happy, spiritual, and fulfilling lives.
>
You mean have deluded themselves into thinking they have a happy, spiritually
fulfilled life?
>?
>
>Human sacrifice was an ancient practice in many cultures, yes.
>
>It was replaced by pogroms, persecutions, religious wars, witch-burnings,
>random drive-by shootings, muggings and vicious murders, many of which are
>now
>"glorified" by modern media.
>
Yup, they took it from their pagan rituals and 'modernized' it. :-)
>Which is "better"? *Neither* is preferable. But which is less bad?
>
Gee, do you want to die by poison or burning? Gee, Robin, that's a tuff one.
>Pat, read the newspapers. The Celts may have practiced human sacrifice a
>very
>very long time ago. But read the newspapers today: we have no religious
>justification whatsoever for what we're *still* doing, as a species.
>
Agreed, and the Church ahs always tried to show that there is no
justification for them. But that doens't relate here does it?
Or maybe it does. Seems that some justify their actions by saying they're
living happy, spiritually fulfilled lives by creating a goddess to follow.
>And these are so-called "Christian" cultures where it's happening.
Yup, too bad they don't realize they aren't.
Padraic42
In article <uFcALLA6...@allestree.demon.co.uk>, janet
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <199806051353...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Padraic42
><padr...@aol.com> said unto us:
>> I often wondered what ancient pagan Celts in Eire thought when they had a
>>human sacrifice to the 'goddess' in order to keep her happy and let their
>crops
>>grow, and noticed that 'unbelieving' Christians got the same rain and
>sunshine
>>they did without her 'influence'?
>
>
>?
>
>I thought that by the time the christians got there, the human sacrifice
>had been long gone?
Well the Brits had the Romans as a ready source for sacrifice, but not the
Irish. The Druids still needed a warm body to keep the earth goddess happy.
Edward Thorne
In <uFcALLA6...@allestree.demon.co.uk> janet
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <199806051353...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Padraic42
><padr...@aol.com> said unto us:
>> I often wondered what ancient pagan Celts in Eire thought when they
had a
>>human sacrifice to the 'goddess' in order to keep her happy and let
their crops
>>grow, and noticed that 'unbelieving' Christians got the same rain and
sunshine
>>they did without her 'influence'?
>
>
>?
>
>I thought that by the time the christians got there, the human
sacrifice
>had been long gone?
>
sort,
>were enough... but then again, that doesn't really seem to be EXACTLY
>the idea of sacrifice that I thought the Celts worked with...??)
>--
bound hand and foot, into a bog?
Edward Thorne
In <6l9lqa$9i$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
[snip]
>Which of the following things bothers you more...
>
>1. the very *idea* of a feminine side of the Divine;
Of course, their is a feminine side to God, but his son taught us to
call him "Father" or "Daddy", and so we do.
To call God a he-she is blasphemous.
>
>2. the idea that some people don't hold to your exact religious
paradigm, but
>still manage to live happy, spiritual, and fulfilling lives.
Yes, they can be happy in this life, because, behold, they already have
their reward. And their happiness, for many, will end at death, just
as they believe.
>
>?
>
>Human sacrifice was an ancient practice in many cultures, yes.
>
>It was replaced by pogroms, persecutions, religious wars,
witch-burnings,
>random drive-by shootings, muggings and vicious murders, many of which
are now
>"glorified" by modern media.
Also wars extolling the 'nation,' 'glory', 'honor', 'progress', the
betterment of the human race, and paganism.
In fact more people have been killed the forces of neo-paganism and
atheism in this century than in all the previous history of mankind.
So much for neo-paganism and atheism.
>
>Which is "better"? *Neither* is preferable. But which is less bad?
>
>Pat, read the newspapers. The Celts may have practiced human
sacrifice a very
>very long time ago. But read the newspapers today: we have no
religious
>justification whatsoever for what we're *still* doing, as a species.
>
>And these are so-called "Christian" cultures where it's happening.
How many people do you know who go to church on sunday and drive by
shoot on Monday?
On the other hand, there are thousands of people who claim to be
Christians, and even saved ones at that, who support the awful crime of
abortion.
And, yes, there are those who support abortion who are also Catholic.
Because of that alone, they have no right to that name.
>
"They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, alleluia. ANd began to
speak of the wonderful works of God. Alleluia, alleluia.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
"They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, alleluia. ANd began to
speak of the wonderful works of God. Alleluia, alleluia.
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
YEAH, CAPS.
LORD STANLEY, HERE WE COME!
WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE LUG NUTS OF THE WHEELS, PLUCK THE FEATHERS OUT
OF THEIR WINGS, AND PUT THEIR LITTLE RED WAGON UP ON CINDER BLOCKS!
GO CAPS!
--Ed
Edward Thorne
In <6lac46$7ek$1...@nw003t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
[snip]
>> What bothers me is God identifying Himself as the Father and you
deciding
>>that you know better.
>
>
>Your 'male' god, Pat, is as much a human, cultural/historical
construction as
>any other god we have created for ourselves in our history.
>
>I do know better, yes. As it happens.
This comes from someone who claims a Catholic high school and one year
of Catholic college education.
I really don't understand it! People giving up the faith like that!
They remind me of Esau giving up his inheritance for a mess of pottage.
[Do I have the right incident in mind?]
>
>Even your own tradition holds that 'God' has *no* gender. He/She/It is
a pure
>spirit, the 'burning bush' of Moses. Jesus was human, and so he had
gender.
>
>But his Mother/Father was God. And God *has* no gender. Which means
that it
>makes just as much sense to call God "mother" as it does to call God
"Father."
Well, Jesus did teach us to call God, Father.
And it is right to call him Father because he begets.
>
>
>>
>>>2. the idea that some people don't hold to your exact religious
paradigm,
>but
>>>still manage to live happy, spiritual, and fulfilling lives.
>>>
>> You mean have deluded themselves into thinking they have a happy,
>spiritually
>>fulfilled life?
>
>You say deluded. That's your opinion, and your bigotry.
...for behold, they have already had their reward, in this life...
>
>
>>>Human sacrifice was an ancient practice in many cultures, yes.
>>>
>>>It was replaced by pogroms, persecutions, religious wars,
witch-burnings,
>>>random drive-by shootings, muggings and vicious murders, many of
which are
>>>now
>>>"glorified" by modern media.
>>>
>> Yup, they took it from their pagan rituals and 'modernized' it.
:-)
>
>These are "Christians" doing these things. And it was "Christians" who
started
>and maintained the wars of religion and other persecutions.
Christians? Christians doing drive-by shootings? My, how droll. Where
in Christian doctrine is their any mention of drive-by shootings, or of
murder?
Just think, how many people have been murdered by the neo-pagans in
this century?
>
>
>>
>>>Which is "better"? *Neither* is preferable. But which is less bad?
>>>
>> Gee, do you want to die by poison or burning? Gee, Robin, that's a
tuff
>one.
>
>I'd rather live in a world where people stopped fighting and killing
over
>religion and over differing god-concepts.
Well, truth is one. Error is many. Expressed mathematically,
Truth = 1
Error = n
Concerning God, only one statement can be true, all the others are
false.
The wars of the 20th century were fought in the name of neo-paganism,
science, progress, the betterment of mankind, reason, and all of the
other phoney shibboleths that have arisen in the past couple of hundred
years.
When people shuck off the truth about God, and the protective cover of
a Christian attitude is finally eaten away, we can see the depths of
depravity to which mankind can sink. We have seen it in this 20th
century.
>>>Pat, read the newspapers. The Celts may have practiced human
sacrifice a
>>>very
>>>very long time ago. But read the newspapers today: we have no
religious
>>>justification whatsoever for what we're *still* doing, as a species.
>>>
>> Agreed, and the Church ahs always tried to show that there is no
>>justification for them. But that doens't relate here does it?
>
>The Church has not 'always tried to show' that, no. The Church was
behind much
>of this, Pat.
Are you trying to say that the church is behind human sacrifice? Surely
you must jest, no?
>
[snip]
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, ...and in one Lord, Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, ...and in the Holy Spirit, the
Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son ..."
YEAH, CAPS.
LORD STANLEY, HERE WE COME!
WE ARE GOING TO SCREW THE LUG NUTS FROM THEIR WHEELS, PLUCK THE
RobinOak
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6lcplj$1...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <6lac46$7ek$1...@nw003t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>>> What bothers me is God identifying Himself as the Father and you
>deciding
>>>that you know better.
>>
>>
>>Your 'male' god, Pat, is as much a human, cultural/historical
>construction as
>>any other god we have created for ourselves in our history.
>>
>>I do know better, yes. As it happens.
>
>This comes from someone who claims a Catholic high school and one year
>of Catholic college education.
>
>I really don't understand it! People giving up the faith like that!
>
>They remind me of Esau giving up his inheritance for a mess of pottage.
>[Do I have the right incident in mind?]
That depends very much on what your "birthright" does for you spiritually, in
practical terms.
>>
>>Even your own tradition holds that 'God' has *no* gender. He/She/It is
>a pure
>>spirit, the 'burning bush' of Moses. Jesus was human, and so he had
>gender.
>>
>>But his Mother/Father was God. And God *has* no gender. Which means
>that it
>>makes just as much sense to call God "mother" as it does to call God
>"Father."
>
>Well, Jesus did teach us to call God, Father.
Jesus was a first-century Jew living in Palestine. What could you expect?
>And it is right to call him Father because he begets.
Does a father 'beget' without a *mother*, Ed?
Last time I looked, it took two to make a baby... <smile>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>2. the idea that some people don't hold to your exact religious
>paradigm,
>>but
>>>>still manage to live happy, spiritual, and fulfilling lives.
>>>>
>>> You mean have deluded themselves into thinking they have a happy,
>>spiritually
>>>fulfilled life?
>>
>>You say deluded. That's your opinion, and your bigotry.
>
>...for behold, they have already had their reward, in this life...
This is going nowhere real fast, this discussion.
You are making all sorts of assumptions about me, you're judging me, and,
you're annoying me. That's not what I'd call 'witnessing' to the love of the
Christ.
And, there's more than an smidgeon of undue constraint.
>
>>>>Human sacrifice was an ancient practice in many cultures, yes.
>>>>
>>>>It was replaced by pogroms, persecutions, religious wars,
>witch-burnings,
>>>>random drive-by shootings, muggings and vicious murders, many of
>which are
>>>>now
>>>>"glorified" by modern media.
>>>>
>>> Yup, they took it from their pagan rituals and 'modernized' it.
>:-)
>>
>>These are "Christians" doing these things. And it was "Christians" who
>started
>>and maintained the wars of religion and other persecutions.
>
>Christians? Christians doing drive-by shootings? My, how droll. Where
>in Christian doctrine is their any mention of drive-by shootings, or of
>murder?
We live, in the West, in cultures where the 'default value' is Christian, not
pagan or Neopagan.
>
>Just think, how many people have been murdered by the neo-pagans in
>this century?
Not too many, Ed. The neopagans I know are too busy volunteering for
environmental causes, playing their drums, and dancing in the woods.
The Nazis were 'good Catholics and Lutherans', for instance. Germany is and
was a very 'christianized' culture. As is the USA. And we probably break
records for murders and other forms of disgusting criminal behavior.
>>>
>>>>Which is "better"? *Neither* is preferable. But which is less bad?
>>>>
>>> Gee, do you want to die by poison or burning? Gee, Robin, that's a
>tuff
>>one.
>>
>>I'd rather live in a world where people stopped fighting and killing
>over
>>religion and over differing god-concepts.
>
>Well, truth is one. Error is many. Expressed mathematically,
>
> Truth = 1
>
> Error = n
>
>Concerning God, only one statement can be true, all the others are
>false.
If you think you can capture the Unknowable and the Infinite and place
him/her/it in a little human-mind sized box, you're mistaken.
>The wars of the 20th century were fought in the name of neo-paganism,
>science, progress, the betterment of mankind, reason, and all of the
>other phoney shibboleths that have arisen in the past couple of hundred
>years.
No. The wars of the 20th century were fought for the same reasons wars have
always been fought: over *resources* and *territory*. Over tribalism and
language and culture, over which tribe will prevail among the others.
Same things as in the old testament, different day.
>When people shuck off the truth about God, and the protective cover of
>a Christian attitude is finally eaten away, we can see the depths of
>depravity to which mankind can sink. We have seen it in this 20th
>century.
If you are arguing that Christianity is a "protection" against war &
depravity, you might want to consult a few history books. Please. This is
ridiculous.
>>>>Pat, read the newspapers. The Celts may have practiced human
>sacrifice a
>>>>very
>>>>very long time ago. But read the newspapers today: we have no
>religious
>>>>justification whatsoever for what we're *still* doing, as a species.
>>>>
>>> Agreed, and the Church ahs always tried to show that there is no
>>>justification for them. But that doens't relate here does it?
>>
>>The Church has not 'always tried to show' that, no. The Church was
>behind much
>>of this, Pat.
>
>Are you trying to say that the church is behind human sacrifice? Surely
>you must jest, no?
Not behind human sacrifice per se, but behind an awful lot of bloodshed,
certainly. Of course.
Have you heard of the Crusades, for instance? The wars of religion in Europe?
The persecutions of Jews, of Protestants, of Catholics, etc? Of the bloody
history of England and Ireland?
[]
RobinOak
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6laemm$m...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <6l9lqa$9i$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>>
>[snip]
>
>>Which of the following things bothers you more...
>>
>>1. the very *idea* of a feminine side of the Divine;
>
>Of course, their is a feminine side to God, but his son taught us to
>call him "Father" or "Daddy", and so we do.
>
>To call God a he-she is blasphemous.
One of your recent popes made reference to God this way, that God was more of
a Mother than even a Father. <paraphrased> Sadly, he died too soon.
>>2. the idea that some people don't hold to your exact religious
>paradigm, but
>>still manage to live happy, spiritual, and fulfilling lives.
>
>Yes, they can be happy in this life, because, behold, they already have
>their reward. And their happiness, for many, will end at death, just
>as they believe.
Ed, ever since you were disabused of the notion that I am still Catholic,
you've been sending me veiled and not so veiled 'threats' of hellfire and
damnation. Let me ask you something...
What kind of a god would *threaten* "his" children with eternal damnation
because they are on one path to "his" feet as opposed to another?
Is that the kind of god you worship, Ed? A 'jealous' god, who'd actually
create sentient beings and then later, toss them into some kind of eternal
inferno, just because they didn't have the exactly right religious label on
their collars when they died? The kind of god who *threatens* people into
loving and obeying "him"?
What kind of a *choice* is *that*?? It's like saying, "So! Right....now,
would you rather be shot or hanged?"
What happened to free will?
You can have 'him', then. He's alllll yours.... but that isn't my idea of
Deity.
<PS, it isn't the Roman Catholic church's idea of Deity, either.....>
snipped, the rest of it....
<PSS, 'hell' or 'Gehenna', was a *Greek Garbage Dump* where they burned first
century trash. Jesus was very fond of parable and metaphor. The gospels are
full of them thar things.>
---
"My Goddess gave birth to your God. Liberate Jesus from the Christians!"
Edward Thorne
In <6le3re$r84$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>Edward Thorne wrote in message
<6lcplj$1...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
>>In <6lac46$7ek$1...@nw003t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
>><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>>
>>[snip]
[snip]
>>>
>>>Even your own tradition holds that 'God' has *no* gender. He/She/It
is
>>a pure
>>>spirit, the 'burning bush' of Moses. Jesus was human, and so he had
>>gender.
>>>
>>>But his Mother/Father was God. And God *has* no gender. Which means
>>that it
>>>makes just as much sense to call God "mother" as it does to call God
>>"Father."
>>
>>Well, Jesus did teach us to call God, Father.
>
>Jesus was a first-century Jew living in Palestine. What could you
expect?
well, Jesus was also God, the only-begotten son of the Father.
>
>
>>And it is right to call him Father because he begets.
>
>Does a father 'beget' without a *mother*, Ed?
>
>Last time I looked, it took two to make a baby... <smile>
But there is no sex in God <laughter>
[snip]
>>>
>>>You say deluded. That's your opinion, and your bigotry.
>>
>>...for behold, they have already had their reward, in this life...
>
>This is going nowhere real fast, this discussion.
>
>You are making all sorts of assumptions about me, you're judging me,
and,
>you're annoying me. That's not what I'd call 'witnessing' to the love
of the
>Christ.
>
>And, there's more than an smidgeon of undue constraint.
Well, I was disappointed because I thought that you had misled me as to
what you were.
I thought that you were a Catholic with some newage tendencies, and
then I was surprised to find out that you had left the church and were
up to your eyeballs in newageearthmothergoddesspantheism.
You were much too coy! <downturned corners of the mouth>
>
>
[snip]
>>>
>>>These are "Christians" doing these things. And it was "Christians"
who
>>started
>>>and maintained the wars of religion and other persecutions.
>>
>>Christians? Christians doing drive-by shootings? My, how droll.
Where
>>in Christian doctrine is their any mention of drive-by shootings, or
of
>>murder?
>
>We live, in the West, in cultures where the 'default value' is
Christian, not
>pagan or Neopagan.
Well, that is doubtful ...certianly, in this day and age.
>
>>
>>Just think, how many people have been murdered by the neo-pagans in
>>this century?
>
>Not too many, Ed.
How about 30 000 000, in WWII?
The neopagans I know are too busy volunteering for
>environmental causes, playing their drums, and dancing in the woods.
>
>The Nazis were 'good Catholics and Lutherans', for instance.
Like hell they were! That is a slander on good Lutherans and
Catholics!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Nazis were pagans, neo-pagans and tribalists, worshipping the
ancient pagan German nation as the ideal to follow and conquer.
The Nazis were also statists, in that they had imbibed of the
philosophy of the supremacy of the nation-state, Marxists, even though
they were not Communists.
As such, they, like Lenin, believed in the principle of the Leader,
whose word was law.
Therefore they abandoned traditional concepts of law, and replaced it
with their own, Nazi based system.
They believed in unquestioning obedience; in their book, their was no
thing as an unjust law, or unjust order.
You probably don't know how many priests were murdered by the Nazis.
Germany is and
>was a very 'christianized' culture.
Like HELL it was! It was highly bureaucratized, militarism was
glorified, the church, at least the Protestant part, had long been
dominated by the state, the working classes were de-Christianized, full
of anti-Christian propaganda, as I've seen from others in this ng.
The Christianity was a veneer, and the emotional holdovers were
gradually being stripped away, and what you had left was a humanity
stripped of all moral feeling, sentiment, thought, concern. Hence, it
was all too ready to perform the atrocities that shocked us so much.
> As is the USA.
Again, American culture can hardly be called Christian. It is saturated
with materialism, consumerism, hedonism and an overbearing sense of
moral autonomy --each person thinks that he is his own law.
The dominant cultural elite is highly atheistic, is inclined to statist
solutions to social and moral problems, subscribes to an amoral concept
of sexual behavour, and is willing that we give up _our_ freedoms to
achieve _their_ ends.
All the institutions of society are highly secularized, with religious
thought and values grudgingly given small space if any at all.
That is why I think that we are slipping into a kind of social and
economic fascism, where the state dominates and controls major portions
of the economy. Hilary's aborted health plan was but one example, of
what will be further attempts to fascist-icize the economy.
Already, we see the rights of free speech and the right of assembly
circumscribed when it comes to matters of abortion-death and pro-life.
It seems that all of our rights will have to be sacrificed to the god
of abortion.
[snip]
>>>I'd rather live in a world where people stopped fighting and killing
>>over
>>>religion and over differing god-concepts.
>>
>>Well, truth is one. Error is many. Expressed mathematically,
>>
>> Truth = 1
>>
>> Error = n
>>
>>Concerning God, only one statement can be true, all the others are
>>false.
>
>If you think you can capture the Unknowable and the Infinite and place
>him/her/it in a little human-mind sized box, you're mistaken.
Robin, you should know better! By now, you should know that I know
that. Really! <smile>
>
>
>>The wars of the 20th century were fought in the name of neo-paganism,
>>science, progress, the betterment of mankind, reason, and all of the
>>other phoney shibboleths that have arisen in the past couple of
hundred
>>years.
>
>No. The wars of the 20th century were fought for the same reasons wars
have
>always been fought: over *resources* and *territory*. Over tribalism
and
>language and culture, over which tribe will prevail among the others.
Exactly! ...over which _pagan_ tribe will prevail.
>
>Same things as in the old testament, different day.
>
>
>>When people shuck off the truth about God, and the protective cover
of
>>a Christian attitude is finally eaten away, we can see the depths of
>>depravity to which mankind can sink. We have seen it in this 20th
>>century.
>
>If you are arguing that Christianity is a "protection" against war &
>depravity, you might want to consult a few history books. Please. This
is
>ridiculous.
Well, how many died in the 20th cent?
Did you never hear of the Peace of God?
>
[snip]
>>
>>Are you trying to say that the church is behind human sacrifice?
Surely
>>you must jest, no?
>
>
>Not behind human sacrifice per se, but behind an awful lot of
bloodshed,
>certainly. Of course.
Certainly people died, but not in the numbers we see in the 2oth cent.
The Church tried to curb the feudal appetite for war by restraining the
feudal lords with the Peace of God.
>
>Have you heard of the Crusades, for instance?
Yes, numbers of people died, but at least the Crusaders, initially,
were trying to rescue the Holy Land from the intolerant Turks.
>The wars of religion in Europe?
Well, the 30 years was as much a dynastic war as a religious one. Look
at how the countries lined up.
>The persecutions of Jews,
Teh church protected, or tried to, the Jews from the mob.
of Protestants, of Catholics, etc? Of the bloody
>history of England and Ireland?
That is not denied, but look at the numbers.
RobinOak
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6lffe5$j...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>...
[snip self-replicating attributions...]
>>>>Even your own tradition holds that 'God' has *no* gender. He/She/It
>is
>>>a pure
>>>>spirit, the 'burning bush' of Moses. Jesus was human, and so he had
>>>gender.
>>>>
>>>>But his Mother/Father was God. And God *has* no gender. Which means
>>>that it
>>>>makes just as much sense to call God "mother" as it does to call God
>>>"Father."
>>>
>>>Well, Jesus did teach us to call God, Father.
>>
>>Jesus was a first-century Jew living in Palestine. What could you
>expect?
>
>well, Jesus was also God, the only-begotten son of the Father.
Okay.
<.... but Ed, Mary 'conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.... A Girl(tm)
....>
Now figure *that* one out! <BG>
>>
>>
>>>And it is right to call him Father because he begets.
>>
>>Does a father 'beget' without a *mother*, Ed?
>>
>>Last time I looked, it took two to make a baby... <smile>
>
>But there is no sex in God <laughter>
Maybe that's part of the problem!
He/She invented it, after all. You'd think.... <well, *I'd* think, you might
not...> <grin>
>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>You say deluded. That's your opinion, and your bigotry.
>>>
>>>...for behold, they have already had their reward, in this life...
>>
>>This is going nowhere real fast, this discussion.
>>
>>You are making all sorts of assumptions about me, you're judging me,
>and,
>>you're annoying me. That's not what I'd call 'witnessing' to the love
>of the
>>Christ.
>>
>>And, there's more than an smidgeon of undue constraint.
>
>Well, I was disappointed because I thought that you had misled me as to
>what you were.
Edward.
I have *never, EVER* said I was anything other than what I am. We had a
bazillion witch threads in here not *that* long ago, and Pat never misses an
opportunity to mention Wicca and sideswipe me on neopaganism, etc. It has
been discussed to *death* in here, for months, even. Where have you *been*???
>I thought that you were a Catholic with some newage tendencies, and
>then I was surprised to find out that you had left the church and were
>up to your eyeballs in newageearthmothergoddesspantheism.
I am *beyond* my ontological eyeballs in newageearthmothergoddesspanENtheism.
I am not a true pantheist, because I also believe in transcendence. <where
were you during the famous THE BLOB THAT ATE BERKELEY discussion?? See, I
*knew* nobody else was reading those monster threads except me and Janet...
and we were the only ones *posting* in them, too! Sigh......>
>You were much too coy! <downturned corners of the mouth>
Ed, *everybody* who has been reading this newsgroup regularly since last fall
KNOWS I'm PAGAN! It was discussed ad nauseum, in fact, to the point where I
began to complain that we were *off-topic* for this NG, because I'd come in
here to learn more about *Catholicism*!! Mother of MERCY, my life, my
sweetness, and my hope....! <deeeeep siiiiiigh.....>
"Coy" is one thing I am *not*! Big-mouthed, YES. Coy, NO! <lol> Oh Mother,
save me...!! <g>
>
>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>These are "Christians" doing these things. And it was "Christians"
>who
>>>started
>>>>and maintained the wars of religion and other persecutions.
>>>
>>>Christians? Christians doing drive-by shootings? My, how droll.
>Where
>>>in Christian doctrine is their any mention of drive-by shootings, or
>of
>>>murder?
>>
>>We live, in the West, in cultures where the 'default value' is
>Christian, not
>>pagan or Neopagan.
>
>Well, that is doubtful ...certianly, in this day and age.
>>
>>>
>>>Just think, how many people have been murdered by the neo-pagans in
>>>this century?
>>
>>Not too many, Ed.
>
>How about 30 000 000, in WWII?
You know, we can argue till we're blue in the face over which religious tribe
was/is the bloodiest. How about we leave it at this: *People kill people*.
They shouldn't do this. It's a baaaad thing.
The Nazis were into some weird stuff, some of which was occultism, some of
which was Teutonic myth <"pagan">, and some of which German folklore and
*opera*. Ever hear of *Wagner*?? Shall we now claim that *opera* and
classical music are evil and of the devil, and causes people to orchestrate
holocausts?
It makes as much sense to pin the Holocaust on 'paganism' as it does to blame
it on *Beethoven*. Gimme a break... <and another thing, I lived in Germany
for 3 1/2 years... I've talked about that here too. And I lived in Japan for
4 years prior to that. No, no, not military... just seem to have some
international karma on this go-round....>
> The neopagans I know are too busy volunteering for
>>environmental causes, playing their drums, and dancing in the woods.
>>
>>The Nazis were 'good Catholics and Lutherans', for instance.
>
>Like hell they were! That is a slander on good Lutherans and
>Catholics!!!!!!!!!!!!
The engineers of the Nazi Holocaust were raised in a culture that is Lutheran
and Catholic. Period.
It was not "pagan." The pagans, those who practiced the "Old Religion" of the
Goddess and her consort, the 'lord of the forest,' had long before all but
disappeared in Europe as a recognizable cultural/religious group, courtesy of
some very energetic conversion efforts by the Church, and had been gonesville
for centuries. Those cultures have long been 'christianized.'
(And that's when sex and God got themselves divorced from one another, btw.
Which is a shame, in some respects.)
The Holocaust was the chilling 'logical conclusion' to the "Jewish Problem"
that was felt to have existed for centuries, and was the 'logical conclusion'
to *Christian* pogroms and persecutions which had also been going on for
centuries.
On Good Fridays in the not so very distant past, Jews would have to *hide
out*, because "Christians" would be out for their blood.
Ed, *human* history is not always a pretty thing. Regardless of the god<s>
worshipped. There is no religious path that has the corner on the blood
market, or on historical 'purity.' I'm sorry, but that's just the way it
*is*. People can really be bastids, sometimes. A lot of the time. Doesn't
matter what their religion is.
>The Nazis were pagans, neo-pagans and tribalists, worshipping the
>ancient pagan German nation as the ideal to follow and conquer.
They were also Lutherans and Catholics, Ed.
Germany is a Lutheran/Catholic country.
>The Nazis were also statists, in that they had imbibed of the
>philosophy of the supremacy of the nation-state, Marxists, even though
>they were not Communists.
The Nazis were *not, not, not* Marxists!!! MOTHER of mercy!!!
Hitler *hated* the Communists!
>As such, they, like Lenin, believed in the principle of the Leader,
>whose word was law.
Um....
Right.
"The Fearless Leader" syndrome.
Like the one feeding the idea of an 'emperor.'
Or 'a great ruler.'
Or a *pope*.... <sigh, I really didn't want to *go there*, but you started
it.....>
>Therefore they abandoned traditional concepts of law, and replaced it
>with their own, Nazi based system.
>
>They believed in unquestioning obedience; in their book, their was no
>thing as an unjust law, or unjust order.
Um.
They <too> 'believed in **unquestioning obedience**".
Ed, are you reading and thinking about what you are *writing*??????
All this stuff about 'obedience' and 'leaders' and so on, could *easily* be
applied to the RCC <and thank you Nicky, no no, I've heard it all before...
don't *bother*....>
>You probably don't know how many priests were murdered by the Nazis.
A lot. A lot of Catholics were also incarcerated in the prison camps. I know,
I know.
> Germany is and
>>was a very 'christianized' culture.
>
>Like HELL it was! It was highly bureaucratized, militarism was
>glorified, the church, at least the Protestant part, had long been
>dominated by the state, the working classes were de-Christianized, full
>of anti-Christian propaganda, as I've seen from others in this ng.
You say po-TAY-toe, I say po-TAH-to......
>The Christianity was a veneer, and the emotional holdovers were
>gradually being stripped away, and what you had left was a humanity
>stripped of all moral feeling, sentiment, thought, concern. Hence, it
>was all too ready to perform the atrocities that shocked us so much.
Right, and had the Nazis not tapped into old Teutonic myth, the war would
never have happened. Is that what you're trying to say?
Do you really *believe* that?
>> As is the USA.
>
>Again, American culture can hardly be called Christian. It is saturated
>with materialism, consumerism, hedonism and an overbearing sense of
>moral autonomy --each person thinks that he is his own law.
This thread is turning into another one of those *football games* I dislike so
much....
How's this:
People can be scum. They shouldn't be. But, sometimes they are.
Period.
>The dominant cultural elite is highly atheistic, is inclined to statist
>solutions to social and moral problems, subscribes to an amoral concept
>of sexual behavour, and is willing that we give up _our_ freedoms to
>achieve _their_ ends.
>
>All the institutions of society are highly secularized, with religious
>thought and values grudgingly given small space if any at all.
>
>That is why I think that we are slipping into a kind of social and
>economic fascism, where the state dominates and controls major portions
>of the economy. Hilary's aborted health plan was but one example, of
>what will be further attempts to fascist-icize the economy.
Hilary's abortive health care plan would have been very much in keeping with
the spirit of the Catholic 'justice and peace' agenda.
We blew it on that one, IMO, on US healthcare....
>Already, we see the rights of free speech and the right of assembly
>circumscribed when it comes to matters of abortion-death and pro-life.
>It seems that all of our rights will have to be sacrificed to the god
>of abortion.
It is a sad statement on our nation when we wind up with only one issue that's
we feel is worth discussing. We ignore the children <and adults> who are
already *here*, and spend all our time fretting and fuming and fighting each
other over a practice that has gone on for centuries, time out of mind. Women
have always had ways of 'casting forth'. There are herbs growing in the garden
right now that could do it. I'm not promoting it as a preferred method of
birth control; I'm just saying: isn't there *anything else* that's important
on the national agenda besides that?
>[snip]
>
>>>>I'd rather live in a world where people stopped fighting and killing
>>>over
>>>>religion and over differing god-concepts.
>>>
>>>Well, truth is one. Error is many. Expressed mathematically,
>>>
>>> Truth = 1
>>>
>>> Error = n
>>>
>>>Concerning God, only one statement can be true, all the others are
>>>false.
>>
>>If you think you can capture the Unknowable and the Infinite and place
>>him/her/it in a little human-mind sized box, you're mistaken.
>
>Robin, you should know better! By now, you should know that I know
>that. Really! <smile>
Then don't reduce Big Mama to mathematical formulae! <"Big Mama" = GOD....>
<tee hee> <okay, that was 'coy', I admit it....>
>>>The wars of the 20th century were fought in the name of neo-paganism,
>>>science, progress, the betterment of mankind, reason, and all of the
>>>other phoney shibboleths that have arisen in the past couple of
>hundred
>>>years.
>>
>>No. The wars of the 20th century were fought for the same reasons wars
>have
>>always been fought: over *resources* and *territory*. Over tribalism
>and
>>language and culture, over which tribe will prevail among the others.
>
>Exactly! ...over which _pagan_ tribe will prevail.
Isaac Bonewits <a contemporary pagan 'figure'> did a really horrible song
called "Be Paaaagan Once... Again!" The man can write pretty good theology
and social criticism, but he *cannot* hold a tune to save his life. Off-key
city. <shudder>
Isaac, if you're listening: stick to what you do best, and leave the music
**alone**!!!! sigh....
>>Same things as in the old testament, different day.
>>
>>
>>>When people shuck off the truth about God, and the protective cover
>of
>>>a Christian attitude is finally eaten away, we can see the depths of
>>>depravity to which mankind can sink. We have seen it in this 20th
>>>century.
>>
>>If you are arguing that Christianity is a "protection" against war &
>>depravity, you might want to consult a few history books. Please. This
>is
>>ridiculous.
>
>Well, how many died in the 20th cent?
How many died in the Civil War? In Vietnam? Before the rise of the Roman
Empire? In preliterate history? <well, hard to know about them: they didn't
leave written records, per definition>
>
>Did you never hear of the Peace of God?
Refresh my failing, aging memory....
>[snip]
>>>
>>>Are you trying to say that the church is behind human sacrifice?
>Surely
>>>you must jest, no?
>>
>>
>>Not behind human sacrifice per se, but behind an awful lot of
>bloodshed,
>>certainly. Of course.
>
>Certainly people died, but not in the numbers we see in the 2oth cent.
>The Church tried to curb the feudal appetite for war by restraining the
>feudal lords with the Peace of God.
People died in greater numbers in the 20th century because of the *technology*
we had by then, Ed! Think about it: if Ghenghis Khan had had nuclear
weaponry, would he have *used* it, probably? YES!
>>
>>Have you heard of the Crusades, for instance?
>
>Yes, numbers of people died, but at least the Crusaders, initially,
>were trying to rescue the Holy Land from the intolerant Turks.
Those awful intolerant Turks, who didn't even bother to force people to
convert to *their* religion. Tsk tsk.
How can you 'rescue LAND'?? It can't GO anywhere!! <|:)
>>The wars of religion in Europe?
>
>Well, the 30 years was as much a dynastic war as a religious one. Look
>at how the countries lined up.
They're *all* dynastic wars. They're all about territory and power and
fighting over limited resources. That's what wars are.
>
>>The persecutions of Jews,
>
>Teh church protected, or tried to, the Jews from the mob.
The Church *recently*, yes. The Church in the past?
No *way*....
> of Protestants, of Catholics, etc? Of the bloody
>>history of England and Ireland?
>
>That is not denied, but look at the numbers.
Look at the technology.
That is a prime example <Pat!> of *human power*.
We have the *power* to heal in a greater capacity than ever before, thanks to
modern medicine and technology, but we also have the *power* to kill and maim
more than ever before, again, 'thanks' to technology.
Fire has been brought down from the gods, and gee, thanks *loads*, Prometheus.
Now, what do we *do* with it......
<All those on the "Right-Hand Path" of reverence, service, and enlightenment,
raise your right hands.....> <sigh....>
Padraic42
In article <6laemm$m...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) writes:
>
>In <6l9lqa$9i$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>>
>[snip]
>
>>Which of the following things bothers you more...
>>
>>1. the very *idea* of a feminine side of the Divine;
>
>Of course, their is a feminine side to God, but his son taught us to
>call him "Father" or "Daddy", and so we do.
>
>To call God a he-she is blasphemous.
What is interesting is that we all have 'feminine' or 'masculine' aspects of
our nature. I'm a househusband. Because I can generally 'nurture' my children
better than my wife, does that make a she and my wife a he?
Padraic42
In article <6lac46$7ek$1...@nw003t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>Your 'male' god, Pat, is as much a human, cultural/historical construction as
>any other god we have created for ourselves in our history.
Guess again Robin. If so, then why 'create' gods at all? That's what secular
humanism wants! Mankind as their own gods.
Also, isn't this saying that 'you' have 'created' your own 'god/dess'?
But my God isn't one of human, cultural/historical construction, but The God,
who revealed Himself and His ways to us.
RobinOak
Padraic42 wrote in message
<199806081446...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
[]
> What is interesting is that we all have 'feminine' or 'masculine' aspects
of
>our nature. I'm a househusband. Because I can generally 'nurture' my
children
>better than my wife, does that make a she and my wife a he?
Gee, I don't *know*, Paddy!
When was the last time you took a *shower*?? Can't you go and look down
*yourself*? <Gosh, do I have to do *everything* for you?? Sheesh....>
A-hem.
Getting back to the topic of this thread, here are my predictions <free of
charge> on what the forthcoming encyclical will have to say on Newage-ism:
1. The pope will begin by addressing and by praising the more positive aspects
<positive in his view, that is> of the movement, especially in terms of its
focussing on the ecosystem and our role as 'stewards' of "God's gifts of
nature", on the role of the female and a renewed interest in God's creations.
He will make mention of 'creation spirituality' and sideswipe Matt Fox a good
deal, without ever mentioning Fox by name. <But we'll all know who he's
talking about, anyhow>. And then there's that Catholic "Creation Spirituality"
institute out in California, the one that has Starhawk <a Witch> on its
adjunct faculty.
This kind of thing will *not* "amuse" the Pope. <as in "We are NOT amused...">
Theological shenanigans like that will get Ye Olde Kabasheroonie from JP II.
2. Next, he will draw a line between "stewardship" and *reverence* for nature,
and out & out *pantheism,* and explain to everyone why pantheism doesn't work,
logically and theologically. He will slay The Pantheistic Blob That Ate
Berkeley, IOW. He will then come up with some kind of memorable, catchy
little phrase <in Latin, of course> to the effect that the 'creature is not
the Creator" <yes, yes, JP, you may quote me. Go right ahead, be my
guest...*grin*...> Just gimme my footnote, dangnabbit...>
3. He will also address "occult" topics like Tarot, divination, crystals,
astrology, etc. They will be soundly kabashed and condemned outright as forms
of 'divination', which have traditonally been soundly kabashed by The
Hieropha.... er, I mean, the Church. <whoops, sorry> He will warn parents
against letting their kids use things like Ouji boards. That part will make me
happy <because I don't like those things>
4. He will then stress the "proper role of the Christian" vis a vis *nature*
and the rest of the created world. He'll <hopefully> talk more about
stewardship and protecting the ecology, as part of the Christian's duty. He
may talk a bit about vegetarianism. He will say that it's not obligatory on
Christians in any way, because the animals and plants are 'here for man's[SIC]
use, and he'll probably quote Genesis there to back that up. However, he will
qualify all of that somewhat by saying that we should still treat animals with
respect, as 'God's gifts.' (I do hope he addresses the problem of the battery
hens and the veal calves. Hopefully.) He might talk against *waste* and
against pollution, too, again, from the POV of "Christian Stewardship."
5. He may also deal a bit more with feminism once again, and the issue of the
'gender' of God. Good question on how he'll deal with *that* one. He *might*
quote his immediate successor, JPI, the one who made reference to "God as
mother." JP II might use some bits from scripture to dance around this issue,
particularly the ones where God says things to Israel and talks about wanting
to 'hold Israel to his <"his" ??> breasts, and give suck." It will all be very
very scriptural, though, and God will come out of all this with no gender
whatsoever. <count on it> The 'father' metaphor used by Jesus will also be
mentioned, and upheld. Inclusive language and changing source texts will be
soundly kabashed, however.
6. He might also mention the figure of Mother Sophia, and it will be
interesting to see what he's got to say on that one. I won't call that one. He
might talk about Her as a *personification* instead of a *person*, and then
get into some fairly complex trinitarian theology. Who knows. Wait & see.
That's what I think the encyclical will contain. Anyone else care to make some
predictions? :)
And guess what?
*That encyclical* will help to focus more world attention on the 'New Age
agenda', and hopefully on the ecosystem, on creation spirituality, and the
so-called 'gender' of God, who will be announced as both 'mother' AND
'father'. The 'father' metaphor will be revealed for what it actually is: a
*metaphor*.... He will 'correct' what he sees as the 'errors' of the New Age
movement, but he will also pull out what he sees as the good things in it.
Which I think is a *great idea*. :)
And without the New Age movement as the critical *spur*, this attention by
the Pope wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Which is why I'm *happy* to hear that an encyclical is in the works. ("SAVE
THE BATTERY HENS!!"...)
Ta da..... <|:)
I hope that when the letter comes out somebody will post it here, because it
would be fun to see just how close I got to what it will actually say.
RobinOak
Oh! And one more thing...
In the coming encyclical, the notion of *reincarnation* will also be be
kabashed <soundly> and some "corrective" attention given to the Eastern
traditions that teach it. Which will be kabashed, wherever they diverge from
traditional church teachings. The parts where they do not diverge will be
half-heartedly praised.
<|:)
I forgot that part.
I am really looking forward to this papal letter now. <wanna see how close I
got....>
VeganVenus
In article <6kt13f$1...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>, eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward
Thorne) writes:
>
>YOu know, I have often thought that the worst kind of anti-Catholic is
>often an ex-Catholic, like Vinny here, and Laura.
>
>
Of course we're the most 'dangerous'. We're informed. All you people who have
been whining about lack of knowledge and understanding are the very same that
have been controlling my education for 17 years.
Laura Keuling
aphrodite@.pointblank.com
www.geocities.com/~cosette
GeoCities Broadway Co-Liason
Community Leader 4000-4999
Chat Monitor Leader
VeganVenus
In article <357512...@erols.com>, Vinny C <bla...@erols.com> writes:
<snip>
>> that
>> >behind all the veils and masks and stories, there is an Originator, a
>> Deity, a
>> >God/dess.
>>
>> Nope! No goddess!
>
>You better hope not, Ed, or your afterlife may be a bit unpleasant...
Now Vincent! I am ashamed of you -- the goddess isn't vain, greedy and
vengeful. In most goddess traditions there is no 'worship me or burn in hell'
belief. Why would someone that powerful need to be worshipped? Awful
conceited of us, eh?
Brimstone and hellfire are fear tactics, and we don't need to resort to that
<g>
Remember: If the christian god is the right one, and we are judged solely on
who we believe in, then Hitler's in Heaven and Ghandi's in hell . . .
Stephen Patten
VeganVenus <vegan...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806082046...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> In article <6kt13f$1...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward
> Thorne) writes:
>
> >
> >YOu know, I have often thought that the worst kind of anti-Catholic is
> >often an ex-Catholic, like Vinny here, and Laura.
> >
> >
>
> Of course we're the most 'dangerous'. We're informed. All you people
who have
> been whining about lack of knowledge and understanding are the very same
that
> have been controlling my education for 17 years.
'Dangerous', in what way are you dangerous, except to yourself?
SP
RobinOak
oh gosh, I shouldn't *do* this... <but I can't resist>
*Joke* time....
Venus wrote:
>Remember: If the christian god is the right one, and we are judged solely on
>who we believe in, then Hitler's in Heaven and Ghandi's in hell . . .
<I just can't help myself. May the Lady forgive me!! grin...>
So here's the deal....
------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton and the Pope both die. However, the recording angel that day got
a bit *confused*, and switched their paperwork. So for a couple of days,
Clinton winds up in heaven, and the poor Pope, in hell. Then the angel
realizes his mistake <dang male secretaries!>, and arranges for the switch....
Billy Boy and the Pope pass each other on the celestial stairwell....
BC: "Sorry about the mixup."
Pope: "No problem, it's been straightened out.... So... how... *was* it?"
BC: "It was GREAT! I met Buddha and Jesus and Ghandi and all sorts of famous
holy people. You'll like it up there, really...."
Pope: "Oh, thanks be to God! Ah.... that's wonderful news, that heaven is so
much fun. And I just can't *wait* to meet the Virgin Mary..."
BC: "Um, you're a couple days too *late*...."
-----------------------------
<ducking and running real quick from the rotten tomatoes being thrown....>
<gg>
Hanz
VeganVenus wrote in message
<199806082046...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
[snip]
>Remember: If the christian god is the right one, and we are judged solely
on
>who we believe in, then Hitler's in Heaven and Ghandi's in hell . . .
Duh.. Satan believes in God... and look where he ended up! Perhaps somehow
there has to be more criteria involved?
RobinOak
Shez wrote in message <5wQ58TC1...@oldcity.demon.co.uk>...
[]
we are not the others we are not the enemy. we are just people,
[]
Shez takes on Paddy.
Soon to be followed by, "Paddy takes on Shez." And so on.
Now this I will stick around to *see*... <oh grinning, all over my face...>
Who needs television when you have Usenet! <|:)
RobinOak
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6li8oo$4...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <6lfgrs$kpc$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>>
>>Edward Thorne wrote in message
>
>[snip]
>
>>Ed, ever since you were disabused of the notion that I am still
>Catholic,
>>you've been sending me veiled and not so veiled 'threats' of hellfire
>and
>>damnation. Let me ask you something...
>>
>>What kind of a god would *threaten* "his" children with eternal
>damnation
>>because they are on one path to "his" feet as opposed to another?
>
>No, God doesn't threaten anyone. That is a false notion propagated by
>those to whom the idea of eternal reward and eternal punishment is
>repugnant. Such ideas make them feel uncofortable, or guilty --if you
>will --and so, since they have no intention of reforming their lives,
>they lash our against it.
The idea that, if I... say... masturbate, use birth control, skip Mass on
holydays of obligation, call on a goddess, believe in a 'more than one life
model', <et cetera>.... IOW, 'not following God's commandments', that "he"
[SIC] will send me to a 'place' of everlasting torment .... that isn't....
*weird*? And sadistic?
>
>God respects our freedom, he does not force anyone to love him. Those
>that want no part of God will, when they enter eternity, have no part
>of God. And, that is what we call hell.
He sure *does* force people to 'love' him if the only other option is this
'hell' thing.
Think about that... is that a *choice*, really?
>Apart from God, there is no love, no unity, no 'togetherness', no
>affection: only a deep sense of loss, the eternal feeling that one is
>on the outside looking in, and knowing that this condition is the
>sinner's own choice.
<this is starting to sound exactly like the sermons I heard when I was a
kid... and it's not a particularly uplifting memory....>
>But, God continues to hold out his hand, to sinners and the just alike,
>believers and non-believes, saying, all you have to do is to love me
>and keep my commandments.
<see above> <is there a *macro* somewhere in the archives of the Vatican??>
>Those who accept God's hand, seek forgiveness for their sins, and keep
>his commandments, will die in the Lord. They sought him in this life,
>and they will have good fellowship with him in the next.
" "
>They will abide in love, life, joy, good company, they will understand
>completely God's mercy and justice, all mysteries will be solved,
>everyone will be happy. It is no wonder that the companionship in
>heaven has been likened to that of a banquet.
Sigh.
>Just think, when families get together for a feast, like Thanksgiving,
>family members have been separated for a while. But, at the dinner,
>everyone is enjoying good cheer and each other's good company. When
>one comes from such a gathering, one can say, "I had a good time
>there." Well, that is what heaven is like --only that feeling of
>having had a good time will last forever --it will never go away.
>
>If I say to you, don't step out that window on the 10th floor, Robin,
>you will fall to the ground, be smashed to bits, and die, am I making a
>threat, or just advising you that that is a dangerous and fatal thing
>to do?
<rolling eyes>
>Well, it is the same with the hereafter; when I say that ir a person
>does such and such, he is breaking his unity with God, and runs the
>runs the risk of being separated from God forever if he shouldenter
>enternity before being reconciled, is that a threat, or is it just
>good advice?
I'm having a bit of trouble getting into this conversation, actually. I feel
sermonized, not engaging in a *dialogue* <which means a *two way*
conversation...>
>>
>>Is that the kind of god you worship, Ed? A 'jealous' god, who'd
>actually
>>create sentient beings and then later, toss them into some kind of
>eternal
>>inferno, just because they didn't have the exactly right religious
>label on
>>their collars when they died? The kind of god who *threatens* people
>into
>>loving and obeying "him"?
>
>Well, see my forgoing remarks above.
I read them.
I really don't have much to say to them, Ed. I've heard it aaaalll before,
and it doesn't really appeal to me, that kind of language. There are veiled
threats in all of it, even in all that talk of 'love' and 'choice'. It's a
macro. A Threat Macro. Leaves me cold, I'm afraid.
And I could see right through that even when I was a kid.
>And, I never said anything about "collars".
Labels, not collars, were the key thing there.
>However, if there are those, who through no fault of their own do not
>know or understand the Catholic church as the one true Church founded
>by Jesus Christ, God will not hold that invincible ignorance against
>them, but judge them by how well they lived according to the natural
>moral law, an instinct for which is planted in the hearts of all men.
Oh GOOD! <eg>
That must mean I'm *exempt*!!
Because I am not a *man*... whoopee, no natural law for meeee!!! <G>
>>
>>What kind of a *choice* is *that*?? It's like saying, "So!
>Right....now,
>>would you rather be shot or hanged?"
>
>...false dichotomy...!
Really? How?
>>
>>What happened to free will?
>
>Oh, we have it in abudance.
Hmm. You're sure about that, then.....
>>
>>You can have 'him', then. He's alllll yours.... but that isn't my
>idea of
>>Deity.
>
>Nor, mine either.
>>
>><PS, it isn't the Roman Catholic church's idea of Deity, either.....>
>
>Well, why then did you leave the church? Is it because _your_ idea of
>a deity isn't compatible with the church's?
I left the church because..... <this would take *volumes* to answer properly>
Because I eventually saw that at the bottom of it was a myth. A myth that
holds mythical, not literal truth. Which means that a lot of things at the top
of that house of theological cards can be tossed. Things like the
patriarchical underpinnings, for instance. And that deadly "Manicheanan
computer virus" that is still infecting the tradition. The anti-flesh,
anti-earth, anti-woman 'computer virus' that has seeped into an otherwise
'flesh-friendly' incarnational theological system.
Once I saw that, all the other things, the way women are treated and
constantly *excluded* and placed firmly under the foot of the patriarchy, the
over-emphasis on virginity and pain and 'sex is dirty' and self-inflicted,
*gratuitous* suffering... <not suffering per se, but *gratuitous*
suffering>... that's when I realized that a healthy spirituality couldn't be
had <for me, that is> within the church. And when I realized that for *me*,
the only *way* to a healthy spirituality, one that leads to wholeness and
closeness to Deity, could only be had outside the church. Or churches, even.
That's the short answer to a perfectly reasonable question.
However, I'm not *pissed* at the church, the way the alt.recovery people are.
Anymore, that is. It's taken a few years to release those feelings, but I
think I've done it by now. Now, it's just a shoe that doesn't fit, not a
bugbear or scapegoat. It's just somebody else's shoe, that's all. Doesn't fit.
Never did fit, really.
>>snipped, the rest of it....
>>
>><PSS, 'hell' or 'Gehenna', was a *Greek Garbage Dump* where they
>burned first
>>century trash. Jesus was very fond of parable and metaphor. The
>gospels are
>>full of them thar things.>
>
>Well, one could say that the idea of hellfire is not necessary for the
>concept of hell, but since Jesus spoke of hellfire so many times, I do
>believe that he meant what he said....in addition to the pain of loss
>that lost souls will experienc, which is what I described above, there
>will be that pain of sense as Jesus suggested in the gospels.
Could he not have been talking about a state of *mind*, not a 'place.'
I'm sorry Ed... your tradition evidently gives you comfort and joy, and I
think that's great. But for me, *any* system that is built with terror and
threats at its very foundation, is .... *beezarrre*. Strange. Unhealthy.
That's what all this stuff about 'hell' is, to me. Bizarre, strange, and very
unhealthy. Not to mention untrue, and based on a VERY literal reading of
"Gehenna." Is it possible that first-century Palestinians understood the
concept of metaphor better than we do? <sheesh, what a thought...sigh....>
When he talked aobut motes and logs in the eye, was he also talking about
styes? <sp> About an *actual tree trunk* in someone's eyeball?
What kind of parent would say to a child, "Either you LOVE ME, or I'll burn
you eternally?"
Ed, think about that.... Youth & Family Services would just take that child
away.
And maybe that's what's happened, with those who have left the traditional
churches. The 'child' was 'taken away from the parent' because of *abuse.*
It's a thought, anyhow.
>>---
>>"My Goddess gave birth to your God. Liberate Jesus from the
>Christians!"
>
>What?Are you trying to make the BVM a goddess?
No, dahlink, it's just a catchy phrase. <possibly it refers to Sophia, not
Mary, anyhow> It's my whimsical cyber-response to whoever your "Lord Stanley,
GO CAPS" is all about. <what *is* that all about, anyhow?>
Shez
In article <199806040229...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Padraic42
<padr...@aol.com> writes
>In article <357458...@erols.com>, Vinny C <bla...@erols.com> writes:
>
>>Padraic42 wrote:
>>> I recall when a hurricane was threatening the East Coast of the US (I
>>forget
>>> which), and it suddenly changed direction and missed the Carolina's and
>>> Virginia coast. (Pretty much hitting Jersey and NY)
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Wheras with Christians, God, by His power and authority changed nature.
>>>
>>> BIG difference.
>>
>>Didn't anyone say that hurricane just changed course, as hurricanes tend
>>to do?
>>
>>Why didn't Pat Robertson's tribe just pray that the hurricane stop?
>>
>>I can't stand that guy.
>
>I don't like him either, I think he's a closet anti-catholic, but since he
>needs us.....
>
> But I digress. The point wasn't who prayed and for what. The point was that
>one prayed to God asking for His help, the other felt they did it without God.
>
>
>Pax Christi, Pat
> "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his
>cross and
> follow me" (Matt. 16:24)
>
>
many of the older traditions, beleive that we all have a spark of deity,
that everything, every planet ,every star, tree, flower, animal man,
woman, is imbude with that spark.
I am pagan and i can not conceive of ever being anything else, though I
have studied most religions including christianity, and found truths in
all of them,
I am no different than you, I hurt, laugh, cry, grieve, worry about the
bills, and the children, and the world
I know when I have done something I am not proud of, and I regret it,
but I also take responsibilty for my mistakes, personal responsibilty
is at the heart of paganism. and every true pagan.
if I can not put the wrong right, I will learn a lesson from it,
I dont condem someone because they are unlike me, everyone is human, I
dont consider it my buisness, if someone is gay,
I dont consider breaking the law, murder, abuse, violence, ect any
differently than you, such things cause me grief and sorrow.
My ethics are as strong as yours, I just dont beleive, that my ethics
should be yours, or that I have a right to force my ethics, or my
religion or my choices on you or anyone else,
As a pagan I beleive we all walk our own path and have our own
spirituality,
Long ago I saw a christian prayer in a shop, it hung in the window, it
said a great deal about what I am and what I beleive in I bought the
scroll and hung it in my kitchen, I look at it often. and still find it
an inspiration
it is called the Desiderata.
"And whether or not it is clear to you no doubt the universe is
unfolding as is should-therefore be at peace with god, whatever you
conceive him to be "
pagans are just human beings, we have our fundies, just as you do, and
those who claim to be pagan to draw attention to themselves, or to
rebel, we dont need or want that kind of attention.
we are not the others we are not the enemy. we are just people,
please excuse my spelling I have dsylexia.
--
NOTICE: This e-mail address is being spoofed on USENET. Obvious trolls and
needlessly incendiary remarks should be ignored. All authentic
messages from this address will bear this disclaimer, although spoofed messages
may as well.
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Thorne
In <6lfgrs$kpc$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>Edward Thorne wrote in message
[snip]
>Ed, ever since you were disabused of the notion that I am still
Catholic,
>you've been sending me veiled and not so veiled 'threats' of hellfire
and
>damnation. Let me ask you something...
>
>What kind of a god would *threaten* "his" children with eternal
damnation
>because they are on one path to "his" feet as opposed to another?
No, God doesn't threaten anyone. That is a false notion propagated by
those to whom the idea of eternal reward and eternal punishment is
repugnant. Such ideas make them feel uncofortable, or guilty --if you
will --and so, since they have no intention of reforming their lives,
they lash our against it.
God respects our freedom, he does not force anyone to love him. Those
that want no part of God will, when they enter eternity, have no part
of God. And, that is what we call hell.
Apart from God, there is no love, no unity, no 'togetherness', no
affection: only a deep sense of loss, the eternal feeling that one is
on the outside looking in, and knowing that this condition is the
sinner's own choice.
But, God continues to hold out his hand, to sinners and the just alike,
believers and non-believes, saying, all you have to do is to love me
and keep my commandments.
Those who accept God's hand, seek forgiveness for their sins, and keep
his commandments, will die in the Lord. They sought him in this life,
and they will have good fellowship with him in the next.
They will abide in love, life, joy, good company, they will understand
completely God's mercy and justice, all mysteries will be solved,
everyone will be happy. It is no wonder that the companionship in
heaven has been likened to that of a banquet.
Just think, when families get together for a feast, like Thanksgiving,
family members have been separated for a while. But, at the dinner,
everyone is enjoying good cheer and each other's good company. When
one comes from such a gathering, one can say, "I had a good time
there." Well, that is what heaven is like --only that feeling of
having had a good time will last forever --it will never go away.
If I say to you, don't step out that window on the 10th floor, Robin,
you will fall to the ground, be smashed to bits, and die, am I making a
threat, or just advising you that that is a dangerous and fatal thing
to do?
Well, it is the same with the hereafter; when I say that ir a person
does such and such, he is breaking his unity with God, and runs the
runs the risk of being separated from God forever if he shouldenter
enternity before being reconciled, is that a threat, or is it just
good advice?
>
>Is that the kind of god you worship, Ed? A 'jealous' god, who'd
actually
>create sentient beings and then later, toss them into some kind of
eternal
>inferno, just because they didn't have the exactly right religious
label on
>their collars when they died? The kind of god who *threatens* people
into
>loving and obeying "him"?
Well, see my forgoing remarks above.
And, I never said anything about "collars".
However, if there are those, who through no fault of their own do not
know or understand the Catholic church as the one true Church founded
by Jesus Christ, God will not hold that invincible ignorance against
them, but judge them by how well they lived according to the natural
moral law, an instinct for which is planted in the hearts of all men.
>
>What kind of a *choice* is *that*?? It's like saying, "So!
Right....now,
>would you rather be shot or hanged?"
...false dichotomy...!
>
>What happened to free will?
Oh, we have it in abudance.
>
>You can have 'him', then. He's alllll yours.... but that isn't my
idea of
>Deity.
Nor, mine either.
>
><PS, it isn't the Roman Catholic church's idea of Deity, either.....>
Well, why then did you leave the church? Is it because _your_ idea of
a deity isn't compatible with the church's?
>
>snipped, the rest of it....
>
><PSS, 'hell' or 'Gehenna', was a *Greek Garbage Dump* where they
burned first
>century trash. Jesus was very fond of parable and metaphor. The
gospels are
>full of them thar things.>
Well, one could say that the idea of hellfire is not necessary for the
concept of hell, but since Jesus spoke of hellfire so many times, I do
believe that he meant what he said....in addition to the pain of loss
that lost souls will experienc, which is what I described above, there
will be that pain of sense as Jesus suggested in the gospels.
>
>---
>"My Goddess gave birth to your God. Liberate Jesus from the
Christians!"
What?Are you trying to make the BVM a goddess?
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, ...and in one Lord, Jesus
Edward Thorne
In <6lfrbb$rjn$1...@nw003t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>Edward Thorne wrote in message <6lffe5$j...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>...
This thread has gotten so long I will have to prune it.
Robin's is a pretty calm response, but, as usual, off the mark.
I will respond only to the most salient errors.
>
[SNIP]
>
><.... but Ed, Mary 'conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.... A
Girl(tm)
>....>
>
>Now figure *that* one out! <BG>
Yes, Mary is the girl, the Holy Spirit is ...well, the Holy Spirit.
>
[snip]
>
>>>
>>>And, there's more than an smidgeon of undue constraint.
>>
>>Well, I was disappointed because I thought that you had misled me as
to
>>what you were.
>
>Edward.
>
>I have *never, EVER* said I was anything other than what I am. We had
a
>bazillion witch threads in here not *that* long ago, and Pat never
misses an
>opportunity to mention Wicca and sideswipe me on neopaganism, etc.
Okay, I missed all that, because I don't care to discuss so-called
'wiccan', as I consider it an ersatz movement, based on nothing more
than rebellion and sentiment.
[snip]
>
>You know, we can argue till we're blue in the face over which
religious tribe
>was/is the bloodiest. How about we leave it at this: *People kill
people*.
>They shouldn't do this. It's a baaaad thing.
Yeah, but now you are changing your tune.
>
>The Nazis were into some weird stuff, some of which was occultism,
some of
>which was Teutonic myth <"pagan">, and some of which German folklore
and
>*opera*. Ever hear of *Wagner*?? Shall we now claim that *opera* and
>classical music are evil and of the devil, and causes people to
orchestrate
>holocausts?
Wagner was an anti-Semite.
[snip]
>
>The engineers of the Nazi Holocaust were raised in a culture that is
Lutheran
>and Catholic. Period.
Germany had been a thoroughly bureaucratized state, where every order
had to be obeyed.
Such values as war, empire, race, the nation, science, Darwinism, and
race were glorified to the extent that they began to cancel out the
Christian values.
>
>It was not "pagan." The pagans, those who practiced the "Old
Religion" of the
>Goddess and her consort, the 'lord of the forest,' had long before all
but
>disappeared in Europe as a recognizable cultural/religious group,
courtesy of
>some very energetic conversion efforts by the Church, and had been
gonesville
>for centuries. Those cultures have long been 'christianized.'
Well,obviously they weren't _your_ kind of pagans, but they were
paganistic nonetheless, worshiping blood and soil.
[snip]
>
>The Holocaust was the chilling 'logical conclusion' to the "Jewish
Problem"
>that was felt to have existed for centuries, and was the 'logical
conclusion'
>to *Christian* pogroms and persecutions which had also been going on
for
>centuries.
No, German ideology on anti-Semitism has no Christian roots. It is
based on social Darwinism.
>
>On Good Fridays in the not so very distant past, Jews would have to
*hide
>out*, because "Christians" would be out for their blood.
Well, that is just not true. You are repeating 'old wives' tales.
>
>Ed, *human* history is not always a pretty thing. Regardless of the
god<s>
>worshipped. There is no religious path that has the corner on the
blood
>market, or on historical 'purity.' I'm sorry, but that's just the way
it
>*is*. People can really be bastids, sometimes. A lot of the time.
Doesn't
>matter what their religion is.
Well, now you are singing a different tune.
>
>
>>The Nazis were pagans, neo-pagans and tribalists, worshipping the
>>ancient pagan German nation as the ideal to follow and conquer.
>
>They were also Lutherans and Catholics, Ed.
They were P_A_G_A_N_S.
>
>Germany is a Lutheran/Catholic country.
>
>
>>The Nazis were also statists, in that they had imbibed of the
>>philosophy of the supremacy of the nation-state, Marxists, even
though
>>they were not Communists.
>
>The Nazis were *not, not, not* Marxists!!! MOTHER of mercy!!!
>
>Hitler *hated* the Communists!
But, he used a lot of Marxism for his organization and strategy.
>
>
>Or a *pope*.... <sigh, I really didn't want to *go there*, but you
started
>it.....>
>
>
Nope.
>
>>Therefore they abandoned traditional concepts of law, and replaced it
>>with their own, Nazi based system.
>>
>>They believed in unquestioning obedience; in their book, their was no
>>thing as an unjust law, or unjust order.
>
>Um.
>
>They <too> 'believed in **unquestioning obedience**".
>
>Ed, are you reading and thinking about what you are *writing*??????
>
>All this stuff about 'obedience' and 'leaders' and so on, could
*easily* be
>applied to the RCC <and thank you Nicky, no no, I've heard it all
before...
>don't *bother*....>
Nope, not hardly. Boy, you sure have a warped view of how Catholics and
Catholicism.
>
[snip]
>>Like HELL it was! It was highly bureaucratized, militarism was
>>glorified, the church, at least the Protestant part, had long been
>>dominated by the state, the working classes were de-Christianized,
full
>>of anti-Christian propaganda, as I've seen from others in this ng.
>
>You say po-TAY-toe, I say po-TAH-to......
You are showing yourself indifferent to the truth. I recommend that
you read William Shirer's book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
I have read it a dozen times at least since I bought the 1st paperback
edition waay baccckkkk when.
>
>
>>The Christianity was a veneer, and the emotional holdovers were
>>gradually being stripped away, and what you had left was a humanity
>>stripped of all moral feeling, sentiment, thought, concern. Hence,
it
>>was all too ready to perform the atrocities that shocked us so much.
>
>Right, and had the Nazis not tapped into old Teutonic myth, the war
would
>never have happened. Is that what you're trying to say?
Yes, that is what I am saying, exactly. They would not have had the
emotional atmosphere to justify many of their aggressions and
atrocities.
>
>Do you really *believe* that?
Yep, if they were Christians, there probably wouldn'thave been a war,
or it would not have taken the ugly turn that it did.
>
[snip]
>
>People can be scum. They shouldn't be. But, sometimes they are.
>
>Period.
>
>
>>The dominant cultural elite is highly atheistic, is inclined to
statist
>>solutions to social and moral problems, subscribes to an amoral
concept
>>of sexual behavour, and is willing that we give up _our_ freedoms to
>>achieve _their_ ends.
>>
>>All the institutions of society are highly secularized, with
religious
>>thought and values grudgingly given small space if any at all.
>>
>>That is why I think that we are slipping into a kind of social and
>>economic fascism, where the state dominates and controls major
portions
>>of the economy. Hilary's aborted health plan was but one example, of
>>what will be further attempts to fascist-icize the economy.
>
>Hilary's abortive health care plan would have been very much in
keeping with
>the spirit of the Catholic 'justice and peace' agenda.
Well, we do need action on the health care front, but not Hilary's.
By being so domineering, so centralized, it violates one of the basic
principles of Catholic social thought, the principle of subsidiarity.
[snip]
>>Already, we see the rights of free speech and the right of assembly
>>circumscribed when it comes to matters of abortion-death and
pro-life.
>>It seems that all of our rights will have to be sacrificed to the god
>>of abortion.
>
>It is a sad statement on our nation when we wind up with only one
issue that's
>we feel is worth discussing. We ignore the children <and adults> who
are
>already *here*, and spend all our time fretting and fuming and
fighting each
>other over a practice that has gone on for centuries, time out of
mind. Women
>have always had ways of 'casting forth'. There are herbs growing in
the garden
>right now that could do it. I'm not promoting it as a preferred method
of
>birth control; I'm just saying: isn't there *anything else* that's
important
>on the national agenda besides that?
I guess that you think that it is okay to kill much of the next
generation. That is typical of many newagers, kill the babies, but
save the baby whales.
[snip]
>
>>
>>Certainly people died, but not in the numbers we see in the 2oth
cent.
>>The Church tried to curb the feudal appetite for war by restraining
the
>>feudal lords with the Peace of God.
>
>People died in greater numbers in the 20th century because of the
*technology*
>we had by then, Ed! Think about it: if Ghenghis Khan had had nuclear
>weaponry, would he have *used* it, probably? YES!
Yes, he was a pagan.
>
>>>
>>>Have you heard of the Crusades, for instance?
>>
>>Yes, numbers of people died, but at least the Crusaders, initially,
>>were trying to rescue the Holy Land from the intolerant Turks.
>
>Those awful intolerant Turks, who didn't even bother to force people
to
>convert to *their* religion. Tsk tsk.
Well, they did restrict their civil liberties.
[snip]
>>>The persecutions of Jews,
>>
>>Teh church protected, or tried to, the Jews from the mob.
>
>The Church *recently*, yes. The Church in the past?
>
>No *way*....
See, you don't know your history.
A Jewish wrote a letter to a major metropolitan newspaper in which he
listed many of the instructions put out by the popes in the middle ages
protecting the Jews.
[snip]
>
>We have the *power* to heal in a greater capacity than ever before,
thanks to
>modern medicine and technology, but we also have the *power* to kill
and maim
>more than ever before, again, 'thanks' to technology.
Yes, thanks, too, to the effects of original sin, and man yielding to
the temptations that come from the world, the flesh, and the devil.
[I ownder how long this post is now.]
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, ...and in one Lord, Jesus
Edward Thorne
In <6lh6k8$u7t$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
It is too bad that you don't believe them.
That reminds me of the monk in the Canterbury Tales. He was the one
who gave such a eloquent sermon, but didn't believe a word of it
himself.
Edward Thorne
In <199806082046...@ladder01.news.aol.com> vegan...@aol.com
(VeganVenus) writes:
>
>In article <6kt13f$1...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward
>Thorne) writes:
>
>>
>>YOu know, I have often thought that the worst kind of anti-Catholic
is
>>often an ex-Catholic, like Vinny here, and Laura.
>>
>>
>
>Of course we're the most 'dangerous'. We're informed. All you people
who have
>been whining about lack of knowledge and understanding are the very
same that
>have been controlling my education for 17 years.
...after 17 years you left the church? Why that's a master's degree!
Are you an ex-nun?
"Sacrifice or oblation you wish not, but ears open to obedience you
gave me"
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, ...and in one Lord, Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, ...and in the Holy Spirit, the
Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son ..."
YEAH, CAPS.
LORD STANLEY, HERE WE COME!
WE ARE GOING TO SCREW THE LUG NUTS FROM THEIR WHEELS, PLUCK THE
FEATHERS OUT OF THEIR WINGS, AND PUT THEIR LITTLE RED WAGON UP ON
CINDER BLOCKS!
GO CAPS!
--Ed
>
>
>
>
Edward Thorne
In <199806082046...@ladder03.news.aol.com> vegan...@aol.com
(VeganVenus) writes:
>
>In article <357512...@erols.com>, Vinny C <bla...@erols.com>
writes:
>
><snip>
>
>>> that
>>> >behind all the veils and masks and stories, there is an
Originator, a
>>> Deity, a
>>> >God/dess.
>>>
>>> Nope! No goddess!
>>
>>You better hope not, Ed, or your afterlife may be a bit unpleasant...
>
>Now Vincent! I am ashamed of you -- the goddess isn't vain, greedy
and
>vengeful. In most goddess traditions there is no 'worship me or burn
in hell'
>belief. Why would someone that powerful need to be worshipped? Awful
>conceited of us, eh?
>
>Brimstone and hellfire are fear tactics, and we don't need to resort
to that
><g>
>
solely on
>who we believe in, then Hitler's in Heaven and Ghandi's in hell . . .
Laura, after 17 years of Catholic education, you have to know that that
is not true.
Come, on show us that you got some value for your money.
Edward Thorne
In <6lhpsg$7gt$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>oh gosh, I shouldn't *do* this... <but I can't resist>
>
>*Joke* time....
>
>Venus wrote:
solely on
>>who we believe in, then Hitler's in Heaven and Ghandi's in hell . . .
>
>
As Jesus said, in heaven they are neither married nor given in
marriage, which means ....NO SEX!
Of course, that is an awful commentary on our president. That man has
truly lowered the office of the presidency, and his conduct does affect
his job.
He is so busy trying to figure out where he is going to get his [*]
from, that he overlooked a little thing like India's atom bomb test.
The man is a travesty, a joke, an empty suit. I can't wait for 2001!
Vinny C
Edward Thorne wrote:
> >Of course we're the most 'dangerous'. We're informed. All you people
> who have
> >been whining about lack of knowledge and understanding are the very
> same that
> >have been controlling my education for 17 years.
>
> ...after 17 years you left the church? Why that's a master's degree!
1)Pre-K
2)Kindergarten
3)Gr.1
4)Gr.2
5)Gr.3
6)Gr.4
7)Gr.5
8)Gr.6
9)Gr.8
10) High School (H.S.) 1
11) H.S. 2
12) H.S. 3
13) H.S. 4
14) College (Col.) 1
15) Col. 2
16) Col. 3
17) Col. 4
Thus, 17 years of catholic education.
VC
Vinny C
Stephen Patten wrote:
>
> VeganVenus <vegan...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <199806082046...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward
> > Thorne) writes:
> >
> > >
> > >YOu know, I have often thought that the worst kind of anti-Catholic is
> > >often an ex-Catholic, like Vinny here, and Laura.
> > >
> > >
> >
> who have
> > been whining about lack of knowledge and understanding are the very same
> that
> > have been controlling my education for 17 years.
>
I can't speak for Laura, but personally, I'm probably considered
"dangerous" because when I find out that someone I know is Catholic, I
begin to ask them questions that make them think. Questions like "do you
really believe that there is a hell", and "do you really believe that the
pope is infallible" and "do yo really believe in transubstanciation
(sp?)", and most importantly, "are you here becase you believe, or are
you here because other people expect you to be here?" And the vast
majority of the time, they come to see, or admit, that they either don't
believe or aren't Catholic of their own "free" will.
In some ways, I'm actally doing the Church a service.
Realistically, though, I really just finish the job. Most Catholics I
know think the church's stand on contraception is foolish. I just bring
to their attention other church beliefs, and they find out how much they
really disagree with.
VC
Vinny C
Edward Thorne wrote:
> Laura, after 17 years of Catholic education, you have to know that that
> is not true.
>
> Come, on show us that you got some value for your money.
She obviously did, Ed. She learned enough to leave.
VC
Vinny C
Edward Thorne wrote:
> Well, we need a little corrective here.
>
> As Jesus said, in heaven they are neither married nor given in
> marriage, which means ....NO SEX!
What kind of heaven is that?!? Next you'll tell me there's no chocolate
in heaven! <g>
"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, the sinners
are much more fun..." (Billy Joel)
> Of course, that is an awful commentary on our president. That man has
> truly lowered the office of the presidency, and his conduct does affect
> his job.
>
> He is so busy trying to figure out where he is going to get his [*]
> from, that he overlooked a little thing like India's atom bomb test.
No, that's not the president, that's the american media, who like cheap
headlines at the expense of real news.
And what would you like him to do about the test, Ed?
Knowing you, you'd say nuke them, just like in Japan. No defense like a
good offense, eh?
> The man is a travesty, a joke, an empty suit. I can't wait for 2001!
Neither can I. Actually, I'm really looking forward to election night
2004, when all you'll hear is the chant of "Four more for Gore!!! Four
more for Gore!!!"
Not my top choice, but Nader won't run forever.
VC
raven...@webtv.net
In article <199806081446...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>
> In article <6laemm$m...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
> eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) writes:
>
> >
> >In <6l9lqa$9i$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
> ><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
> >>
> >[snip]
> >
> >>Which of the following things bothers you more...
> >>
> >>1. the very *idea* of a feminine side of the Divine;
> >
> >Of course, their is a feminine side to God, but his
> >son taught us to call him "Father" or "Daddy", and so > >we do.
> >
> >To call God a he-she is blasphemous.
Not believing in a personal god, at the very most I would have to use the
word "it".
>
> What is interesting is that we all have 'feminine'
> or 'masculine' aspects of our nature. I'm a
> househusband. Because I can generally 'nurture' my
> children better than my wife,
Oh, REAL nice complement for the mother of your children, Pat!
> does that make a me a she and my wife a he?
>
>
No. But it sure helps me get a better picture of you. I think you're a
religious fanatic closet case.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
RobinOak
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6lie62$k...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
[]
>>BC: "Um, you're a couple days too *late*...."
>>
>>-----------------------------
>><ducking and running real quick from the rotten tomatoes being
>thrown....>
>><gg>
>>
>Well, we need a little corrective here.
>
>As Jesus said, in heaven they are neither married nor given in
>marriage, which means ....NO SEX!
(It's not really any kind of slur on the BVM... it's just a little dig at
Clinton, idea being: he might not respect the most famous virgin of all
time... that kind of thing> <c'mon, admit it: you chuckled...> <g>
>Of course, that is an awful commentary on our president. That man has
>truly lowered the office of the presidency, and his conduct does affect
>his job.
There were probably other presidents who did similiar things, but the press at
the time protected them.... who knows.
RobinOak
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6lidfu$n...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
[]
>it would be fun to see just how close I got to what it will actually say.
>>
>>
>>
>That is an interesting post. You seem to have all the right answers.
>It is too bad that you don't believe them.
Ed, you are assuming left, right, front and back about what I believe or don't
believe.
How do *you* know how much of that is what I hold to, and how much of it I
don't?
janet
In article <6libqj$7...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Edward Thorne
<eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>>The Nazis were pagans, neo-pagans and tribalists, worshipping the
>>>ancient pagan German nation as the ideal to follow and conquer.
>>
>>They were also Lutherans and Catholics, Ed.
>
>They were P_A_G_A_N_S.
>>
Ok, calm down, people, this is ANOTHER semantic problem.
Ed, I think you are using pagan as, "nonchristian", "not believing in
the gospel/torah/koran values" or something akin to that, yes?
RobinOak, on the other hand, is talking about a specific, positive
religious choice: that's a different thing.
If I understand what Ed is saying, (I'm sorry if I've got it wrong, I am
trying to HELP here!) ;), paganism would be a default option, for those
who do not actively choose a religious life, in a recognised group, yes?
For RobinOak, (and Shez, hi!!) (and Raven, if you are still with us),
as I understand it, it is much different than that. It is a specific
choice... and that's probably about where agreement ends!
--
janet
Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure;
I am sure, however, that 'en famille', they play Mozart
Karl Barth
janet
In article <6li9ms$1nn$1...@nw001t.infi.net>, RobinOak
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> said unto us:
>
>
>
>Shez takes on Paddy.
>
>Soon to be followed by, "Paddy takes on Shez." And so on.
>
>Now this I will stick around to *see*... <oh grinning, all over my face...>
>
>Who needs television when you have Usenet! <|:)
>
>
>
Hello, Shez! ;)
Pat, meet Shez; Shez, meet Pat. You two have more in common than you
might think!!! (Value placed on family and kids, for a start...).
You are both nice, kind people....
Oh, well, let's hope that works!! Welcome, anyway! ;)
RobinOak
Padraic42 wrote in message
<199806052236...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>In article <6l7jcl$oqn$1...@nw003t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>>That depends on your view of God, and how S/he acts in the world. Maybe the
>>spellcasters felt they were doing it *with* God's help too. You're assuming
>>that they felt God wasn't part of the equation. <and you know what Sister
>>Said: "When you assume, you make an "Ass" out of "U" and "Me"....>
>><ass+u+me>...
>>
>I don't 'assume' anything.
You assume a lot, Pat.
> But I guess you 'assume' God is a she/he?
Nope, I base it on personal experience.
Some people "see" God as Mother, Padraic.
> One
>doesn't ask God for assistance by 'magic' spells.
Then you'd better start 'correcting' all those St Jude novena-sayers and St
Joseph statue buriers!!! <Well??! True or not true??? LOL....>
> As I recall Wiccan's hold
>that they can 'create' their own reality,
Paddy, we do 'create our own reality'. All the *time.* All of us do.
For instance: something really bad happens. Event X. I didn't create the
event, I didn't *want* the event to happen, but PLOP! it just fell into my
lap. Now.
I still have a choice in how I will *respond* to Event X.
That is called 'creating your own reality'.
> and make changes based on 'their'
>power, not a god or goddess.
You're really hung up on Wiccans. Do you realize how often you bring them up?
Pat, we've gone over this old ground again and again. You say "human beings
have no 'power' whatsoever," and I say, we certainly *do*, but we have *got*
to learn how to use it **properly**. PROPERLY. *Not* the 'Temple of Set'
and the "Left-Hand Path", but the Right-Hand Path, where the human free will
is *aligned* with the divine will. Not more nuclear power stations and more
weapons, but more attention to healing in all its forms, more attention to
feeding the hungry and taking much better care of the Earth and *all* the
creatures who inhabit it. (SAVE THE BATTERY HENS!!)
I've given you umpteen examples of human power: planes, computers, nuclear
weapons, medicine, and the power of the human mind when focussing its
*thought* on an outcome. People have prayed plants *alive*, did you know
that? People have also prayed other *people* back to health, and have prayed
themselves back to health. If that sort of thing *never* worked, there'd be no
Christian Scientists left alive to tell the tale. It doesn't *always* work....
.... but only because we don't have enough *faith*...... and therefore, enough
'power.'
"Peter, you can walk on water, but don't *ever* 'look down'...."
>>Does God ever work *through* the agency of other human beings?
>
> Sure He has, and does. But not in the manner used by Wiccans and other
>neo-pagans of the New Age.
Pat, somebody <not in here> said something to me recently that sparked An
Idea.
The comment that was made went like this: "If Jesus came back to Earth today,
he'd probably avoid a lot of the traditional churches, and end up drinking
wine and dancing and drumming in the woods, barefoot in a robe, <or, not> at a
Wiccan gathering." <bg> <um, a *Christian* said that to me, btw....>
So my whimisical idea was this: how would Jesus have taught people if *he'd*
been a Wiccan instead of a Jew?
"Your Heavenly Mother loves you... She gave birth to you in great pain and
expense to Herself...but no cost is too great, for no greater love is there
....Love one another as yourselves, bless those who persecute you, for you are
all part of the Mother's Web....what affects one, affects the All..... Give
thanks each day to the Lady and the Lord of life... consider the lilies of the
field, hey, lookit, *they* go 'skyclad' *too*.... Beware of the leaven of the
Calvinists, because they're a little off their rockers..... Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you, because you are all threads in the tapestry
of Sacred Grandmother Weaver...."
<grin>
<and the mind simply *boggles* at the thought of what he might do with the
Great Rite....> <G>
("What the Goddess has joined together, let no man or woman set asunder..."
??)
<well, you nevah *know*....> <oh *grin*!!!>
> " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown
it
>to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature,
>namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things
>that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew
>God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became
futile
>in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be
>wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for
>images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles..... they
>exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature
>rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen." (Rom. 1:19-22; 25)
>
> How crystals do you have Robin? Pyramids? Whatever?
Crystals... hmm. I think I have just one. It was a gift, and it's sitting on
my computer desk as we speak <well, type>. What's a pyramid, btw? Don't have
one.
If images 'resembling mortal man' aren't to be worshipped, Pat, then how come
you worship Jesus of Nazareth? <ooops, whatta can of theological
incarnational worms is that....>
Pat, here's a thought for you...
Tomorrow night is the full moon. And all over the world, whether you're
Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, Buddhist or what *ever*, that moon is *still*
going to go full. You can't stop it! Not even the Pope and all his
encyclicals can stop it from going full. :)
Why *does* the moon go full once a month, Pat? Why does it wax and wane and
then die, and then 'rise again'? Do you have an answer to this question that
isn't a simple secular materialist scientific one, but rather, a spiritual
answer or theory?
Regardless of who you are or what you believe in, that moon is going to go
full tomorrow night, and the summer and winter solistice will also roll around
again.
*Nobody* can stop these things. You can choose to ignore them, but you can't
stop 'em. <smile>
VeganVenus
In article <6lidpk$n...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward
Thorne) writes:
>>Remember: If the christian god is the right one, and we are judged
>solely on
>>who we believe in, then Hitler's in Heaven and Ghandi's in hell . . .
>
>Laura, after 17 years of Catholic education, you have to know that that
>is not true.
>
Well it taught me that we aren't judged solely on who we believe in. That's
why I put the if.
Maybe you should invest some time in learning to read carefully instead of
knocking others' education.
VeganVenus
In article <6libqj$7...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward
Thorne) writes:
>
>Okay, I missed all that, because I don't care to discuss so-called
>'wiccan', as I consider it an ersatz movement, based on nothing more
>than rebellion and sentiment.
>
Rebellion from what? It is based on religions far older then christianity.
And since when has sentiment been a negative aspect of religion?
Shez
In article <ZWJ4RCAb...@allestree.demon.co.uk>, janet <janet@take.t
his.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <6li9ms$1nn$1...@nw001t.infi.net>, RobinOak
><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> said unto us:
>>Shez wrote in message <5wQ58TC1...@oldcity.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>[]
>>
>>we are not the others we are not the enemy. we are just people,
>>
>>[]
>>
>>
>>Shez takes on Paddy.
>>
>>Soon to be followed by, "Paddy takes on Shez." And so on.
>>
>>Now this I will stick around to *see*... <oh grinning, all over my face...>
>>
>>Who needs television when you have Usenet! <|:)
>>
>>
>>
>Anyone taking bets on the side??? ;)
>
>Hello, Shez! ;)
>
>Pat, meet Shez; Shez, meet Pat. You two have more in common than you
>might think!!! (Value placed on family and kids, for a start...).
>
>You are both nice, kind people....
>
>Oh, well, let's hope that works!! Welcome, anyway! ;)
thank you for the formal introduction.
Pleased to meet you pat.
Padraic42
In article <6lk6na$1hr$1...@nw003t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>Padraic42 wrote in message
><199806052236...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
>>In article <6l7jcl$oqn$1...@nw003t.infi.net>, "RobinOak"
>><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>>
>>>That depends on your view of God, and how S/he acts in the world. Maybe the
>>>spellcasters felt they were doing it *with* God's help too. You're assuming
>>>that they felt God wasn't part of the equation. <and you know what Sister
>>>Said: "When you assume, you make an "Ass" out of "U" and "Me"....>
>>><ass+u+me>...
>>>
>>I don't 'assume' anything.
>
>You assume a lot, Pat.
>
hardly Robin. Considering the stakes, I don't 'assume' anything when it
comes to God, and will not make God bend to 'my' desires.
>> But I guess you 'assume' God is a she/he?
>
>Nope, I base it on personal experience.
>
She/he told you?
>Some people "see" God as Mother, Padraic.
>
Then some people are wrong.
>> One
>>doesn't ask God for assistance by 'magic' spells.
>
>Then you'd better start 'correcting' all those St Jude novena-sayers and St
>Joseph statue buriers!!! <Well??! True or not true??? LOL....>
>
True, you may recall that I never advocated those things, and always said
there was someting wrong if a saint answers prayer only if you publish it for 9
days or such thing. But just as those errors have crept into the Church and
been accepted by those desperate and misled, so to New Age heresies have crept
in as 'enlightened' ways and adopted by desperate and misled people. (Kinda
like a spiritual "Emperor's New Clothes")
>
>> As I recall Wiccan's hold
>>that they can 'create' their own reality,
>
>Paddy, we do 'create our own reality'. All the *time.* All of us do.
>
Do we now? Last I heard, God created ALL reality. It isn't that "I think
therefore I am" but rather, "God 'thinks' therefore I am."
>For instance: something really bad happens. Event X. I didn't create the
>event, I didn't *want* the event to happen, but PLOP! it just fell into my
>lap. Now.
>
Then you failed at creating your own reality didn't you, sinc eyou didn't
'create' Event X. However, by certain actions on your part, you may have
triggered certain consequences. But that isn't 'creating one's own relaity'
now is it?
>I still have a choice in how I will *respond* to Event X.
>
Yes, you can accept the consquences of your action or reject them. If you
spill milk, or it just falls out from not being set in the fridge well, you can
'ignore' it, but the spilt milk remains.
>That is called 'creating your own reality'.
No, what you cited was not 'creating your own reality', it's called
rationalization and in some circles, psycho-babble.
Padraic42
In article <YmQ4NEA8...@allestree.demon.co.uk>, janet
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <6libqj$7...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Edward Thorne
><eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>>>The Nazis were pagans, neo-pagans and tribalists, worshipping the
>>>>ancient pagan German nation as the ideal to follow and conquer.
>>>
>>>They were also Lutherans and Catholics, Ed.
>>
>>They were P_A_G_A_N_S.
>>>
>
>
>Ok, calm down, people, this is ANOTHER semantic problem.
>
>Ed, I think you are using pagan as, "nonchristian", "not believing in
>the gospel/torah/koran values" or something akin to that, yes?
>
Is there another? Pagan is pagan Janet, no sugar coating it.
Now. Whereas the German people on the whole were Lutherans, Catholics, etc.
the Nazi's follwed pagan rituals. Their night torch light ceremonies, wedding
ceremonies, winter and summer solstice, are right out of Germanic pagan ritual.
The 'martyrs' of the Munich Putsch were 'deified'. It was out and out,
pagan.
>RobinOak, on the other hand, is talking about a specific, positive
>religious choice: that's a different thing.
>
Kinda like shopping for a new dress to make one feel better? Sorry Janet,
Robin may 'think' she's done that, but it's far from the truth. All she's
essentially done is make a god/dess in her own image.
Besides, please show me, in Scripture and authentic Church teaching (no
Curran, Kung, McBrien, or Brown please.) where God says, "I am the Lord your
God, if you don't lik eme we have others to choose from."?
>If I understand what Ed is saying, (I'm sorry if I've got it wrong, I am
>trying to HELP here!) ;), paganism would be a default option, for those
>who do not actively choose a religious life, in a recognised group, yes?
>
No. Paganism is merely a search (today) for a religion suited to ones wants
and desires. Robin wrote that all gods were nothing more than cultural,
historical creations of mankind. If that is the case, then paganism (today) is
nothing more than their 'making' a god/dess for themselves. Their own 'golden
calf'.
Once, the ancient Celts, Germans, Briton's, etc. could be excused for not
knowing God. But today, the emphasis is on 'making' a more 'user friendly'
god/dess.
>For RobinOak, (and Shez, hi!!) (and Raven, if you are still with us),
No, Raven is having too much fun slandering me and making innuendo's.
>as I understand it, it is much different than that. It is a specific
>choice... and that's probably about where agreement ends!
Precisely. God 'chose' us to be Catholics, Luthrans, etc. Robin, et al,
have said "No! I prefer Isis, Odin, Earth goddess, etc. (or whch ever
'god/dess' suits their desires in the 'god/dess' super market.)
They chose themsleves over God, in essense.
Padraic42
Though I'm sure most new Ager's are 'nice' people over all, the movement is
not.
THE AGE-OLD NEW AGE MOVEMENT
by Harold J. Berry
The New Age Movement is "the most dangerous enemy of Christianity
in the world today,...more dangerous than secular humanism." This is the
knowledgeable opinion of Norman L. Geisler, professor of Systematic
Theology at Dallas (Tex.) Theological Seminary.
Many people have never heard of the New Age Movement. Its
philosophy, however, has been around for a long time, and specific
groups are now aligning with it. In his 1978 book, New Age Politics,
Mark Satin cited resources of "250 New Age Books/20 Interesting Books by
Some Early American Advocates of 'New Age Politics'/50 New Age
Periodicals/100 New Age Groups." In the years since, the publications
and groups seem to have exploded on the scene. Various names are
associated with the movement, such as Alice Bailey, Benjamin Creme,
David Spangler, Levi Dowling, George Trevelyan, Fritjof Capra, Abraham
Maslow, Marilyn Ferguson, Shirley MacLaine and George Lucas.
Various symbols are used by the New Agers. In Smugglers From the
East, Don Morris -- co-pastor of First Federated Church in Des Moines,
Iowa -- recites some of the most frequently used signs: "Rainbow,
pyramid, triangle, eye in triangle, unicorn , yin-yang (two black and
white comma shapes nestled together in a circle), goat head on
pentagram, and even 666 worked into art."
Morris is quick to caution -- as are most observers -- that a
person must not make the mistake, however, of assuming that the
appearance of one of these symbols necessarily means that the person
associated with it is part of the New Age Movement .
The New Age mind-set has touched almost every area of life:
education, culture, history, religion, politics, psychology, science and
health.
The Movement has no central headquarters; therefore, no leadership
or membership lists are available. So we have no clear statistics that
tell us how many people are followers. Some have sought to determine the
number of adherents by other means , such as by finding out how many
people hold to one or more of the major beliefs of the New Age.
Marilyn Ferguson, author of The Aquarian Conspiracy, cites "a
Gallup poll released in February, 1978, [which] reported that ten
million Americans were engaged in some aspect of Eastern religion." New
Age has much in common with Eastern religions , so the number of
followers of one is likely an accurate measure of the number of
followers of the other. But from all the evidence, that number has taken
a quantum leap in the years since that poll.
Robert J. L. Burrows, editor of publications for Spiritual
Counterfeits Project (Berkley, Calif.), says, "The Christian film Gods
of the New Age, arrived at a figure of 60 million [aligned with the New
Age Movement] by using a similar poll that suggested 23 percent of
Americans believe in reincarnation."
Television networks in America seek to be as up-to-date as possible
on the interest of their viewers. They know about the population's
fascination with New Age views. Shirley MacLaine, actress, author and
promoter of New Age beliefs, wrote concerning the interest in making a
film of her book, Out on a Limb: "They (ABC-TV) spoke of metaphysical
searching being popular now and extraterrestrials and UFOs as something
the public was genuinely interested in." The network was correct in its
assessment, and the miniseries Out on a Limb (aired Jan. 1987) greatly
aided in further popularizing the beliefs of the New Age.
But what really laid the groundwork for this Movement -- a movement
that emphasizes the mental and spiritual dimensions of mankind and a
movement whose beliefs are contrary to biblical Christianity?
BACKGROUND
Although the words "New Age" could cause one to assume that these
beliefs are new, little is new in the New Age Movement. The words "New
Age" are derived from the idea that the world is about to enter a
utopian age of Aquarius. Astrology -- the belief that the heavenly
bodies affect the mundane matters of humanity -- gets a lot of attention
from the New Agers. It is from astrology that the "age of Aquarius" is
derived.
So the name "Aquarius" has become closely associated with the New
Age Movement. In The Aquarian Conspiracy, Marilyn Ferguson tells the
story of the New Age Movement. She explains her choice of words in the
title. At first she thought "conspiracy " was too strong a word. But
then she said she realized that "conspire, in its literal sense, means
'to breathe together.' It is an intimate joining. To make clear the
benevolent nature of this joining, I chose the word Aquarian. Although I
am unacquainted with astrological lore, I was drawn to the symbolic
power of the pervasive dream in our popular culture: that after a dark,
violent age, the Piscean, we are entering a millennium of love and light
-- in the words of the popular song, 'The Age of Aquarius,' the time of
'mind's true liberation.'"
The New Age Movement seems to be a reaction to the scientific age.
During a time when everything has become so objective and
particularized, the shift now is to emphasize the subjective and the
whole. This shift has focused attention on the "inner" feelings and on
wholistic (or holistic) health, as well as on global matters rather than
nationalistic ones.
In the past, the public educational system of the United States --
from kindergarten through graduate level -- has been based on an
atheistic presupposition. That is, everything must be explainable apart
from a supernatural God. Even though some fine Christian teachers have
counterbalanced this presupposition somewhat, nevertheless, the system
itself has made no room for God.
This educational system has produced scientists who have taken the
same worldview. Again, although some scientists have been outstanding
Christians, the norm has been to explain everything in the experimental
lab totally apart from God.
A country can rule God out of the classroom and the science lab,
but it cannot rule Him out of the hearts of people. "[God] has ... set
eternity in their heart," the Bible declares (Eccles. 3:11, NASB).
Consequently, there is a spiritual vacuum within the heart of man that
only God can fill. When people reject the true God, they begin to
worship other objects. Secular humanism turned to man himself, seeing
man as only a highly evolved animal with no spiritual capacity. The New
Age Movement is a reaction to this atheistic view, but it is no closer
to the truth than secular humanism is. The New Age Movement has put an
emphasis on the mind (as seen in its mysticism) and on the spirit (as
seen in its worldview of God, matter and mankind).
BELIEFS
Douglas R. Groothuis, research associate with Probe Ministries
(Seattle, Wash.), identifies six distinctives of New Age thinking:
All is One
All is God
Humanity is God
A change in consciousness
All religions are one
Cosmic evolutionary optimism
Norman L. Geisler focuses on 14 doctrines typical of New Age
religions:
1) an impersonal god (force)
2) an eternal universe
3) an illusory nature of matter
4) a cyclical nature of life
5) the necessity of reincarnations
6) the evolution of man into godhood
7) continuing revelations from beings beyond the world
8) the identity of man with God
9) the need for meditation (or other consciousness-changing
techniques)
10) occult practices (astrology, mediums and so forth)
11) vegetarianism and holistic health
12) pacifism (or anti-war activities)
13) one world (global) order
14) syncretism (unity of all religions)
Robert J. L. Burrows cautions: "Issues New Agers address do not
necessarily come with New Age ideology attached. Nor does the
terminology they use. Holistic, holographic, synergistic, unity,
oneness, transformation, personal growth, human potential, awakening,
networking, energy, consciousness -- such words occur with predictable
regularity in New Age writings. It would, however, be erroneous to
conclude that these words always indicate New Age commitment." Although
there are many ways to approach an evaluation of the New Age Movement,
this analysis will pursue what the Movement believes concerning source
of authority, God, Jesus Christ, sin and salvation, good and evil, and
future life (reincarnation).
SOURCE OF AUTHORITY
Generally, New Agers do not speak of a source of authority. If such
is referred to, it is not an external authority but an internal one. In
the New Age Movement, the individual is considered to be the standard of
truth. New Age proponent Shirley MacLaine reveals the supposed power of
the individual when commenting, "It's all my dream. I'm making all of it
happen -- good and bad -- and I have the choice of how I'll relate to it
and what I'll do about it."
MacLaine goes on to say, "Perhaps everyone has his own truth, and
truth as an objective reality simply does not exist."
The Scriptures, on the other hand, present objective truths. They
are inspired (literally, "God-breathed"); therefore, they can be fully
relied on. The fact of the inspiration of the Scriptures is seen in 2
Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."
The method of inspiration is seen in 2 Peter 1:21: "No prophecy was ever
made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke
from God." The extent of inspiration is seen in Matthew 5:18: "For
truly I say to you," said the Lord Jesus Christ, "until heaven and earth
pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the
Law, until all is accomplished." So no individual is left to himself
and his inner feelings as final authority; the Bible serves as this
objective standard.
GOD
New Age thinkers show their true colours in what they believe about
God. To them, God is not a Supreme Being distinct from creation -- He
IS creation. In developing a worldview about the material and
immaterial world, New Agers reach a faulty conclusion. To them there is
only one essence in the universe, and everything and everyone is part of
that essence. This is known as "monism," which comes from the Greek word
monos, meaning "one".
Monism is a common view of Eastern religions, especially Hinduism.
All creatures, as well as inanimate objects, are viewed as part of this
divine essence. Some of the more commonly known groups in the United
States that share this Hindu view with the New Agers are Transcendental
Meditation (also known as the Science of Creative Intelligence),
Christian Science and Unity School of Christianity. In fact, in The
Aquarian Conspiracy, Marilyn Ferguson lists Unity churches under
"discussion groups" of "Aquarian Conspiracy Resources." The monism
of the New Age Movement is really pantheism, believing that all (pan) is
God (theos). Following this line of reasoning, whatever exists --
whether it's a person, a poodle or a pickle -- is part of God. This
leads observers to say that the worldview in the United States has
switched from the atheism of secular humanism (man is the measure of all
things) to the pantheism of the New Age Movement (man is god).
The god of the New Age Movement is an impersonal presence, not a
person with intellect, emotions and a will, as the Bible presents Him.
The God of the Bible is a personal Father, not an impersonal force.
This reveals why New Agers cannot accept the teaching of the Bible.
They are not able to get beyond the first five words: "In the beginning
God created" (Gen. 1:1). Because they confuse God with creation, the New
Agers see God as part of creation -- not separate from it. Biblical
Christianity clearly distinguishes between God and creation.
While rejecting the Bible's distinction between God and creation,
the New Agers accept and believe the lie of Satan. Eve told the Tempter
that God had said they would die if Adam and she ate from the tree in
the middle of the garden. But the Seducer said, "You surely shall not
die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be
opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:4,5).
Notice that not even Satan indicated they would "be" God -- only
that they would be "like" God. And even this was in only one aspect:
"knowing good and evil." After the fall of Adam and Eve, God
acknowledged what had occurred: "Behold, the man has become like one of
Us, knowing good and evil" (v.22). "This knowledge, as absolute, is an
attribute of God (3:5), who is omniscient," wrote Merrill F. Unger. "But
man, created with only the knowledge of good, acquired the experiential
knowledge of evil through pride and disobedience, and in this manner
fell into a state of sin and misery."
Satan's lie -- as verified by history -- was "You surely shall not
die!" (v.4). Adam and Eve immediately died spiritually, for their act of
disobedience separated them from God. They later died physically as a
result of their sin (see Romans 5:1 2).
Because the New Agers think all is One, this leads them to thinking
they -- and everything else -- are part of this divine essence. They
believe each person is "intertwined" with God. New Agers even use the
Bible to support their erroneous beliefs. They are especially fond of
Jesus' words "the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21, KJV). New
Agers use these words to claim that each one has a divine spark within
because he or she is part of the divine essence.
As in other instances where they use the Bible, New Agers twist the
context and words to mean what they wish. Jesus Christ had come to earth
to present Himself as the Messiah of Israel. The Pharisees were opposed
to Him because He was ruining their established man-made rules, which
they had added to Old Testament revelation. They were always trying to
pose some question to disprove the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. When
they demanded of Him an answer concerning when the kingdom of God would
come (v.20), He answered, "The kingdom of God is within you" (v.21).
Jesus did not mean that these Pharisees had the kingdom of God
inside of them. To the contrary, they were the enemies of everything the
kingdom stood for. The word translated "within" is entos. Although it
can have the meaning of "inside", it can also mean "in your midst".
This latter possibility fits the context, as well as the rest of the
Bible's teaching. Jesus Christ Himself was the King -- the ruler of the
kingdom. When the Pharisees asked Him when the kingdom would arrive,
Jesus told them that the kingdom was in their midst, because the King
(whom they rejected) was standing right in their presence.
JESUS CHRIST
Many counterfeit religious groups use the same tactic when
explaining who Jesus Christ is - they deny His deity by distinguishing
between "Jesus" and "Christ". Those who believe that "all is One" cannot
accept the teaching of the Bible concerning Christ. The Bible teaches
that Jesus Christ is God. It teaches that He took upon Himself human
form to redeem mankind from sin's penalty.
Typically, those who believe all is of one essence make "Christ"
the cosmic principle, or ideal. Jesus was simply an unusual man, they
say, who had this ideal within Him as we all do. Barbara Marx Hubbard
says we need to recognize that the "Messiah is within."
The human potential movement among the New Agers is based on the
faulty premise that each person is god and needs only to have his
consciousness enlightened so he will realize that fact. And the means to
this enlightenment is meditation. But the forms of meditation are many.
Daniel Coleman, writing in Psychology Today (March, 1977), described 13
different forms of meditation. "Each of these approaches," wrote
Coleman, "seeks the same basic psychological change in the meditator's
awareness."
The New Age Movement is not the only group that emphasizes human
potential. Biblical Christianity releases individuals to achieve their
true potential in Jesus Christ by freeing them from the burden of sin
and condemnation and by giving them untold optimism for this life. But
biblical Christianity is also concerned about preparing people for
eternity - not just preparing them to reach their maximum potential on
earth.
Although the emphasis on human potential is selling well in the
business world, when a person truly looks inside of himself, he finds
wickedness and ugliness - not God. "The heart is more deceitful than all
else and is desperately sick," says Jeremiah 17:9, "who can understand
it?" (NASB).
David Seamands, author of Healing of Memories, says, "I was a
missionary to India, and the massive umbrella of pantheistic and
monistic Hinduism was a tremendous challenge. It made me an absolute
fanatic on Jesus Christ. The one place that I'm not going to budge is
on the Incarnation, because I see the tremendous importance of it.
'Whether the Krishna existed or not,' says my Hindu friend, 'that's not
important. It's the Krishna ideal that matters, so therefore it's the
Christ ideal that matters. Whether or not Christ existed is not
important.'
"To that I would and did say, 'No, we're not talking about the same
thing. Whether Christ exists or not is not just important. It's
absolutely paramount.'"
We cannot separate the human Jesus from the divine Christ, as the
New Agers attempt to do. They believe that the same Christ ideal, or
spirit, dwelt in "Hercules, Hermes, Rama, Mithra ... Krishna, Buddha,
and the Christ."
Sound confusing? It is. The Bible, however, does not leave a person
wondering about who Jesus Christ is. The name "Jesus" means "Saviour."
Referring to the child who would be born to the virgin Mary, the angel
told Joseph, "You shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save
His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21).
The name "Christ" means "anointed one," or "Messiah." In Bible
times, saying "Jesus Christ" was the same as saying "Jesus, the
Messiah." After Andrew first began to follow Jesus, he went looking for
his brother, Simon Peter. When he found him, Andrew announced, "We have
found the Messiah." By inspiration, the Apostle John added in his record
of this event: "which translated means Christ" (John 1:41).
Jesus is like no other. He was unique in His birth, life, death and
resurrection. He was virgin born (see Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23); He lived a
sinless life (see 1 John 3:5); He died in the place of others to pay the
penalty for sin (see 2 Cor. 5:2 1); and He was raised from the dead on
the third day and ascended to the Heavenly Father (see 1 Cor. 15:3,4;
Acts 1:11).
SIN AND SALVATION
In New Age writings, we search in vain to find references to sin.
Because New Agers believe that each person is god, they don't believe in
sin as the Bible defines it. Any lack a person has, they say, is a lack
of enlightenment. Their solution is to alter that person's consciousness
so he will think properly about his oneness with the Force, or the
impersonal presence. Because they explain away sin, they have no need
for salvation in the biblical sense. In their minds, any salvation would
simply be a more complete unification with the One.
But this is not what the Bible teaches. Genesis 3, previously
referred to, reveals that mankind was separated from God when he
disobeyed God in the Garden. Because of this sin, a curse was placed on
both mankind and nature (see vv. 14-19). The New Testament confirms
that each individual is a sinful being (see Romans 5:12). Note that the
reason death passed to all of us is that we all have a sin nature.
Contrary to what the New Agers tell us, each person is not god; each
person is separated from God.
GOOD AND EVIL
The New Age Movement mimics Eastern religions, which distort the
distinction between good and evil. Because of the New Age's monastic
view that "all is One," how can it account for both good and evil? Is
the one "essence," or "force" (the Hindu equivalent of God), both good
and evil?
The God of the Bible stands in stark contrast to the god of Eastern
religions. In the One-is-all and all-is-One view of divine essence,
there ultimately is neither good nor evil. "In the philosophy of the
One, ethical distinctions evaporate; supposed opposites - light and
dark, good and evil, humans and God - merge and fuse," wrote Douglas
Groothuis who also documents that Charles Manson was "deeply immersed in
the One for all" movement when he ordered the murders of actress Sharon
Tate and several others. Manson felt he had reached a state of
consciousness beyond morality; therefore, he was free to kill. Although
highly unusual behaviour, Groothuis points out that such behaviour is
not inconsistent with the way Hindu gods have been served in the past.
The Bible clearly distinguishes between good and evil. The two
never merge. Nor does a person ever transcend in his consciousness so he
goes beyond the bounds of moral distinctions.
FUTURE LIFE (REINCARNATION)
Although ultimately denying any distinction between good and evil,
New Agers are concerned about a future life - but not the future life
known in the Bible.
They say that the way a person lives in this life will determine
the way he will be reincarnated in the next. This is not a new concept-
it is as old as the Eastern religions the New Agers follow. It also
shows the natural bent of man's mind -he may think he can transcend any
moral boundaries, but somehow he still realizes the need to account for
wrongdoing in this life.
Caryl Matrisciana of Great Britain was raised in India. In her
book, Gods of the New Age, this former New Ager shows the miseries of
those living under Hinduism. She admits that her vegetarian diet and her
crusading for animal rights and ecology were motivated by her worldview
when she was a New Ager. "'Purity in eating leads to a purity in being,
in essence, in mind, and in emotions,' became my motto. This holistic
guideline convinced me that my spiritual and physical being were one."
She continues, "The theory behind vegetarian eating as the highest form
of purity led me to campaign tirelessly for animal rights. Many times I
placed animals high above human priorities." Matrisciana reveals the
thinking of some New Agers when she says, "After all, I believed, these
poor little creatures are reincarnated".
"I didn't realize until years later," admits Matrisciana, "that I
was developing an attitude toward animals that I had rejected while
growing up in India. Some animals were becoming sacred in my eyes. And I
was placing them well above human beings!"
This raises an important question. If New Age teachings are so
helpful to mankind, why haven't these teachings helped improve life in
the countries where such ideas originated? Robert J. L. Burrows is on
target when he writes: "The vision [Fritj of] Capra believes will
deliver us seems to thrive in cultures where misery is perpetually
rampant and corruption is rife. India is a case in point. Christians
know that the problem is perversity, not human perception - holiness,
not holism."
In Hinduism, the teaching of reincarnation involves the doctrine of
"karma" - the law of sowing and reaping. They believe that whatever a
person sows in this life he will reap in the next life in his
reincarnated state.
But the New Agers are not consistent at this point in borrowing
from Eastern religions. As Groothuis points out, "The doctrine [of
reincarnation] as conceived in Hinduism and Buddhism involves all forms
of life and is called 'transmigration.' Westerners ignore this fact and
colour the idea with hopes for self-development. But according to the
Eastern doctrine, one may come back as a dog, cow or gnat -something
decidedly less attractive than a more fully realized 'human potential.'"
How interesting it is that Shirley MacLaine admits that in her late
teens she decided "God and religion were definitely mythological.....I
couldn't believe in anything that had no proof." And yet this same
person is a strong believer in reincarnation. She has rejected the
eyewitness reports contained in the Bible for the mysticism of Eastern
religions. It is no wonder that she looks at her daughter, Sachi, with
all kinds of questions: "When the doctor brought her to me in the
hospital bed on that afternoon in 1956, had she already lived many
times before, with other mothers? Had she, in fact, been one herself?
Had she, in fact, ever been my mother? Was her one-hour-old face housing
a soul perhaps millions of years old?"
New Age thinkers who have borrowed the idea of reincarnation from
ancient Eastern religions also have gotten into the channelling business.
"A step up the occult ladder from mediums, channels claim their bodies
are taken over by 'entities' or spirits from another dimension." One of
the best-known channellers is J.Z. Knight, supposedly a channel for
Ramtha, a 35,000-year-old male spirit who calls himself "The Enlightened
One." Since Knight was popularized in 1985 by Shirley MacLaine,
"thousands of adherents have paid up to $400 apiece to hear Ramtha
preach his blend of Christianity, Eastern mysticism and New Age self-
reliance."
In his critique of the channelling fad, Brooks Alexander of
Spiritual Counterfeits Project states, "The entities endlessly repeat
the primal lie, the three-fold creed of error: There is no death; man is
God; knowledge of self is salvation and power." Alexander alludes to
the estimate that there are 1000 active channels practicing in Los
Angeles alone. He concludes that channelling is the same old spiritism of
the past and says, "There is irony in the fact that this spiritual relic
is the latest rage of our 'secular' age, the hottest fad of the so-
called New Age Movement." The answer to man's future life is not karma
but Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ paid the full penalty for sin so that
each person can be completely delivered from condemnation by trusting
Him as personal Saviour. "There is therefore now no condemnation, "says
Romans 8:1, "for those who are in Christ Jesus."
CONCLUSION
The concepts of the New Age Movement are not new - they are based
on ancient erroneous beliefs about God, man and the world. The Movement
is to be commended for its spiritual concern, but it has turned away
from the true God to gods of the spirit world. As Paul said of the
Jewish leaders of his day, "They have a zeal for God, but not in
accordance with knowledge" (Romans 10:2).
Any believer who is tempted to delve into the teachings of the New
Age Movement needs to heed the warnings of the Bible (see Deut. 13:1-3;
18:9-12). God has given us His completed revelation, so we have no need
to seek further information through the spirit world. Our need is to
know the clear teachings of the Bible better.
Believers should be concerned about world peace, the environment,
humane treatment of animals and reaching our full potential in Christ.
Our concern should not be based, however, on the theology of Eastern
religions - believing that all these things are part of the One, or the
impersonal Force. Above all, we should not be naive when we hear someone
mention the terms "God" and "Christ." When the New Agers use these
terms, they are not talking about the God and the Christ of the Bible.
Let us love those who have gone after other gods. Let us live
before them as dynamic, caring Christians so they will see that
Christianity is more than a creed; it is life - eternal life. And let us
be faithful in gently, but firmly, persuading them to turn to the Christ
of the Bible who has paid the penalty for their sins. Let us pray that
they will trust in Him as Saviour and be delivered from the hopelessness
of their man-centred, pantheistic religion.
(From an article by Harold J. Berry in the June-August 1989 issues of
Confident Living.)
raven...@webtv.net
>
> Pax Christi, Pat
No. What is REALLY interesting is that in responding to J. Murray on 5/15/98
in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic you write "btw I'm a priest".
Yet, here in tnn.religion.catholic you are now speaking about your wife and
children.
Could you please explain, in this forum, how you are priest, husband and
father? Perhaps you did in previous posts and I simply am not aware of your
special circumstances.
Edward Thorne
In <6liccj$3td$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
[snip]
>>>What kind of a god would *threaten* "his" children with eternal
>>damnation
>>>because they are on one path to "his" feet as opposed to another?
>>
>>No, God doesn't threaten anyone. That is a false notion propagated by
>>those to whom the idea of eternal reward and eternal punishment is
>>repugnant. Such ideas make them feel uncofortable, or guilty --if
you
>>will --and so, since they have no intention of reforming their lives,
>>they lash our against it.
>
>The idea that, if I... say... masturbate, use birth control, skip Mass
on
>holydays of obligation, call on a goddess, believe in a 'more than one
life
>model', <et cetera>.... IOW, 'not following God's commandments', that
"he"
>[SIC] will send me to a 'place' of everlasting torment .... that
isn't....
>*weird*? And sadistic?
No, that is where you have it wrong!
As I said in my last post, the sinner choses whether or not to be with
God or not to be with God.
If he is obdurate, and persists in his sin, he is separated from God
_by_his_own_choice.
When he enters eternity, he is still separated from God, by his own
choice.
That is what those people who say "Oh, isn't God cruel to send people
to hell," choose not to understand.
God sends no one to hell.
It is the lost soul ends up in hell separated because _he_ rejected
God.
God _never_ rejects anybody.
Evidently, you didn't read what I wrote, did you?>
>
>>
>>God respects our freedom, he does not force anyone to love him. Those
>>that want no part of God will, when they enter eternity, have no part
>>of God. And, that is what we call hell.
>
>He sure *does* force people to 'love' him if the only other option is
this
>'hell' thing.
>
>Think about that... is that a *choice*, really?
Well, what about the choice of jumping out of a 10th floor window?
Isn't that pretty cruel of your earthmothergoddess to punish people
like that, making them go splat on the pavement below?
Is that a choice really? Think about it!
YOu really didn't read what I wrote, did you?
>
>
>>Apart from God, there is no love, no unity, no 'togetherness', no
>>affection: only a deep sense of loss, the eternal feeling that one is
>>on the outside looking in, and knowing that this condition is the
>>sinner's own choice.
>
><this is starting to sound exactly like the sermons I heard when I was
a
>kid... and it's not a particularly uplifting memory....>
Well, if it is your choice to reject God, the memory of what you
learned when you were a kid is sure going to bother you, isn't i t?
>
>
>>But, God continues to hold out his hand, to sinners and the just
alike,
>>believers and non-believes, saying, all you have to do is to love me
>>and keep my commandments.
>
><see above> <is there a *macro* somewhere in the archives of the
Vatican??>
<smile>
Is that all you can say?
Have you heard that from others besides me?
If so, that would show that great minds think alike.
It also goes back to my mathematical model: there is only one truth,
but there are many errors.
>
>
>>Those who accept God's hand, seek forgiveness for their sins, and
keep
>>his commandments, will die in the Lord. They sought him in this
life,
>>and they will have good fellowship with him in the next.
>
>" "
>
>
>>They will abide in love, life, joy, good company, they will
understand
>>completely God's mercy and justice, all mysteries will be solved,
>>everyone will be happy. It is no wonder that the companionship in
>>heaven has been likened to that of a banquet.
>
>Sigh.
Is that a sigh of longing?
>
>
>>Just think, when families get together for a feast, like
Thanksgiving,
>>family members have been separated for a while. But, at the dinner,
>>everyone is enjoying good cheer and each other's good company. When
>>one comes from such a gathering, one can say, "I had a good time
>>there." Well, that is what heaven is like --only that feeling of
>>having had a good time will last forever --it will never go away.
>>
>>If I say to you, don't step out that window on the 10th floor, Robin,
>>you will fall to the ground, be smashed to bits, and die, am I making
a
>>threat, or just advising you that that is a dangerous and fatal thing
>>to do?
>
><rolling eyes>
Letting that person be smashed to bits on the pavement below is pretty
cruel, isn't it, of mother earth?
>
>
>>Well, it is the same with the hereafter; when I say that ir a person
>>does such and such, he is breaking his unity with God, and runs the
>>runs the risk of being separated from God forever if he shouldenter
>>enternity before being reconciled, is that a threat, or is it just
>>good advice?
>
>I'm having a bit of trouble getting into this conversation, actually.
I feel
>sermonized, not engaging in a *dialogue* <which means a *two way*
>conversation...>
Well, I gather that you don't like to what you are reading.
>
>
>>>
[snip]
>>
>>Well, see my forgoing remarks above.
>
>I read them.
>
>I really don't have much to say to them, Ed. I've heard it aaaalll
before,
>and it doesn't really appeal to me, that kind of language. There are
veiled
>threats in all of it, even in all that talk of 'love' and 'choice'.
It's a
>macro. A Threat Macro. Leaves me cold, I'm afraid.
>
>And I could see right through that even when I was a kid.
It is not a threat!
If a mother refuses to let her child go out and play in the traffic
because the child might get run over by a 18-wheeler, is she
threatening the child with death if he doesn't obey?
Evidently, in your model, she is, and hence is being mean,
mean-spirited, because she is not allowing the child its freedom.
It is the same in the spiritual life, too. You want to dabble in error,
worship non-existence deities, and still want God to let you in heaven.
You cannot adhere to error and truth at the same time.
>
>
>>And, I never said anything about "collars".
>
>Labels, not collars, were the key thing there.
I don't recall using the word, labels, either.
>
>
>>However, if there are those, who through no fault of their own do not
>>know or understand the Catholic church as the one true Church founded
>>by Jesus Christ, God will not hold that invincible ignorance against
>>them, but judge them by how well they lived according to the natural
>>moral law, an instinct for which is planted in the hearts of all men.
>
>Oh GOOD! <eg>
>
>That must mean I'm *exempt*!!
>
>Because I am not a *man*... whoopee, no natural law for meeee!!! <G>
What nonsense!
Oh, good grief! What nonsense!
We are not Manichaeans! More balderdash!
>
>Once I saw that, all the other things, the way women are treated and
>constantly *excluded* and placed firmly under the foot of the
patriarchy, the
>over-emphasis on virginity and pain and 'sex is dirty' and
self-inflicted,
>*gratuitous* suffering... <not suffering per se, but *gratuitous*
>suffering>...
Have you anything against sacrifice?
As for sex, the idea that sex is dirty is not a teaching of the church.
Sex, in its proper place, namely, marriage, is clean, healthy,
wholesome, and a channel of sanctifying grace.
that's when I realized that a healthy spirituality couldn't be
>had <for me, that is> within the church. And when I realized that for
*me*,
>the only *way* to a healthy spirituality, one that leads to wholeness
and
>closeness to Deity, could only be had outside the church. Or churches,
even.
>
>That's the short answer to a perfectly reasonable question.
I recommend that you read Thomas Merton's 7-storey mountain. He too
was a lost soul, looking for the truth.
>
>However, I'm not *pissed* at the church, the way the alt.recovery
people are.
>Anymore, that is. It's taken a few years to release those feelings,
but I
>think I've done it by now. Now, it's just a shoe that doesn't fit, not
a
>bugbear or scapegoat. It's just somebody else's shoe, that's all.
Doesn't fit.
>Never did fit, really.
>
>>>snipped, the rest of it....
>>>
>>><PSS, 'hell' or 'Gehenna', was a *Greek Garbage Dump* where they
>>burned first
>>>century trash. Jesus was very fond of parable and metaphor. The
>>gospels are
>>>full of them thar things.>
>>
>>Well, one could say that the idea of hellfire is not necessary for
the
>>concept of hell, but since Jesus spoke of hellfire so many times, I
do
>>believe that he meant what he said....in addition to the pain of loss
>>that lost souls will experienc, which is what I described above,
there
>>will be that pain of sense as Jesus suggested in the gospels.
>
>
>Could he not have been talking about a state of *mind*, not a 'place.'
Well, hell is a state of being. So, is heaven, for that matter.
ANd the state or condition is that of being united to God in love or
separated from him forever.
>
>I'm sorry Ed... your tradition evidently gives you comfort and joy,
and I
>think that's great. But for me, *any* system that is built with terror
and
>threats at its very foundation, is .... *beezarrre*. Strange.
There are no threats! Do you obey the traffic laws because you feel
threatened?
Or do you obey because you want to be a good citizen.
It's the same with God. Sure, I want to avoid hell and get to heaven.
But, I also love God, because I know that he has been very good to me
and loves me, more than I love myself, even.
He loves me, I love him, and I do not want to do anything that you
break that bond of love.
If you think that that is a threat, then you are indeed living in a
strange world, with strange ideas.
Unhealthy.
>That's what all this stuff about 'hell' is, to me. Bizarre, strange,
and very
>unhealthy. Not to mention untrue, and based on a VERY literal reading
of
>"Gehenna." Is it possible that first-century Palestinians understood
the
>concept of metaphor better than we do? <sheesh, what a
thought...sigh....>
Well, I already explained that. I guess that is another brilliant
passage you overlooked reading.
>When he talked aobut motes and logs in the eye, was he also talking
about
>styes? <sp> About an *actual tree trunk* in someone's eyeball?
When I was a kid, I used to imagine that!
>
>What kind of parent would say to a child, "Either you LOVE ME, or I'll
burn
>you eternally?"
But, he does not make the choice, we do!
>
>Ed, think about that.... Youth & Family Services would just take that
child
>away.
>
>And maybe that's what's happened, with those who have left the
traditional
>churches. The 'child' was 'taken away from the parent' because of
*abuse.*
>
>It's a thought, anyhow.
>
>>>---
>>>"My Goddess gave birth to your God. Liberate Jesus from the
>>Christians!"
>>
>>What?Are you trying to make the BVM a goddess?
>
>
>No, dahlink, it's just a catchy phrase. <possibly it refers to Sophia,
not
>Mary, anyhow> It's my whimsical cyber-response to whoever your "Lord
Stanley,
>GO CAPS" is all about. <what *is* that all about, anyhow?>
The Stanley Cup!
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, ...and in one Lord, Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, ...and in the Holy Spirit, the
Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son ..."
YEAH, CAPS.
LORD STANLEY, HERE WE COME!
WE ARE GOING TO SCREW THE LUG NUTS FROM THEIR WHEELS, PLUCK THE
FEATHERS OUT OF THEIR WINGS, AND PUT THEIR LITTLE RED WAGON UP ON
CINDER BLOCKS!
[Well, the CAPS had their beak tweaked a little bit tonight, Ah, well,
there is always Thursday.
GO CAPS!
--Ed
>
>
>
Edward Thorne
In <357D0C...@erols.com> Vinny C <bla...@erols.com> writes:
>
>Stephen Patten wrote:
[snip]
>Realistically, though, I really just finish the job. Most Catholics I
>know think the church's stand on contraception is foolish. I just
bring
>to their attention other church beliefs, and they find out how much
they
>really disagree with.
>
>VC
No doubt you are right.
They probably had 16 years of Catholic education, too.
Edward Thorne
In <357D0F...@erols.com> Vinny C <bla...@erols.com> writes:
>
>Edward Thorne wrote:
[snip]
>> Of course, that is an awful commentary on our president. That man
has
>> truly lowered the office of the presidency, and his conduct does
affect
>> his job.
>>
>> He is so busy trying to figure out where he is going to get his [*]
>> from, that he overlooked a little thing like India's atom bomb test.
>
>No, that's not the president, that's the american media, who like
cheap
>headlines at the expense of real news.
No, he was too busy and overlooked that warning letter from Pakistan.
>
>And what would you like him to do about the test, Ed?
Well, what can he do now? The genie is out of the bottle.
>
>Knowing you, you'd say nuke them, just like in Japan. No defense like
a
>good offense, eh?
Tell me, how would you have ended the war?
>
>> The man is a travesty, a joke, an empty suit. I can't wait for
2001!
>
>Neither can I. Actually, I'm really looking forward to election night
>2004, when all you'll hear is the chant of "Four more for Gore!!! Four
>more for Gore!!!"
>
>Not my top choice, but Nader won't run forever.
We are like the frog in the pot of water. The water is starting to get
warm, but it is still bearable.
Edward Thorne
that
>> is not true.
>>
>
>She obviously did, Ed. She learned enough to leave.
>
>
Edward Thorne
In <6ljakt$t43$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
<csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
[snip]
>>That is an interesting post. You seem to have all the right answers.
>>It is too bad that you don't believe them.
>
>
>Ed, you are assuming left, right, front and back about what I believe
or don't
>believe.
>
>How do *you* know how much of that is what I hold to, and how much of
it I
>don't?
Well, have you been lying to me then, putting me on?
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, ...and in one Lord, Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, ...and in the Holy Spirit, the
Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son ..."
YEAH, CAPS.
LORD STANLEY, HERE WE COME!
WE ARE GOING TO SCREW THE LUG NUTS FROM THEIR WHEELS, PLUCK THE
FEATHERS OUT OF THEIR WINGS, AND PUT THEIR LITTLE RED WAGON UP ON
CINDER BLOCKS!
[Well, the CAPS had their beak tweaked a little bit tonight, Ah, well,
Edward Thorne
In <6lj9o6$plk$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
>
>[]
>
>>>BC: "Um, you're a couple days too *late*...."
>>>
>>>-----------------------------
>>><ducking and running real quick from the rotten tomatoes being
>>thrown....>
>>><gg>
>>>
>>Well, we need a little corrective here.
>>
>>As Jesus said, in heaven they are neither married nor given in
>>marriage, which means ....NO SEX!
>
>(It's not really any kind of slur on the BVM... it's just a little dig
at
>Clinton, idea being: he might not respect the most famous virgin of
all
>time... that kind of thing> <c'mon, admit it: you chuckled...> <g>
>
>
has
>>truly lowered the office of the presidency, and his conduct does
affect
>>his job.
>
press at
>the time protected them.... who knows.
Well, we are all sinners, but as for the girl friends of other
presidents, at least they exercised self control.
Clinton belongs to a generation that scoffs at the idea of self control
and instead exalts instant gratification.
Edward Thorne
In <6lj0mn$26h$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> raven...@webtv.net writes:
>
>In article <199806081446...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
>>
>> eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) writes:
>>
>> >
>> >In <6l9lqa$9i$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
>> ><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>> >>
[snip]
>
>Not believing in a personal god, at the very most I would have to use
the
>word "it".
>
>>
>> What is interesting is that we all have 'feminine'
>> or 'masculine' aspects of our nature. I'm a
>> househusband. Because I can generally 'nurture' my
>> children better than my wife,
>
>Oh, REAL nice complement for the mother of your children, Pat!
>
>> does that make a me a she and my wife a he?
>>
>>
>
>No. But it sure helps me get a better picture of you. I think you're
a
>religious fanatic closet case.
>
Notice how these people who reject the God of revelation always want
tolerance, and be nice to each other, and then, wham, they resort to
personal insults.
Everything is nice if you go along with their silly game, but show that
you disagree with them a little, and tolerance and good feeling all go
out the window.
Edward Thorne
In <YmQ4NEA8...@allestree.demon.co.uk> janet
<ja...@take.this.out.allestree.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <6libqj$7...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Edward Thorne
><eth...@ix.netcom.com> said unto us:
>>>The Nazis were pagans, neo-pagans and tribalists, worshipping the
>>>>ancient pagan German nation as the ideal to follow and conquer.
>>>
>>>They were also Lutherans and Catholics, Ed.
>>
>>They were P_A_G_A_N_S.
>>>
>
>
>Ok, calm down, people, this is ANOTHER semantic problem.
>
>Ed, I think you are using pagan as, "nonchristian", "not believing in
>the gospel/torah/koran values" or something akin to that, yes?
>
>religious choice: that's a different thing.
>
am
>trying to HELP here!) ;), paganism would be a default option, for
those
>who do not actively choose a religious life, in a recognised group,
yes?
>
>choice... and that's probably about where agreement ends!
-- Well, I appreciate the assistance, and it is good that more than 2
people are reading these posts.
When people drop out of CHristianity, they typically adopt an attitude
of practical atheism, and think and live accordingly.
Now, the Nazis cultivated a paganism, which was a fanciful recreation
of the Germanic past when the tribes still lived in the forest.
They rejected everything that was Christian.
Edward Thorne
In <199806092123...@ladder03.news.aol.com> vegan...@aol.com
(VeganVenus) writes:
>
>In article <6lidpk$n...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward
>Thorne) writes:
>
>>>Remember: If the christian god is the right one, and we are judged
>>solely on
>>>who we believe in, then Hitler's in Heaven and Ghandi's in hell . .
>>
that
>>is not true.
>>
>
That's
>why I put the if.
No, your premise is wrong.
>
>Maybe you should invest some time in learning to read carefully
instead of
>knocking others' education.
Look in a mirror!
Edward Thorne
In <199806092123...@ladder01.news.aol.com> vegan...@aol.com
(VeganVenus) writes:
>
>In article <6libqj$7...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward
>Thorne) writes:
>
>>
>>Okay, I missed all that, because I don't care to discuss so-called
>>'wiccan', as I consider it an ersatz movement, based on nothing more
>>than rebellion and sentiment.
>>
>
>Rebellion from what?
From the truth!
> It is based on religions far older then christianity.
And none of them is true. They are nothing more than modern artifacts.
>
>And since when has sentiment been a negative aspect of religion?
>
Since we are rational beings, the intellect should prevail over
sentiment, especially when that sentiment is founded on false
compassion.
"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, ...and in one Lord, Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, ...and in the Holy Spirit, the
Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son ..."
YEAH, CAPS.
LORD STANLEY, HERE WE COME!
WE ARE GOING TO SCREW THE LUG NUTS FROM THEIR WHEELS, PLUCK THE
FEATHERS OUT OF THEIR WINGS, AND PUT THEIR LITTLE RED WAGON UP ON
CINDER BLOCKS!
[Well, the CAPS had their beak tweaked a little bit tonight, Ah, well,
there is always Thursday.
GO CAPS!
--Ed
>
>
>
RobinOak
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6ll164$6...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...
[]
>>Ed, I think you are using pagan as, "nonchristian", "not believing in
>>the gospel/torah/koran values" or something akin to that, yes?
>>
>>RobinOak, on the other hand, is talking about a specific, positive
>>religious choice: that's a different thing.
>>
>>If I understand what Ed is saying, (I'm sorry if I've got it wrong, I
>am
>>trying to HELP here!) ;), paganism would be a default option, for
>those
>>who do not actively choose a religious life, in a recognised group,
>yes?
>>
>>For RobinOak, (and Shez, hi!!) (and Raven, if you are still with us),
>>as I understand it, it is much different than that. It is a specific
>>choice... and that's probably about where agreement ends!
>
>-- Well, I appreciate the assistance, and it is good that more than 2
>people are reading these posts.
>
>When people drop out of CHristianity, they typically adopt an attitude
>of practical atheism, and think and live accordingly.
But that's not what I did.
I am -not- an aetheist. *Hardly*.
(.... 'Hello Mudda! .... Hello Fadda! We are here to... do you honah! Ta dee
da dum....")
The most conventional way to describe what I am is a "Deist", fullstop. I
believe in God. Full *stop*. I believe in what you call 'the natural law'.
The way I understand that law differs on a few points <like reincarnation, for
instance>, but I *do* believe in the concept of the natural law. I have *seen*
this law at work in my own life, over and over again.... it would be foolish
not to believe in it. I believe that there is wisdom and truth *within* many
religious traditions, but I also believe that *nobody* has the corner on the
Absolute Truth Market <another point of partial divergence from RCC-ism>.
>Now, the Nazis cultivated a paganism, which was a fanciful recreation
>of the Germanic past when the tribes still lived in the forest.
Yep. They did. They also pushed centuries of European -Christian- hatred and
persecution of Jews to its "logical" and most extreme conclusion: the 'final
solution,' the "Endlösung"....
>They rejected everything that was Christian.
Except traditional "Christian" anti-semitism, Ed.
Neopagans today don't agree on a whole lot of things, but there is one thing
they almost all hold to, and that is the tenet of *tolerance* for diversity,
particularly religious diversity.
That's why it has been the other *Pagans* who have often complained the
loudest when our buddy Taliesin gets on one of his famous anti-Christian rolls
in the Pagan newsgroups. That is not *tolerant* of religious diversity. Each
person must be perfectly *free* to walk his or her own path to Deity, 'an' it
harm none'.
The Wiccan teachers I have heard of have had to teach some of their students
*not* to disparage Christianity or any other faith. In "The Mists of Avalon,"
Viviane does the very same with her apprentice Morgaine. It is a very common
tenet of Pagan paths, tolerance. And religious intolerance... just isn't ...
*tolerated* ..... <smile>
RobinOak
RobinOak
Edward Thorne wrote in message <6ll0iv$k...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <6ljakt$t43$1...@nw001t.infi.net> "RobinOak"
><csc...@charlotte.infi.net> writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>That is an interesting post. You seem to have all the right answers.
>>>It is too bad that you don't believe them.
>>
>>
>>Ed, you are assuming left, right, front and back about what I believe
>or don't
>>believe.
>>
>>How do *you* know how much of that is what I hold to, and how much of
>it I
>>don't?
>
>Well, have you been lying to me then, putting me on?
No, I have *not* been lying to you. You haven't been reading everything,
that's why you misapprehended. Last fall there were a ton of threads on this
very subject, a *ton*. Ad nauseum.
What is it that you want to know? I'll do my best to answer the
inquisition.....
Vinny C
Edward Thorne wrote:
>
> In <357D0C...@erols.com> Vinny C <bla...@erols.com> writes:
> >
> >Stephen Patten wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >Realistically, though, I really just finish the job. Most Catholics I
>
> >know think the church's stand on contraception is foolish. I just
> bring
> >to their attention other church beliefs, and they find out how much
> they
> >really disagree with.
> >
> >VC
>
> No doubt you are right.
>
> They probably had 16 years of Catholic education, too.
Some have, some haven't. But it's not like they all come from the same
place. Neighborhood, high school (when I was there), college
currently...people from all over.
My college's campus ministries program probably has more non-catholics
than catholics. That has nothing to do with me, I just find it odd.
And the catholics that are there don't exactly live what their faith
tells them to.
It's an odd world.
VC
RobinOak
Padraic42 wrote in message
<199806100214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
[snip of usual rant]
> They chose themsleves over God, in essense.
No, Pat.
What I found was *God*, and what I realized was that a faith in God could be
gloriously and wondrously independent of the **literal, historical** truth of
a given tradition.
And that was no small thing, Padraic.
RobinOak
Padraic42 wrote in message
<199806100213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
[]
> hardly Robin. Considering the stakes, I don't 'assume' anything when it
>comes to God, and will not make God bend to 'my' desires.
There is a logical flaw in what you are saying that is *glaring*.
If you believe <as I do, btw> that it is *impossible* to 'make God bend to a
human will,' then what's the problem, here? Do you see what I mean?
If this thing is *impossible* <and I do think it *is*>, then what's the
difference? These people are only deluding themselves, and nothing will come
of their actions whatsoever.
>>> But I guess you 'assume' God is a she/he?
>>
>>Nope, I base it on personal experience.
>>
> She/he told you?
>
>>Some people "see" God as Mother, Padraic.
>>
> Then some people are wrong.
Including Pope John Paul I, I suppose.
>>> One
>>>doesn't ask God for assistance by 'magic' spells.
>>
>>Then you'd better start 'correcting' all those St Jude novena-sayers and St
>>Joseph statue buriers!!! <Well??! True or not true??? LOL....>
>>
> True, you may recall that I never advocated those things, and always said
>there was someting wrong if a saint answers prayer only if you publish it for
9
>days or such thing. But just as those errors have crept into the Church and
>been accepted by those desperate and misled, so to New Age heresies have
crept
>in as 'enlightened' ways and adopted by desperate and misled people. (Kinda
>like a spiritual "Emperor's New Clothes")
Novenas and statue-burying far *predate* the New Age movement, Paddy, and you
*know* that... that stuff goes waaaay back, way back.... along with Mass cards
"in perpetuity" and the like.... how can you continue to say masses *in
eternity* for souls that *have to be released* at SOME point from Purgatory,
per definition of *Purgatory*?? Did you ever wonder about that?
>>> As I recall Wiccan's hold
>>>that they can 'create' their own reality,
>>
>>Paddy, we do 'create our own reality'. All the *time.* All of us do.
>>
> Do we now? Last I heard, God created ALL reality. It isn't that "I think
>therefore I am" but rather, "God 'thinks' therefore I am."
Yes, we certainly do.
We create OUR **OWN** 'reality', is what I said. I didn't say "we create
REALITY". We create **our OWN** reality, ourselves. We decide how to respond
in a given situation, and *that* is what 'creates our reality' for us. *We*
decide whether to turn the other cheek, or to hold up the 'mirror'. We decide
those things for ourselves.
>>For instance: something really bad happens. Event X. I didn't create the
>>event, I didn't *want* the event to happen, but PLOP! it just fell into my
>>lap. Now.
>>
> Then you failed at creating your own reality didn't you, sinc eyou didn't
>'create' Event X. However, by certain actions on your part, you may have
>triggered certain consequences. But that isn't 'creating one's own relaity'
>now is it?
By certain actions on my part, yes, I may have been implicated in Event X. But
not *always*. And that's not what I *said*, in my example. I said that "Event
X" was to be taken as something that falls PLOP! into your lap, and *then*,
that's when *we* have to decide how to RESPOND... that is 'creating one's OWN
reality', yes indeed it is. You betcha.
>>I still have a choice in how I will *respond* to Event X.
>>
> Yes, you can accept the consquences of your action or reject them. If you
>spill milk, or it just falls out from not being set in the fridge well, you
can
>'ignore' it, but the spilt milk remains.
You do have a certain gift for metaphor.
>>That is called 'creating your own reality'.
>
> No, what you cited was not 'creating your own reality', it's called
>rationalization and in some circles, psycho-babble.
Do you know what "rationalization" means?
Making something *rational*. Making it understandable and logically coherent.