A question of combined beliefs

[Sufjon]

The universe began and it will end. It is not cyclical. (According to the scientific consensus of physicists.)

Hi Khalid:The cyclical nature of our world is easily observable in nature and in the cosmos. I do believe that is also a consensus of most physicists rather than the other way around as you have suggested, but I don’t think I’ll have to consult one on that matter.

Life arose, evolved; humanity was created, and given this physical life in this body as the only life before the resurrection. We get two lives: one finite, on earth, and one eternal, in Heaven or Hell.

Life evolving and then humanity being “created” is a rather interesting statement that starts with a bit of science, and finishes off with a nice touch of neolithic thought, which is very creative.

If one wants to count purgatory as an “intermediate state” and a different life than heaven, I suppose some of us get three.

I’m not sure I understand that statement or how it relates, but that’s probably just me not getting it.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Deconi;9067992]
Just a reminder here, a Catholic DOES NOT call into question the Catholicity of another!

He is not excommunicated until he is excommunicated. Anyone seen a list of the excommunicated in the last 100years lying around?!

If you followed the postings here, no one considers the one in quesiton officially excommunicated.

The following terms will appear to apply "un-officially to our baptised Christian UU member.

CCC 2089 **Incredulity **is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. **“Heresy **is the **obstinate post-baptismal denial **of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, **or it is likewise an obstinate doubt **concerning the same; **apostacy **is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff **or of communion with the members of the Church **subject to him.”

The disposition of the UU member is not revealed, thus no official excommunication is warranted.

Besides it takes a Bishop to officially declare the status of the x-Roman Catholic UU member by any of the titles from CCC 2089 or if his disposition is revealed and warrants ex-communication the Local Bishop declares it. Apparently the UU member’s Roman Catholic history does not or could not warrant an official ex-communication status.

 

[Khalid]

Nicely said Seeker. Just a question. Were Universalists non-Trinitarian as the Unitarians were prior to the merger?

But historical Christianity is the only tradition where the divine glimpses us.

In the analogy of the mountain, with all pads leading up it to God at the summit, Christianity is the path that God blazed down to man, instead of Man stumbling up to try to find God (and fall in a crevasse).

 

[Khalid]

That is a belief system that you follow. Personally, I have no need to be forgiven or saved. That is a hope and fear of your faith. My faith has neither hope or fear, rather, we rest in the certainty of God’s love. But again, that is my belief. You are free to see things as you will. Seeing a creation of God in such terms as “sinner” and the like is not a view I could ever entertain. But again, I am not suggesting that you adopt what I believe.

Your friend,
Sufjon

But you do need to be forgiven and to be saved - until you realize that, as you put it, you are truly ignorant of what you are, or of the nature of your being. It’s not a matter of “we believe what works for us” preference utilitarianism applied to religion, but a matter of divine truth - not that God has commanded it that makes it true, but it is true, so God has revealed it, because God is perfect in both justice and in love - these two contradictory aspects must be reconciled, in order to deal with such unmerciful and unjust beings such as ourselves. Thus the need for redemption.

I’m getting the impression you’re a Hindu. Oddly, we Catholics have our own bit of Hinduism going, as I’ve known a Hindu who worshiped Jesus as an avatar of Vishnu, I believe it was (I can’t keep the Hindu gods straight, not even the main ones, beyond Brahman) - whereas Catholics can say that if you’ve never heard the Gospel, Vishnu is actually Jesus Christ

 

[Sufjon]

But you do need to be forgiven and to be saved - until you realize that, as you put it, you are truly ignorant of what you are, or of the nature of your being. It’s not a matter of “we believe what works for us” preference utilitarianism applied to religion, but a matter of divine truth - not that God has commanded it that makes it true, but it is true, so God has revealed it, because God is perfect in both justice and in love - these two contradictory aspects must be reconciled, in order to deal with such unmerciful and unjust beings such as ourselves. Thus the need for redemption.

I’m getting the impression you’re a Hindu. Oddly, we Catholics have our own bit of Hinduism going, as I’ve known a Hindu who worshiped Jesus as an avatar of Vishnu, I believe it was (I can’t keep the Hindu gods straight, not even the main ones, beyond Brahman) - whereas Catholics can say that if you’ve never heard the Gospel, Vishnu is actually Jesus Christ

Hi Khalid: Having enjoyed the opportunity to converse with Christians over time, I have been exposed to the idea of the need for salvation. From the perspective of someone outside of that faith tradition, I see the idea of salvation and sin as more of a cultural mindset that existed in Abrahamic thought, that was largely amplified later by the person you refer to the Apostle Paul. My sense is that this is the native psyche of the culture from which your religion originated and in turn is expressed in your relationship with God. Yet, if God is the creator of all things, I have reasoned that all things must in turn have a relationship with that which brought it into being. The mindsets that attend these relationships then must also be expressions of the genius of the creator. And we would of course find them to be numerous and diverse, as is the nature of His creativity, which is evident and observable in His handiwork throughout the cosmos. Therefore, in accordance with our circumstances as they relate to the histories of our various peoples, which in turn help shape our varied interpretations of events and even the nature of reality, all perceptions must be allowable and within the parameters envisioned by that which set them into play as they might relate to itself (their creator). In short, each individual has a unique and genuine relationship with God, and it follows that in some way, these relationships are influenced by cultural factors and life experience.

So, while I might identify as a Hindu as you have rightly surmised, that orientation makes me inclined to accept all manifestations of God as genuine. It would for instance, make me very open to accepting the idea of Jesus as God in human form, or as you have put it, an Avatar. It would also make me inclined to accept Krishna in the same way. It would also cause me to see continuity in the things Krishna and Jesus said, but it is a continuity that would be immediately apparent to all Hindus, and would elude most Christians. Specifically, one who has been exposed to reading Hindu scripture first would have a tendency to see God as ubiquitously present throughout creation, and therefore, nothing in creation is either lacking in regards to it’s experience of God, or in the substance of it’s being. Therefore, we would not see the need for anything to be saved, because all things exist within the realm of the Creator, are sustained by the Creator, belong to the Creator and are in fact at their Core one with their Creator. So, we would see ideas that Jesus talked about such as His oneness with the Father and your ability to be likewise as a confirmation of this conclusion. It would for us also explain the Eucharist as a demonstration of this very set of ideas that is packed with powerful meaning, in that Jesus was indeed in the bread and wine. But we would say the broader meaning was perhaps lost to the limited imaginations of the first recipients of this sacrament or revelation. Specifically, in all of creation there is only Him. He is the inmost Self of every being, present in all things, and therefore never lost or left in want of salvation. So if nothing is in need of salvation, and the message of the Eucharist is a demonstration of God’s presence in all things and our inherent unitive nature, why is the Body and Blood sacrificed for the salvation of souls? I would believe it was not. The stated purpose was the remission of sin. Some of the earliest permutations of your gospels are in Greek. The word used for sin in those gospels meant “to miss the mark,” or in this case, not having a clear understanding. What is the lack of understanding? It would be the lack understanding that we are one with your creator and sacred by our very nature, as demonstrated in the Eucharist. And how else could something created by a perfect God be? Later translations would be passed on into languages that didn’t have an equivalent term, but instead having a term wherein sin is meant as a state of being bad or in need of punishment rather than simply unenlightened and in need of knowledge of their oneness with their Source.

Therein lies the profound differences in our understanding, and my lack of urgency in regards to being saved. It is not that I don’t understand and respect your understanding, because I do. I just see it one place out of many we can be on a spiritual basis.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Khalid]

Hey, at least you’re intelligent and cogent. I’m still digesting that post - that much can’t be said for most of the village atheists.

If I understand, it does essentially come down to relativism, with the only absolute truth being no absolute truth-statements (I’m sure that can be phrased in a less self-defeating way), with our “truths” defined essentially by culture? Or, the absolute being a form of pantheism, as I read the theology of that post. I consider myself at most times to be above the most egregious errors made in cultural Christianity, as I am culturally Muslim, but, if you are correct, it is true at the same time I can not escape the Abrahamic milieu of my entire life and ancestry back to the time of the Pharaohs.

There was a Buddhist on this forum a while back, and he was able to point me in the direction to the right Buddhist scriptures for an inquirer to read, and acceptable or good editions of them. I wonder if you could provide the same service for me? I’ve read the Bhagavad Gita, an abridgment of the Mahabharata (Penguin Classics versions, Juan Mascaro and Laurie Patton [two versions of the BG] and John D Smith [abridged Mahabharata], not the Hare Krishna one), the Rig Veda (Ralph Griffith’s translation, as I’ve heard horrible things about the Freudian nature of Wendy Doniger’s Penguin Classics volume), and Ekanath Easwaran(?)'s version of the Upanishads (I’m not sure if it’s an abridgment or not). I am aware there are more Vedas, and was told by that self-same Hindu I spoke of above something about “three levels of commentaries” that were viewed (or at least implied to be viewed) as scripture. Any pointers in the right direction? I’d like to read all of it, if that’s possible (as it wasn’t with the massive 100-volume Tripitaka or Pali Canons of Buddhism).

I can read translations in Arabic, Greek, or Latin if better versions are available in those languages (I should learn Sanskrit after I finish my study of Mandarin…it has a weird script, is all that I can see of it - line above the letters? Then again, Latin looked odd to me at first [although Greek didn’t, as Coptic is written with very similar letters]).

I only have the Avesta left to read (can’t find a translation of it), and I’ve read the central scriptures of every world religion (even some of the Bab and Baha’u’llah’s writings). I generally have the goal of being as, or more, conversant in every major religious tradition as the average native believer of those traditions are (not a theologian, monk, or specialist, that is, but the average individual).

 

[seeker57]

Nicely said Seeker. Just a question. Were Universalists non-Trinitarian as the Unitarians were prior to the merger?

That is a good questions. I am not sure. I really need to explore universalism a bit more.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[seeker57]

If this is the case then, your new UU member is never Roman Catholic in practice as far what he may think he mixes his Roman Catholic Faith with UU is never the case. If it were his Roman Catholicism becomes heretical. The reason it does not reach this stage of heretical because the UU member never has the faculties to validate his Roman Catholicism practices mixing with the UU faith. Only a baptised Christian in a UU community with outer practices that may mirror Roman Catholicism.

What you reveal here is a Label “Roman Catholic” of the UU member, never a Roman Catholic in practice as a UU member. So no mixing can ever reach the divine under this false pretense as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned because the UU member does not possess the faculties to make it so, especially while be self excommunicated.

There is a deception being lived out here in this mixture.

I am sorry, Gabriel, but I didn’t understand this answer.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am sorry, Gabriel, but I didn’t understand this answer.

Peace,

Seeker

My answer reflects your quote here "Our congregations are mixed, as are our sources of faith."

A Roman Catholic cannot practice his Roman Catholic faith while becoming a member of a mixed congregation holding to each ones own faith. He is either Roman Catholic or not.

Thus what is ultimately revealed here is a Roman Catholic “label” not a Roman Catholic/UU member.

Our scriptures reveal in the Catholic Church that there are never a mixture of faiths, but Only One Faith, One baptism, One Lord in the body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.

In short the baptized Roman Catholic’s baptism does not make him a UU member.

I understand the UU position as having diversed or mixed members from different faiths being united in One Congregation. This makes good for ecumenical purposes of communication “if”? the mixture of faiths maintain their own practices of faith in their own communities.

What is revealed here appear to be only political labels from different faith’s appearing to be unified as one congregation, believing what the UU faith teaches, thus nulifies the Roman Catholics identity while being a UU member.

Yet, the Roman Catholic cannot practice his Catholic faith in a mixture of faiths, this appears to make the Roman Catholic/UU member a “political member” by Label only not a member of UU faith as a Roman Catholic.

I hope to draw the distinction of faith that binds all as one united in the same belief’s from “faith labels” which is not the same.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

My answer reflects your quote here “**Our congregations are **mixed, as are our sources of faith.”

A Roman Catholic cannot practice his Roman Catholic faith while becoming a member of a mixed congregation holding to each ones own faith. He is either Roman Catholic or not.

Thus what is ultimately revealed here is a Roman Catholic “label” not a Roman Catholic/UU member.

Our scriptures reveal in the Catholic Church that there are never a mixture of faiths, but Only One Faith, One baptism, One Lord in the body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.

In short the baptized Roman Catholic’s baptism does not make him a UU member.

I understand the UU position as having diversed or mixed members from different faiths being united in One Congregation. This makes good for ecumenical purposes of communication and possibly a political mixture of different faith as unified members in a society.

Yet the Roman Catholic cannot practice his Catholic faith in a mixture of faiths, this appears to make the Roman Catholic/UU member a “political member” by Label not a member of UU faith as a Roman Catholic.

 

[peace2u2]

My answer reflects your quote here “**Our congregations are **mixed, as are our sources of faith.”

A Roman Catholic cannot practice his Roman Catholic faith while becoming a member of a mixed congregation holding to each ones own faith. He is either Roman Catholic or not.

Thus what is ultimately revealed here is a Roman Catholic “label” not a Roman Catholic/UU member.

Our scriptures reveal in the Catholic Church that there are never a mixture of faiths, but Only One Faith, One baptism, One Lord in the body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.

In short the baptized Roman Catholic’s baptism does not make him a UU member.

I understand the UU position as having diversed or mixed members from different faiths being united in One Congregation. This makes good for ecumenical purposes of communication “if”? the mixture of faiths maintain their own practices of faith in their own communities.

What is revealed here appear to be only political labels from different faith’s appearing to be unified as one congregation, believing what the UU faith teaches, thus nulifies the Roman Catholics identity while being a UU member.

Yet, the Roman Catholic cannot practice his Catholic faith in a mixture of faiths, this appears to make the Roman Catholic/UU member a “political member” by Label only not a member of UU faith as a Roman Catholic.

I hope to draw the distinction of faith that binds all as one united in the same belief’s from “faith labels” which is not the same.

The following quote, the author of which I do not know, sums up what you said:

“God’s wisdom is bound to contradict man’s - unless man and his culture are not fallen.”

Perhaps when our hearts and minds are not in conflict, the fullness of His Truth can then be revealed and accepted. Only God truly knows a man’s heart and perhaps we should just strive to love our neighbor as we love God.

The story of Jesus and the Samaritan Woman at the well is a good story from the Gospel to illustrate this. The well symbolizes marriage. Jesus symbolizes the Bridegroom. The Samaritan woman symbolizes the Bride, the Church, the one He wants to marry. A groom can only have one bride.

Jesus came to establish one Church with one set of doctrines, not many different churches that practice and believe many different things whatever happens to suit their lifestyle.

He wants us to worship Him in Spirit and Truth. We draw Him in and we give back what He gives us to others. That is what worship of God is. That is what marriage is. Marriage is a union. Not division. God does not intend for divisions to be comfortable.

God reveals Himself in the fullness of Truth in His Catholic Church. To worship Him one week in the Catholic Church and the following week in a Protestant Church is confusion. Division. I wonder if Non-Catholic Christians or Non-Christians would be comfortable with that?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

peace2u2;9078922]The following quote, the author of which I do not know, sums up what you said:

“God’s wisdom is bound to contradict man’s - unless man and his culture are not fallen.”

Perhaps when our hearts and minds are not in conflict, the fullness of His Truth can then be revealed and accepted. Only God truly knows a man’s heart and perhaps we should just strive to love our neighbor as we love God.

The story of Jesus and the Samaritan Woman at the well is a good story from the Gospel to illustrate this. The well symbolizes marriage. Jesus symbolizes the Bridegroom. The Samaritan woman symbolizes the Bride, the Church, the one He wants to marry. A groom can only have one bride.

Jesus came to establish one Church with one set of doctrines, not many different churches that practice and believe many different things whatever happens to suit their lifestyle.

Good point; What is revealed also of the Samaritan Woman who is out of communion with Jesus, Leaves her Jar to draw water from the well which caused her to continue to thirst, and left with the revelation of Jesus Christ to share the water Jesus gave her.

She gave up and left behind her old life, that which satisified the flesh and emotions, for the revelation of Truth in Jesus Christ, that quinched her thirst from the depths of her soul.

 

[peace2u2]

Good point; What is revealed also of the Samaritan Woman who is out of communion with Jesus, Leaves her Jar to draw water from the well which caused her to continue to thirst, and left with the revelation of Jesus Christ to share the water Jesus gave her.

She gave up and left behind her old life, that which satisified the flesh and emotions, for the revelation of Truth in Jesus Christ, that quinched her thirst from the depths of her soul.

Thank you, Gabriel of 12. Your post spoke to my heart…beautifully said and received. Peace

 

[CMatt25]

A Roman Catholic cannot practice his Roman Catholic faith while becoming a member of a mixed congregation holding to each ones own faith. He is either Roman Catholic or not.

I hope to draw the distinction of faith that binds all as one united in the same belief’s from “faith labels” which is not the same.

Uh huh but it seems to me you give mixed signals in your attempt to draw.

First you state a RC can not practice his RC faith in UU. But then in the next breath you say he is either RC or not.

It’s fine if you want to distinguish between the practice and the label. But when you do a disservice and cause potential confusion I believe is when you then in your next breath say “either RC or not”. You’re not the first I’ve seen who does this on CAF. And yet I think you and the others who are faithful know full well the Catholic identity label remains according to the Church if one is baptized a member of the Catholic Church or confirmed/received. Perhaps he/she would be NP, lapsed, nominal, heterodox, self-excommunicated, whatever additional label you might like to assign as an adjective in front of RC. But saying “either RC or not” is incorrect if you’re faithful to Her teachings, which I’ve no doubt you are. As that would include being faithful as well to the teaching on who She labels/identifies a Catholic.

Deconi I think summed it so distinctly with the words:

“Just a reminder here, a Catholic DOES NOT call into question the Catholicity of another! It is true that once marked by Baptism, for Christ, you are marked for life! But for whatever reason, a baptised Catholic can wander the ‘wilderness’ of faith communities, and if s/he is searching for God, is between s/he and He! For those (of us) who remain, keep the ‘fires burning’ through faith and deed so the way home can be seen from every direction!”

I’m now off to a Catholic Lenten fish fry. His blessings and peace be with you this Lenten season, into Easter, and beyond.

 

[Sufjon]

Hey, at least you’re intelligent and cogent. I’m still digesting that post - that much can’t be said for most of the village atheists.

If I understand, it does essentially come down to relativism, with the only absolute truth being no absolute truth-statements (I’m sure that can be phrased in a less self-defeating way), with our “truths” defined essentially by culture? Or, the absolute being a form of pantheism, as I read the theology of that post. I consider myself at most times to be above the most egregious errors made in cultural Christianity, as I am culturally Muslim, but, if you are correct, it is true at the same time I can not escape the Abrahamic milieu of my entire life and ancestry back to the time of the Pharaohs.

There was a Buddhist on this forum a while back, and he was able to point me in the direction to the right Buddhist scriptures for an inquirer to read, and acceptable or good editions of them. I wonder if you could provide the same service for me? I’ve read the Bhagavad Gita, an abridgment of the Mahabharata (Penguin Classics versions, Juan Mascaro and Laurie Patton [two versions of the BG] and John D Smith [abridged Mahabharata], not the Hare Krishna one), the Rig Veda (Ralph Griffith’s translation, as I’ve heard horrible things about the Freudian nature of Wendy Doniger’s Penguin Classics volume), and Ekanath Easwaran(?)'s version of the Upanishads (I’m not sure if it’s an abridgment or not). I am aware there are more Vedas, and was told by that self-same Hindu I spoke of above something about “three levels of commentaries” that were viewed (or at least implied to be viewed) as scripture. Any pointers in the right direction? I’d like to read all of it, if that’s possible (as it wasn’t with the massive 100-volume Tripitaka or Pali Canons of Buddhism).

I can read translations in Arabic, Greek, or Latin if better versions are available in those languages (I should learn Sanskrit after I finish my study of Mandarin…it has a weird script, is all that I can see of it - line above the letters? Then again, Latin looked odd to me at first [although Greek didn’t, as Coptic is written with very similar letters]).

I only have the Avesta left to read (can’t find a translation of it), and I’ve read the central scriptures of every world religion (even some of the Bab and Baha’u’llah’s writings). I generally have the goal of being as, or more, conversant in every major religious tradition as the average native believer of those traditions are (not a theologian, monk, or specialist, that is, but the average individual).

Hi again Khalid: I have had a number of distractions over the past few days that have kept me from continuing a good dialog with you. When I get time, I’d like to continue, as you seem like someone who can help me figure out a few things I’ve been thinking about. BTW, the Easwaran translation of the Upanishads that you mentioned is in my opinion the best text available in the west on Hindu thought. If you read that and understood it then you nailed it.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

One can’t swim the Tiber half way, or pick and choose bits and pieces of Catholicism that are appealing. One must be a Catholic all the way. I suggest RCIA for your friend, as well as reading up on Church history and traditions.
Blessings on your day.
Kathryn Ann

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

CMatt25;9079904]Uh huh but it seems to me you give mixed signals in your attempt to draw.

First you state a RC can not practice his RC faith in UU. But then in the next breath you say he is either RC or not.

It’s fine if you want to distinguish between the practice and the label. But when you do a disservice and cause potential confusion I believe is when you then in your next breath say “either RC or not”. You’re not the first I’ve seen who does this on CAF. And yet I think you and the others who are faithful know full well the Catholic identity label remains according to the Church if one is baptized a member of the Catholic Church or confirmed/received.

Please allow me to attempt to clear up your confusion here; First of all I don’t think any of the Catholics speaking on this topic offer any confusion or disservice here.

It would appear that your confusion is drawn from the lack of understanding how sacred the sacrament of baptism is, from one being identified as a Roman Catholic.

A valid baptized Catholic, Christian belongs to the whole Catholic (universal) body of believers both in heaven and on earth in the body of Christ. A baptized Catholic is not necessarily always from the Roman Catholic Rite. He can belong to many different Catholic Rites provided he/she remains in full communion.

Once the baptized Catholic leaves his/her Catholic practicing Catholilc Rite, negates his communion in that particular Rite, this one being Roman “Latin” Rite. But he/she never has the power to remove his/her baptism seal as a Catholic Christian in the body of Christ.

Because the UU member removed himself from the Roman Catholic Rite communion and practice, is not considered a Roman Catholic, but a baptised Catholic out of communion with his Roman Catholic Rite.

Now it could be another baptized Catholic could leave his Roman “Latin” Rite for another valid Catholic Rite and never loose his communion, just a change in Catholic Rite practice. Then his identity would also change to this new Catholic Rite communion but never his baptism.

But when the Roman Catholic leaves his Catholicity all together outside of the Catholic Church looses his identity as a Roman Catholic to become a UU member only, but never looses his identity as a baptized Catholic.

Your confusion appears to try and force a baptized Roman Catholic as remaining a Roman Catholic by virtue of his baptism in the UU membership. This is not the case. Because the Roman Catholic has removed himself from the communion of the Roman “Latin” Rite for the communion of a UU member, when the two different “communions” bodies of faith can never become one, because both profess a different faith.

In short the validly baptised are always Catholic. But the communion the baptised choose to practice his “faith” determines his true identity of practice, at the same time never removing his “sacramental” baptism from his soul.

Quite honestly, I don’t believe your conversation with the Catholic Bishop regarding this circumstance covered all the necessary details that could of been addressed. Thus it would appear you left the bishop only with what satisfied your inquiry.

Your inquiry with the bishop lacks volumes of understanding and interpretation to this particular circumstance. Suffice to say, I agree with all the bishop states, but his statement appears to be a brief comment that points to the fact of a valid baptism and would appear to not address the different Catholic Rites, or protestant communions.

Have a happy and repentative lent season that disciplines the believers in Jesus Christ to remove those things that may prevent us from drawing closer to our heavenly Father.

 

[ebonykawai]

Seeing a creation of God in such terms as “sinner” and the like is not a view I could ever entertain.

Sufjon, I very much agree with this. I have always felt that, as a Catholic, everything we do seems to be a sin. That has been a real sticking point for me, especially because of my studies of Yoga and Vedanta. Living life as a Catholic always seems to me, in one way or another, to be filled with guilt and the impossibility of ever being worthy of anything. I never felt like this when practicing Yoga (and by this I mean the 8 limbs as per Patanjali, not what most western people think of as Yoga). I felt so much closer to God then, and I felt joyful a great deal of the time. It’s sad for me, because I grew up in the Catholic church, but feels like it will be an unsustainable place for me. I guess it doesn’t help that my pastor is very judgemental. I really don’t even want to go back to my church.

Thank you for posting the quote from John Paul II. He is one of the only reasons I’ve stayed with Catholicism.

I have some questions I’d like to ask you at some point. I’ve found your explanations and answers very clear, and we seem to be in the same page regarding most of our beliefs. I’m not sure this board has private messaging or not. Perhaps we can start a new thread in Non-Catholic Religions?

Thank you!

 

[ebonykawai]

BTW, the Easwaran translation of the Upanishads that you mentioned is in my opinion the best text available in the west on Hindu thought.

I have this translation. It’s wonderful!

 

[Khalid]

Hi again Khalid: I have had a number of distractions over the past few days that have kept me from continuing a good dialog with you. When I get time, I’d like to continue, as you seem like someone who can help me figure out a few things I’ve been thinking about. BTW, the Easwaran translation of the Upanishads that you mentioned is in my opinion the best text available in the west on Hindu thought. If you read that and understood it then you nailed it.

Your friend
Sufjon

I read it, but I can’t claim to have understood it (I think I understood all the notes, though, but I learned long ago to not confuse the annotation of a holy text with the text itself). When you have time, you can enter a post in this thread or send a PM, or send me a PM with a link to a new thread. It’s easier to understand than the (non-annotated) Rig Veda without a doubt, but reading the Rig Veda (I believe Hymn 129; one of the hymns on creation, ending with “He knows this - or perhaps he knows it not”) did convince me that there is at least a spark of the divine truth seen in some religions, “as in a mirror darkly”. Hinduism, which seems to be much more different from Christianity than something like Islam, for all I can see, is actually closer to it.