Christianity and The Truth

[CatsAndDogs]

I’m very sad. It appears to me that Christains and Muslims and Jews are always going to fight and there is just nothing that can be done about it.

Its interesting, Jesus said “By their fruits you shall know them…” and I see fighting, stubborness, intransigence, narrow-mindedness.

That’s because that’s what you’ve been “programed” to see. Those who would like religion completely separated from human affairs would like nothing better than for the “false peace” that you’ve “bought into” enacted, and enforced in the only way possible. By military force whereby “truth speakers” (of any stripe) would be severely punished by the “thought police”.

What you call “narrowmindedness” I call commitment, though you are certainly correct that that kind of commitment if “enforced” by coersion to “beat down unbelievers” is simply another example of being EVIL by being the “thought police”.

I guess it comes down to fear. If you believe that God would only provide two options for people"the truth" or hell, then I can understand why people feel desperate and are anxious to get it right.

All actual decisions come down to TWO choices. THIS thing or a not-THIS thing. The choice at our “end” is God or not-God.

The not-God choice may not be utterly terrible in “absolute” terms, but when compared to the God choice it can’t help but be utterly terrible.

The truth is that it’s either heaven or hell for the same reason that every choice is a choice between two things, and no more.

Actually, many (all!?) of your examples of “personal heavens” and “personal hells” are simply the infinite variety of possibilities which a person might experience in purgatory.

Its interesting how many people are so ready to say that the different traditions contradict each other and are therefore wrong and evil, but then express an unwillingness to even be open to hearing what the other traditions say.

They have preconceived notions about what other traditions say and dismiss them totally out of hand.

The vast majority of people don’t have the time or inclination to do any more than nominally follow their own tradition, much less learn about their own such that they can be decent peaceable apologists without coming to blows with those of other traditions!

All the less likely that people will take on an extensive survey of indepth study into ALL THE OTHER traditions.

Personally, I’m willing to be open to changing my religion to Catholicism if I ever see a person who expresses genuine holiness. So far in my experience, I have encountered holiness in other religions, but not in Christianity (well…maybe one person) I wonder why that is? Christianity claims to be the “true faith” but I have yet to see evidence that this is true.

That is because THE most full expression of the truth is more difficult to follow than less full, more simplistic, expressions of the truth. It is also, generally, connected with a culture which is very “in your face” and expansive. The combination of a difficult task (DOING Christianity correctly) being done by non-religiously successful people (“western civilization” being rather successful at temporal affairs) makes for a HUGE opportunity for scandalous behavior!

It’s easy(er) to “be holy” when you have a “simple true path” to follow, and your fellow peasants are more than happy to support you in your quest for holiness.

Plus, you’re simply not looking in the right places for Christian holiness. It appears YOU’RE also guilty of not having the time or inclination to do the “appropriate” research. C’est la vie.

(Not to mention that one should look at the principles of a religion to assess it’s truthfulness, and not at it’s adherents. Though scandal will always be the single greatest barrier to finding truth.)

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Ok…

Can you (or somebody) tell me how one can do anything other than point out how their belief is superior to others when one believes that they alone in the full possession of the truth?

Nobody has been able to show you that this is incorrect and nobody has been able to show me that this is is correct.

If both sides are inflexible, how can one come to understanding?

One of the truths that we (Catholics) are bound to believe is that others DO indeed have some measure of the truth, and that we are specifically NOT to act superior, condescending, smug, etc, towards other people’s beliefs.

That is VERY HARD to do, of course, but the sin of pride, which this “superior attitude” is an example, is one of mankind’s primary tendencies in his relations toward his brothers.

Both sides can be completely inflexible about not changing what they each believe and STILL learn where it is that they differ. Once the differerences are seen in “the other” and explained from “my” viewpoint, THEN the trouble is likely to start, due to prideful defensiveness.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

My next question is: Can people of different faiths find common ground to talk about God together?

Yes. By accepting that we’re conversing **only **to tell each other how our own theology works, and where and why the other’s theology is incongruent with our own theology.

Can we acknowledge that although we might differ in the particulars about how we view God there might be a common vocabulary that we can use?

The only “common vocabulary” that is meaningful is the “vocabulary” of charity. Regardless of the words and definitions we use we must agree to want ONLY to inform the other of our views, and never want to harm the other.

Or is my view of God and your view of God so different that there is no chance of sharing?

There will be points of congruence and points of abject contradiction. When we are fortunate enough to find those gems, we must rejoice together in the discovery, and follow those gems to the base reason for those individual beliefs. When we can agree to disagree about the heart of a gem, the emotion produced, pity, sadness, humor, hope, etc, needs to be allowed by each from each in a way that does not produce that rage of wanting to harm each other.

To converse on God when one person sacrifices children to “Him”, and another finds that far beyond ghastly, both people need to find a way to not come to blows, and merely cry in each others arms for the pain that they each feel in their complete rightness and the other’s utter wrongness.

 

[Neil_LA]

That’s because that’s what you’ve been “programed” to see. Those who would like religion completely separated from human affairs would like nothing better than for the “false peace” that you’ve “bought into” enacted, and enforced in the only way possible. By military force whereby “truth speakers” (of any stripe) would be severely punished by the “thought police”.

What you call “narrowmindedness” I call commitment, though you are certainly correct that that kind of commitment if “enforced” by coersion to “beat down unbelievers” is simply another example of being EVIL by being the “thought police”.

All actual decisions come down to TWO choices. THIS thing or a not-THIS thing. The choice at our “end” is God or not-God.

The not-God choice may not be utterly terrible in “absolute” terms, but when compared to the God choice it can’t help but be utterly terrible.

The truth is that it’s either heaven or hell for the same reason that every choice is a choice between two things, and no more.

Actually, many (all!?) of your examples of “personal heavens”
and “personal hells” are simply the infinite variety of possibilities which a person might experience in purgatory.

The vast majority of people don’t have the time or inclination to do any more than nominally follow their own tradition, much less learn about their own such that they can be decent peaceable apologists without coming to blows with those of other traditions!

All the less likely that people will take on an extensive survey of indepth study into ALL THE OTHER traditions.

That is because THE most full expression of the truth is more difficult to follow than less full, more simplistic, expressions of the truth. It is also, generally, connected with a culture which is very “in your face” and expansive. The combination of a difficult task (DOING Christianity correctly) being done by non-religiously successful people (“western civilization” being rather successful at temporal affairs) makes for a HUGE opportunity for scandalous behavior!

It’s easy(er) to “be holy” when you have a “simple true path” to follow, and your fellow peasants are more than happy to support you in your quest for holiness.

Plus, you’re simply not looking in the right places for Christian holiness. It appears YOU’RE also guilty of not having the time or inclination to do the “appropriate” research. C’est la vie.

(Not to mention that one should look at the principles of a religion to assess it’s truthfulness, and not at it’s adherents. Though scandal will always be the single greatest barrier to finding truth.)

It appears to me that you’re just trying to be argumentative and insulting instead of actually showing me why Catholicism has the fullness of truth and my religion doesn’t.

Until you are willing to enter into civil dialoge, I won’t respond to your posts.

 

[Neil_LA]

Exactly. No one is served if hybrids are created while more the more worthwhile “true” froms are abandoned

I do not feel that my Catholic Church has been, and I do not know enough about your faith to say that it has. I do know that people have tried to mix different faiths together. It just doesn’t seem to really have the effect that was desired.

Yes, I agree…have a real tradition and live it. I never said people should mix faiths.

 

[Neil_LA]

To converse on God when one person sacrifices children to “Him”, and another finds that far beyond ghastly, both people need to find a way to not come to blows, and merely cry in each others arms for the pain that they each feel in their complete rightness and the other’s utter wrongness.

Are you implying that my tradtition involves CHILD SACRIFICE?!?!?!?!?!

I find the notion that you would even suggest such a thing as an immence offence to me and my tradition!

I challenge you to show me any of the major world religions that advocates child sacrifice.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

It appears to me that you’re just trying to be argumentative and insulting instead of actually showing me why Catholicism has the fullness of truth and my religion doesn’t.

Until you are willing to enter into civil dialoge. I won’t respond to your posts.

I can’t show you “why” Catholicism has the fullness of the truth, because the answer is simply, “God gave it (the most fullness at any one particular time) to mankind through the Church, which has existed since Adam and which line of people will continue forever.”

Now, how you’ve construed my posting as argumentative, insulting, and uncivil, you’ll have to explain to me, as that was clearly not my intent. I was actually agreeing with you, from my point of view, to most of what you had said.

It gives you no information as to where I’m coming from if I don’t inform you about my interpretations of what you’ve said, now does it?

Once again, are you more interested in having people simply agreeing with you so as not to generate “conflict”, or are you interested in delving into various viewpoints about important matters?

Are you a “calm” worshipper, or are you a worshipper of the truth, willing to do what needs doing to uncover it?

 

[Neil_LA]

I can’t show you “why” Catholicism has the fullness of the truth, because the answer is simply, “God gave it (the most fullness at any one particular time) to mankind through the Church, which has existed since Adam and which line of people will continue forever.”

Now, how you’ve construed my posting as argumentative, insulting, and uncivil, you’ll have to explain to me, as that was clearly not my intent. I was actually agreeing with you, from my point of view, to most of what you had said.

It gives you no information as to where I’m coming from if I don’t inform you about my interpretations of what you’ve said, now does it?

Once again, are you more interested in having people simply agreeing with you so as not to generate “conflict”, or are you interested in delving into various viewpoints about important matters?

Are you a “calm” worshipper, or are you a worshipper of the truth, willing to do what needs doing to uncover it?

Ok…I’ll go back to your previous post and respond point by point…

I would like you to respond to the thing about child sacrifice…

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Are you implying that my tradtition involves CHILD SACRIFICE?!?!?!?!?!

I find the notion that you would even suggest such a thing as an immence offence to me and my tradition!

I challenge you to show me any of the major world religions that advocates child sacrifice.

No, no, no, no, you silly goose!

I was simply juxtaposing two VERY opposite “beliefs”, in the extreme, to illustrate how to deal with complete incongruity of belief compassionately.

…and Ba’al worship was very much into child sacrifice. Some might say that those who are “abortion advocates” are also “child sacrificers” to their “god” of convenience.

 

[Namesake]

I have no problem with anyone having their own approach to reality. I simply have one as well, and will not use anyone else’s approach.

To “engage” in your “teachings” is to try to understand them in a way meaningful to me. I have done that.

If you can “accomodate” more than one “approach to God” in your one person, then I can see why you are attracted to the syncretism and appeasment mentality of “the east”.

To have “all religions” is to have none.

You are pretty well hung up on the “syncretism and appeasment” thing. It’s a bit boring and not useful.

 

[Neil_LA]

No, no, no, no, you silly goose!

I was simply juxtaposing two VERY opposite “beliefs”, in the extreme, to illustrate how to deal with complete incongruity of belief compassionately.

…and Ba’al worship was very much into child sacrifice. Some might say that those who are “abortion advocates” are also “child sacrificers” to their “god” of convenience.

Ok…I admit I overreacted…sorry…

I’m reminded of Groucho Marx’s famous mantra “Owata gu siam”

Anyway…I went back to your previous post and did a point by point responce and I came to the conclusion that we agree more that disagree…I made some good points and then somehow I erased it…UGH!!!

So anyway…I agree that we can come to a common vocabulary in charity and respect and also be aware of differences and be clear about said differences and point them out. When such differences evoke strong emotions we can have space to say calmly what emotion is coming up without lashing out…(something I totally neglected to do above)

My main motivation is to see if we can find points where we agree, without either side having to feel that we are sacrificing our faithfulness to our tradtion or making concessions that destroy our faith.

I believe that this is possible.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

You are pretty well hung up on the “syncretism and appeasment” thing. It’s a bit boring and not useful.

Those are the key “things I noticed” about Neil’s statements and questions. That’s all.

Do you see most of the religions of “the east” as syncretic? Does he, or you for that matter, see the tendency to “make nice” by “incorporating”, by accreting, the “insights” of “outsiders” into the religions of “the east” so as to “meld” with them?

Neil seems to want us (Christians/Catholics) to not think we’re so “special” and grant his “eastern ways” a form of “superiority” in being more “nice” than we are.

I don’t grant that in the least. The hallmark of “the west” is our intransigence to those who would grant us a part of THEIR superiority. It’s one of the big reasons that there’s so much anti-Catholicism, actually!

Tell me how my speaking about what he’s shown us is not “useful” to his understanding of our views of his views?

What is the goal of YOUR “usefulness”? Is it to convert Neil? That’s not my goal in the least. So, what “goal” are YOU talking about, Namesake?

 

[Neil_LA]

Neil seems to want us (Christians/Catholics) to not think we’re so “special” and grant his “eastern ways” a form of “superiority” in being more “nice” than we are.

As I said in a previous post, I am willing to grant my Catholic brothers and sisters their “specialness” and their “superiority” as one of their charming idiosyncrasies.

I am willing to drop discussion about whether or not either traditon contains the “fullness of truth.”

We can agree to disagree about that, I believe.

My main object now is to discover if we can find points that we might agree on, while maintaining an awareness and respect of points of divergence.

I believe that there can be a common ground in discussion about God, that still respects and in no way belittles the important differences among traditions.

My motivation in trying this is not to create a synthesis of religions, but instead see how we might realize that our experiences could actually be able to be expressed in a way that doesn’t antagonize the other.

Is it to convert Neil? That’s not my goal in the least

I certainly appreciate the respectfulness and sincerity of this statement.

Neither do I wish anyone here to change their beliefs. I want to see if we can find anything that we might agree on.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Ok…I admit I overreacted…sorry…

I’m reminded of Groucho Marx’s famous mantra “Owata gu siam”

A great humility evoking mantra, that! The Great Schnoz-Eyed God Owata-gu, based in Siam (Old Thailand) is certainly one of MY favorite Harapa-hindu-ish gods!

Anyway…I went back to your previous post and did a point by point responce and I came to the conclusion that we agree more that disagree…I made some good points and then somehow I erased it…UGH!!!

Ooops! Man, I just HATE it when that happens! That, and when I’ve penned some writ fit to have come from Gabriel himself gets obliterated when the power-grid decides it needs a rest. Not fun! Hah ha ha ha… <cough!>

So anyway…I agree that we can come to a common vocabulary in charity and respect and also be aware of differences and be clear about said differences and point them out. When such differences evoke strong emotions we can have space to say calmly what emotion is coming up without lashing out…(something I totally neglected to do above)

Yeah, it’s possible and REALLY hard to do. Yeesh!

My main motivation is to see if we can find points where we agree, without either side having to feel that we are sacrificing our faithfulness to our tradtion or making concessions that destroy our faith.

I believe that this is possible.

What is usually always possible is to find those things which we can agree to disagree about, make them explicit, and then move on, using those “impasses” as REASONS on which other incompatibilities are based.

What is more difficult is to ask ourselves and others to TRY TO THINK of some way where the phenomena which SEEMS to be such a stumbling block MIGHT be explained without violating both belief systems.

Such as, for example, individual hindu gods might be some super-imposition of demons and angels which we MISTAKE for one being when in fact they are multiple beings being misperceived as one being.

(That’s one of my favorite “stretches” toward making sense of a phenomena such that it MIGHT not violate the Christian and hindu systems.)

I very much appreciate “reconcilers”, such as yourself, as I used to be very much concentrated on that idea. But these days I’ve come to realize that before one can hope to reconcile disparate systems of belief, one must REALLY have a personal belief system from which to speak, which one is COMPLETELY commited to as absolutely true.

To be “relativistic” at the start is to have nowhere to speak from. If you can’t state your absolutes, absoulutely nothing positive can come of your statements, because you SPEAK FOR no one, not even yourself.

(The advantage in this in being Catholic is that you have the Magisterium to work from, and don’t have to sift it all yourself, or draw on you own very limited life-span and learning to come to conclusions you can trust.)

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Neil seems to want us (Christians/Catholics) to not think we’re so “special” and grant his “eastern ways” a form of “superiority” in being more “nice” than we are.

As I said in a previous post, I am willing to grant my Catholic brothers and sisters their “specialness” and their “superiority” as one of their charming idiosyncrasies.

And we grant “the east’s” sincere desire for everyone to “make nice” as one of their charming idiosyncracies, as well.

I am willing to drop discussion about whether or not either traditon contains the “fullness of truth.”

We can agree to disagree about that, I believe.

There really is no way to “prove” this point to the other, any more than one can “prove” that they really do believe in God who exists. Atheists always ask me to “prove” to them that the proof of God’s existence given to me by God is true. I can’t show them my singularly given (to me by God) proof in any way that constitutes PROOF to them at all! Yet they demand I prove to them something that is impossible for me to prove to them. Only God can provide the proof they want, but nothing God does provide is ever seen AS proof to them of God, and yet they think I can pull off some “hat trick” and do better than God! Yoinks!

Anyway, yeah, we can agree to disagree about that point.

My main object now is to discover if we can find points that we might agree on, while maintaining an awareness and respect of points of divergence.

Personally, I believe that the points where we DON’T agree are MUCH much more important to discover and clarify! They are more prone to “disagreeableness” in our disagreement, but they really get to the heart of the motivations for our particular “gotta believes at all costs”.

I believe that there can be a common ground in discussion about God, that still respects and in no way belittles the important differences among traditions.

My motivation in trying this is not to create a synthesis of religions, but instead see how we might realize that our experiences could actually be able to be expressed in a way that doesn’t antagonize the other.

I’m afraid they, we, will ALWAYS antagonize each other, but once again the goal is not to stamp out antagonizing but rather to stamp out being antagonized, which is ourselves controlling (allowing our humilty) ourselves as opposed to ourselves censoring (punishing our inhumility) ourselves.

I may have befuddled myself with that tortured sentence!

Quote:
Is it to convert Neil? That’s not my goal in the least

I certainly appreciate the respectfulness and sincerity of this statement.

Neither do I wish anyone here to change their beliefs. I want to see if we can find anything that we might agree on.

We agree on an amazing amount, in reality, but the “sticky bits”, like the squeeky wheel, always gets the disproportionate amount of attention. (…and then improper emotionality gets into the act, then there are the reprisals, and the counter reprisals, and it’s WWII all over again!)

 

[Neil_LA]

Personally, I believe that the points where we DON’T agree are MUCH much more important to discover and clarify! They are more prone to “disagreeableness” in our disagreement, but they really get to the heart of the motivations for our particular “gotta believes at all costs”.

We agree on an amazing amount, in reality, but the “sticky bits”, like the squeeky wheel, always gets the disproportionate amount of attention. (…and then improper emotionality gets into the act, then there are the reprisals, and the counter reprisals, and it’s WWII all over again!)

Yes…we do agree on much. You’ve made many good points. I would like to talk about all of them…

But for now I am interested in what you say above about how the places where we don’t agree are more important to clarify.,

I would be interested to hear more about that…

Feel free to go to town, but please remember, I will feel free to correct any misconceptions about my tradition that may arise…

Which makes me wonder…and I really don’t mean to be rude, but how much about Hinduism do you know?

Well…I’m no expert either…I can’t read Sanskrit…so…but there are elements I like about it…but I’m sure you’ll think my faith is not very firm or something…

but anyway,tell me where we disagree…

 

[Neil_LA]

Jesus and Krishna as friends

 

[LDNCatholic]

Are you implying that my tradtition involves CHILD SACRIFICE?!?!?!?!?!

I find the notion that you would even suggest such a thing as an immence offence to me and my tradition!

I challenge you to show me any of the major world religions that advocates child sacrifice.

This is not an attack on Hinduism, but there have been sects that practice human sacrifice. One sect, following ‘‘tantrism’’ are known to have a few among their number who practice human sacrifice to this day, aswel as a few cases of Kali worship resulting in human, including child, sacrifice.

Whether or not human sacrifice is advocated in the Vedas is still a matter of debate.

In the interests of fairness it isn’t limited to obscure sects of Hinduism:

The Chinese didn’t ban slave sacrifice until the 1600’s

West African religion was big on the whole human sacrifice scene until the 1800’s and still continues to a smaller extent in religious ritual.

Oh and Aztec religion, nothing they liked more than killing a couple thousand people.

 

[Neil_LA]

This is not an attack on Hinduism, but there have been sects that practice human sacrifice. One sect, following ‘‘tantrism’’ are known to have a few among their number who practice human sacrifice to this day, aswel as a few cases of Kali worship resulting in human, including child, sacrifice.

Whether or not human sacrifice is advocated in the Vedas is still a matter of debate.

You’ll have to quote some authentic sources otherwise I believe that it is British propoganda trying to demean Vedic culture.

 

[Neil_LA]

You’ll have to quote some authentic sources otherwise I believe that it is British propoganda trying to demean Vedic culture.

I am actually very interested in this contention of human sacrifice to Kali.

I have posted a question about it on one group that I am a member of that focuses on Hindu Divine Mother worship. The Gurus of that group are very reliable.

When they respond, I will be happy to post what they say.

If they say that human sacrifice did/does occur, I will agree that once again I put my foot in my mouth and stand corrected.