Regarding the theme of new religious movements despite the LDS claims that it is the true restored early church of Christianity I am going to have to place it in the category of new religious movements as it is younger than 200 years old and there exists no substantial evidence that it is restored ancient Christianity.
First some fun facts about Mormonism
The Mormon Church (officially known as the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) was founded by Joseph Smith Jr. (1805-1844) in 1830 a.d. He claimed that he established the church based on revelations he received in 1820 from two person who came from heaven. These visitors from heaven told smith that all Christian religions in existence were totally corrupt and that his mission was to restore the true church that had been established by Jesus Christ. The original church that had been established and long since become corrupt shortly after the death of the last apostle.
In order to complete this task, Joseph smith claimed that God made him an apostle and a prophet. He was to be an inspired prophet that would be able to communicate divine revelations and write sacred scripture. There are 3 of these writings that Mormons claim are part of Scripture. “The book of Mormon” “Doctrines and Covenants” and “Pearl of Great Price”. Mormons believe that all succeeding LDS presidents (prophets) after Joseph smith are also inspired prophets.
THE GREAT APOSTASY and the Book of Mormon
This doctrine is what can be called “A foundational doctrine” of Mormonism and without it the church would collapse upon itself. This claim that is made by the LDS needs to be true in order for the church to be true. As stated earlier the first message to Joseph smith was a message stating that all Christian churches were corrupt and shortly after the death of the last apostle the church became fully corrupt and was unable to teach the true gospel of Christ.
Now to get critical. Without even having to dive into the numerous problems with many of the claims of the LDS from the Book of Mormon, the contradictions of one prophet to the next, failed prophecies, lack of any historical or archaelogical evidence for the Book of Mormon. One major flaw of this doctrine always stood out to me. If according to Mormonism the “True Church” and “True Christianity” was lost after the death of the last apostle in 100 a.d and was most definitely worldwide by 200 a.d. Then how was the Catholic church able to determine correctly (200 years after the truth was completely gone from the earth) which books would be in or not be in the bible that all Christians would believe in for ages to come, including Mormons! Its inconsistent and throws up a Red flag. Most missionaries at your doorstep don’t know this information and for good reason. A lot of Adventists religions are unaware that the Catholic church is the organization responsible for the bible.
Reading Mormon apologetics fascinates me. That along with my recent experiences with the Korean group that worships a woman alive right now as God has helped me to understand more than ever the deep seeded desire of people to want to believe in something even if its not true. It is interesting the effort put forth and the miles people go through to make something not true believable. It causes me to doubt Religion as a whole sometimes. Ive read Mormon writers deal with the issue of horses in America pre Columbian era by saying that they may have been “Deer” due to the lack of evidence of them existing during the time frame of the Book of Mormon stories. Ive read Mormons turning the “Chariots” of the Book of Mormon into “Sleds”, again because of the lack of evidence and the fact that none have been found. Ive read the arguments regarding the plants and foods not found in the new world that are plenty in the book of Mormon while the foods that have existed In the “new world” are absent in the Book of Mormon stories. Ive read the theories regarding the “limited Tehauntepc model” which requires altering the understanding of the Book of Mormon in order to work.
Eventually as time passes, people grow tired of hearing endless excuses and fantastic theories that are created just so they’ll believe something for which no evidence exists (just like the Great Apostasy). If you’re willing to saddle up a “DEER” and have it pull you on your “SLED” while calling it a horse and a chariot then you are able to buy book of Mormon Zoology. If you’re willing to accept that verifiable and plentiful “New world” foods are ignored while non-existent “Old world” foods are served up then you just swallowed Book of Mormon Botany. If you are ready and willing to bend the Book of Mormon to the point of contradiction in order to fit a preconceived, “limited Tehuantepec model, then you’re ready to claim the geography of the Book of Mormon as factual Geography. If you can accept the “cities as far as the eye can see” as well as the hundreds of thousands of bodies, armor, weapons, breastplates from Book of Mormon Wars but are completely absent from any archaeological find, then you are able to accept the Book of Mormon as authentic history.
For the rest of us, it is obvious that Joseph smiths book is full of flawed information betraying its purely human origins and is a fabrication.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Final Exam
1. YOUR NAME: Gabriel Mares.2. YOUR USERNAME Archangel703.3. List your attendance (how many classes missed? how many classeswere you late to?). I was late to most classes due to the time it takes me to get off work, then home, then to school. Roughly about 5-10 mins at the most. I have never missed a class.
4. Detail what you read for this class.
5. What grade did you finally receive on the midterm? I received an “A”
6. What grade do you deserve in this class? Substantiate your answer. “A” I read the majority of the readings watched all the videos, participated in class, made sure my posts were high quality.
7. List any extra credit or other circumstances that may help youroverall grade. I read many books during the course of this class that dealt with the subject matter regarding the faiths of Islam, Protestant and Catholic Christianity. Philosophy and World religions as a whole.
8. List all of your postings for this class.9. What precisely do we know for "certain" (in terms of documentation/ history) about the life of Jesus Christ? Be specific and be sure to substantiate your answer.
10. Compare and contrast Judaism with Islam. What are the similarities and what are the differences? Outline it.
Judaism Compared to Islam.
Both are considered Abrahamic faiths claiming a connection to “Abraham” Jews understand the revelation of God to them as a chosen people but Islam only acknowledges that the revelation of God was to Abraham and that it warrants the Jews no such special title. Islam see’s itself as the final, perfect and true fulfillment of the 2 other Abrahamic faiths Judaism and Christianity.
Islam, sharing very little with Christianity finds itself in more of a connection with Judaism. It constantly reiterates its Monotheistic belief that there is only one God just as Judaism does. Christians, in the eyes of Islam have detracted from this with its Trinitarian concept of the father, son and the Holy spirit 3 persons in One God formula. Islam is set up like Judaism in similar fashion regarding prayer, dietary guidelines and moral laws. One example would be Halal and Haram. (acceptable and forbidden) foods being comparable to “Kosher” and non-Kosher foods in Jewish tradition. The ideas are not the same though similar in many respects. Something Kosher for a Jew may not necessarily be Halal for a Muslim. Alcohol for one example.
Islam adds an entirely new spin on many of the stories of what Christians consider the Old testament. For example, Muhammad is considered to be a descendant of Ishmael and Muslims constantly point to both Old and New testament texts as prophecies for the coming last prophet Muhammad where as Jews would not recognize such interpretations.
11. Compare and contrast Taoism with Confucianism. What the similarities and what are the differences? Outline it.
12. How did Judaism evolve away from its polytheistic roots into a monotheistic religion? There are a few theories regarding how this happened and I’ll just give one of them here in a nutshell. Judaism “grew up” so to speak in a world surrounded by polytheistic paganism. One of the “gods” of these Polytheist eventually became “Yahweh” It is said that this particular “god” of many “gods” was Abrahams specific god who he was devoted to. Over the course of time this “one of many gods” revealed to Abraham that he was in fact the “Supreme God” and he was the only one to be worshipped. Later this was revealed to Moses that this same God was the God of Abraham and Moses convinced the Israelites that they were one and the same. That’s the evolution in a nutshell and what followed was the relationship between the Jews and their God, which eventually became the Christian and then Muslim God.
Part of this relationship is described in the following excerpt from the bible and a book by Karen Armstrong titled “A History of God”
“So now, fear Yahweh and serve him perfectly and sincerely; put away the gods that you once served beyond the River [Jordan] and in Egypt and serve Yahweh. But if you will not serve Yahweh, choose today whom you wish to serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the River of the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are now living. Joshua 24:14-15
“The people had a choice between Yahweh and the traditional gods of Canaan. They did not hesitate. There was no other god like Yahweh; no other deity had ever been so effective on behalf of his worshippers. His powerful intervention in their affairs had been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Yahweh was up to the job of being their elohim. They would worship him alone and cast away their other gods. Pg 24.
13. How is the Koran different from the Christian Bible? Be specific in your answers.
The Koran is different in Many ways than the bible. The Koran is considered to be the literal words of God while the bible Is considered to be inspired by God and is the Word of God though not literally the “words of God” in the sense that Islam portrays the Koran. The Koran is comprised of 114 chapters different lengths. It has over 6000 verses but is still shorter than the New Testament. The revealing of Christian biblical revelation lasted over centuries by different authors in different eras which reflect complete clear and different styles in writing. The Koran was revealed over a period of 20+ years and then compiled together written in Arabic. The Koran appeals to the Bible as a connection but the Bible in both old and New testaments never speak of or appeal to the Koran for any connection. The Koran draws its connection “forcefully” in many ways appealing to the bible and at the same time claiming the bible as not the perfect word of God and has been corrupted. Because of the discrepancies in the theology found in the Koran and bible, Muslims teach according to the Koran of course that the “True Muslim Bible” has been lost. The Koran references stories in the old and new testament but with added information such as the “7 heavens” added to the story of Genesis, and the Muslim teaching that Jesus was only a prophet never claiming to be “God” or the son of God.
The Koran constantly reminds the reader that it is the fulfillment and full truth not found in the bible and in a way you can say it discourages the bible as any authority since anything that can be found in the bible can be found in the Koran. Any other translation of the Koran outside of Arabic is not truly considered the “Koran” rather an interpretation of it. Muslims believe that the Koran can only truly be understood correctly in its full beauty in the original language. The Bible, need not be read and understood in its original written language in order to be considered valid understanding.
**Can expand on this if Necessary**
14. What are the differences between Roman Catholicism and those religions which identify themselves as Protestant-Christian?
The answer to this question is a one word answer. The thing is that “one” word answer can have a book written about it. The primary difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestant-Christian religions is “Authority”. All and any differences that these different types of Christianity have can trace their roots back to authority. Before I continue explaining what that “authority” is I would like to outline for you some important information regarding Christianity itself that will help set up the back drop on why the authority for Catholic Christianity and Protestant Christianity differ.
Christianity can be divided into 3 major divisions. In no particular order I’ll list them here. There is Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christianity. The first two, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are considered “Apostolic” which means that they can trace themselves back to Christ and the Apostles. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism split from each other in 1054 a.d. But still both can trace themselves back to the Apostles themselves. Protestant Christianity however, is not able to trace itself back to the apostles. They are disconnected from the first 15 centuries of Christianity and find their earliest roots by a Man named Martin Luther in the 16th Century. This fact, as we will see later also contributes to the differences between Catholic and Protestant Christianity.
Lets examine more in depth these 3 divisions to see what makes them different regarding Authority. I’m going to start with Roman Catholicism first.
Roman Catholic. The Catholic church adheres to not 1, not 2 but 3 sources of Authority when it comes to defining doctrine, teaching on matters of faith and Morals and understanding the fullness of Gods plan. These three authorities are “Sacred Scripture” “Sacred Tradition” and “The Sacred Magisterium”.
Sacred Scripture is the Written word of God. The bible. 73 books of the Old and New testament. Divided as 46 Old and 27 New.
Sacred Tradition is the living tradition of the Church. Some of these traditions include the Mass and the Canon of the Bible.
Sacred Magisterium. The Sacred Magisterium is the church itself. The living authority that interprets infallibly the Word of God. The bishops in Union with the Pope.
All three of these traditions together formulate the authority of the Catholic church. They all work in conjuction together and neither of them supercede the other nor can they contradict each other. Kind of like the United states government set up of Executive, Judicical and Legislative branches. All three are in place as a checks and balance system providing a Tripod stand that holds up the Catholic faith as a whole. In a way you can say that the Church is always the final authority, being the living interpreter and teacher of the word but it cannot contradict Sacred Scripture. For example, the Church cant one day proclaim that we no longer need to follow a particular book and throw it out of the bible. This is not possible. The Church is the servant of Scripture as it states in paragraph 86 of the Catechism of the Catholic church. In this set up of 3 authorities we see that the church upholds its ancient traditions and understanding of scriptures primarily by the teaching of the church. Consequently and probably due to the sheer size of the 1 billion worldwide Catholics we find that many lay members are unfamiliar with the scriptures and sometimes unclear of what exactly is the “Tradition” of the church. We see a heavily reliance on the church for any and all teachings of the faith particularly in the West.
The Eastern Orthodox have a different view of the Magisterium then Roman Catholics. They operate on 2 of the 3 authorities of the Roman Catholic church. They accept Scripture and Tradition as the final authority but reject the Roman Catholic Magisterium because of their rejection of the primacy of Rome. They believe that the Church is not “One Universal” in the sense that Roman Catholics understand it but that they are many churches and each individual church is “One” in communion with each other. Because of the rejection of the Magisterium as understood by Roman Catholics we see the effects it has had on Eastern Orthodox. Without a true visible unified head one can point out the reason why the E. Orthodox have had issues regarding being in communion with each other. For example Church “A” is in communion with church “B” and Church “B” is in communion with Church “C” but “C” and “A” aren’t in communion with each other. Another disadvantage we see is the fact that they have not had an Ecumenical council in ages and there isn’t one on the horizon again possibly due to the lack of a central figure found in the Roman Catholic church’s Hierarchy.
Finally we have the Protestant denominations. Under this 3rd category we have a whopping 33,000+ denominations under this umbrella. The primary reason for this is the sole authority of which Protestantism was founded off of. Virtually all Protestant denominations believe in the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” which is Latin for the phrase “The bible alone” They reject both the Tradition and the Magisterium and operate under the belief that “Sacred scripture” alone is the final authority in faith matters. Consequently as we can clearly observe this ideology has had some interesting results especially when it comes to the idea of “Memes” This particular “Meme” or ideolgoy which was started by Martin Luther in the 16th century has had a very rapid reproduction rate. I would equate the idea of “Sola scriptura” to the opening up of Pandora’s box because ever since this first began we have seen an explosion of radically different interpretations of scripture that ranges from the conservative Lutherans to the radical extreme fundamentalists of Westboro Baptists church. The very nature of Protestantism which itself is “Protest” and “rebellion” have caused it to give birth to countless denominations and non-denominational churches (which are really Non-denominational denominations). Because of the rejection of the 2 authorities modern Protestantism finds itself as a distant relative of early Christianity and has been all but divorced from the ancient traditions and understandings of early Christians.
**Can expand on this topic if necessary**
15. Why is atheism appealing to many in America today? Atheism is very appealing in America today because it sells a message of “freeing” oneself from a deity that has dominion over the individual. In essence, you become your own god and you are free from any and all moral obligation. Anything you choose is a product of your own will that you choose for yourself. You can neither impose or have anyone else’s morality imposed on you. This makes life guilt free and you can basically do whatever you want without any consequences inside the law of the land. That plus the fact that Some atheists are absolutely no different than radical fundamentalists religions. Instead of hijacking early Christianity claiming there is some 1500-1800 year gap that links them together, these Atheists hijack science and claim it as their own propagating the idea that religion and science are at war while Atheism is the father of Science. This is an inaccurate view that has somehow found its way around many schools across America. Atheism aligns itself with science and makes itself appear smarter than what it is. Not to say that it is stupid but some atheist use this tactic to masquerade Science as opposed to religion when in fact they can co-exist. The truth is to claim oneself, as an Atheist requires a certain amount of that dreaded word. “Faith”
16. What is the appeal of new religious movements, like the one founded by Adi Da? Ive had the privilege, (if you want to call it that) of dealing with this question in real life this year. For nearly 3 months I spent all of my Saturdays, and Tuesday evenings studying with a “new religious” movement known as the “Worldwide Missionaries Society Church of God” Without going into detail im going to be upfront. They are a cult and to make matters worse they are a “End of the World” Cult that teaches as an “Apocalyptic Eschatology”. Unfortunately there is a young girl I knew who was caught in this group and because of her desire to convert me to her faith I was able to study with them for a few months.
Over the course of my time there I kept track on word documents of the scenarios I found myself in, the behavior and actions of the members of this cult. I’m going to detail here what I witnessed in order to answer this question.
I had read it before. In philosophy, Sociology classes but its entirely different thing when you are actually going through it. You read about the Human beings “Deep seeded” desire to believe in a higher power. Is it the “God gene?” is it built into our DNA to believe in something? Maybe so, and if it is hardwired in your brains all these people from that religion had it built into them strongly. They are taught that a Korean man who has come and already died was the Second coming Christ and that a Korean woman currently alive at the time that I am writing this is in fact “Mother God”
They believe it with all their might too. There are many reasons I observed as to why they believe this. They needed that church to help them cope with their real lives. Maybe some of them were lonely and sad. Maybe they needed friends and they found them in that church. They needed hope, they needed faith and spiritual nourishment and they found it in the message of that church. It made them feel alive and free. It made them feel special and chosen with its many promises. Some of the cult members would probably be quick to argue that they were in no such depression or need for anything but because of the message of the church and the “Prophecies of the bible” (as interpreted by their god of course) led them to see the truth. Some of them are financially well off. One thing I would like to stress is that these people were completely normal in all aspects accept when it came to their faith. In the videos I watched they hugged their “woman god” and truly believed she was God. Imagine the feeling of being able to hug God in the flesh right now. The amount of emotion that overcame them was incredible to witness. I felt bad for them and almost wanted it to be real just for them. The reality of the situations is that it “IS” real for them.
Feeling special helps them to cope with their problems and failures in life. It helps them not to feel alone. Some of them came from broken homes or from settings where they didn’t have the attention they desired. Some of them felt lost but the church brought them home. They truly sought out what they believed to be the truth but they didn’t put much effort beyond what their elders in the church taught them. To do so would be to “challenge God” They discouraged thinking outside the box and with good reason. It wasn’t hard for me to get them to think “outside the box” frequently at the lunch table. It was like I was dealing with the limited mindset of a young pre-teen or teenager trying to find himself regardless of what age they actually were.
Ultimately the reason people fall for New religious movements is for all the reasons stated above. They want to “Matter” in this sea of religious cofusion. They want to be able to proclaim that they have the truth. They want to feel love, special and important. The truth is we all do, we just go about it different ways. Sometimes these new religious movements use that desire we have as humans to exploit others to submit to them.
**can expand on this topic if necessary**
17. What are the fundamental differences between science and religion?
EXTRA CREDIT: write an essay examining how learning to "doubt" changed your views on religion.
I’m not going to pretend to anyone that I have all the answers. my life is blissful and amazing because I believe in the Bible because that would do absolutely no justice to my answers and to the Catholic perspective of things. Life is hard. Its filled with joy sometimes and other times its filled with trials and hardships. Much of the Joy I have felt ive attributed to God either directly or indirectly. Other times I wasn’t sure if he was even there as I question everything just as everyone does. Maybe its possible that God has tried to make it easy for us to know his existence but just as in the parable of the Wheat and the weeds the doubt has clouded the truth.
In the parable the farmer plants the good seed and then while everyone is sleeping the evil one comes and plants the bad seed. The wheat and the weeds grow side by side together until the Harvest in which the Wheat is to be bundled and taken to the barn and the weeds are to be thrown into the fiery furnace. The meaning is that there will always be good side by side with Evil. There always be doubt next to truth. There will always be that negative next to that positive. Evil will always be there to influence good people to do bad things. Evil will always be there to cast doubt and create problems for those trying to do good. Does that mean Doubt is evil? No not at all. Doubt is good. As a Catholic I was encouraged to NOT swallow everything given to me and to test it myself. Because of that I have tested many different faiths against the Teachings and understandings of Christianity through the Catholic faith. . I’ve tested atheism, Islam, Orthodox Catholics, and Protestantism to name some. Not nearly as thoroughly and exhaustive as I would like to have, but I still am currently working on it all.
If you want a strictly logical unspiritual reason to believe in God then its possible that quest will lead to “the primary objective” of the species and that is to duplicate our DNA.
I’ve pondered for nearly 10 years now the alternative to faith in God, which is not having any. In studying we find that there is an idea that “Religion” may be hardwired into our DNA. Why is that? Well in terms of evolution it may have evolved because the guy who believed in a God of sorts outlived the guy who couldn’t because his faith basically saved his life on many different occasions. It gives the individual a purpose a reason to go on. It keeps us masked from the fact that we are living in a big giant Ball of Death and there is no escape for any of us. Logically if this is all there is to it. We die and nothing matters anyways. But if there is God it all matters and this is partially how..
So lets say that everything I said in my previous paragraph is still true but there is God. We still have it hardwired in us to duplicate ourselves. Religion is hardwired in our DNA because it was put there so that we may seek God. It gives us a fighting chance just like our “desire to eat and drink”, enables us to live because we know eating and drinking is good for us. By seeking God and finding him we are given a purpose and become instruments to him and more beneficial to everyone around us. We still live in a giant Ball of death but we are able to find Joy in it through the Grace of God. This is our trial, this is our Quest. I can go on for hours but I will not here. So basically I am not afraid to test my faith, the faiths of others and the idea of no God at all, which in fact is still faith. As professor Lane put it in one of our required readings concerning Mysticism he stated
“Doubt it so much, in sum, that you would want to "test" the veridicality of mysticism itself.” –David Lane
This is the approach I have taken for religion as a whole. I’m not simply a blind believer. The idea of blind faith both sickens me and makes me Jealous. Why? One, I have personally observed and due to my studies, know absolutely that certain faiths can not be true at all. I’ll use the example of Apocalyptic cults. Obviously the blind leading the blind. On the other hand If there is God I wish I could just blindly believe in him like I did when I was younger, when it was easier to pray, easier to believe. When the supernatural was just around the corner.
I must admit at some point in Faith you have to make a choice of taking that “Leap” You have to pick the guy who you don’t mind being Duped by if "Religion is all a lie” so to speak. Personally I pick Jesus. Why? Because Christs message is solid in its full context. If there was a God and he wanted us to love each other and be ONE than loving our enemies and turning the other cheek makes complete sense. I don’t want to go in much detail about that here but I will say for now in reference back to what Hudson Smith said in our first assigned video viewing (but in my own words and version of course)
“If there is God, The Catholic faith is the language I choose to speak to him from because he calls to me from this direction.”
So for me I pick Jesus the apostles and his 2000 year old church, all the saints and the Martyrs from that Church. All the good and the bad people from it (Wheat and the weeds). Why? Partially because Christs message is solid to me in its full context. Because Christianity is a religion that claims to be fact not a philosophy or idea. In short If there is a God and he wanted us to love each other and be ONE than loving our enemies and turning the other cheek makes complete sense. Do I know God is really calling to me from this direction? The true answer is I don’t know. But it seems the most logical to me if it is.
If I am going to be duped and Religion is all a lie I’ll be duped by Jesus. Not Mohamed’s Jihad, not Joseph smiths Mormons. Not Chuck smiths Calvary chapel. Not the “Bible alone” (which really means, the guy who sees his interpretation Credits the Holy spirit but for some reason disagrees with the other 30,000 different interpretation from other guys who all believe the holy spirit is guiding them too. That is just not logical and is why I have to reject all of Protestant Christianity) Each of the other faiths ive mentioned have failed my tests to see if they can stand up to Scrutiny. For example the Mormons (LDS) cant stand up to historical/archaelogical scrutiny for the claims of the Book of Mormon to save their lives. Islam also relies on people to not be familiar with Judaism and early Christianity to plead its case. As a skeptical person this is unacceptable to me. If you are going to be true and if God has revealed to you truth please don’t give me straw man arguments and false information to make your case. Its dishonest and learning to doubt Relgion as a whole has taught me that if Occams razor can make it bleed easily its probably not true.
In the end none of us know the “Absolute Truth” but at the same time its important for us to know what “Isn’t and cant” be true to protect ourselves from dangerous beliefs or dangerous ideologies. For example I’m not God but there are people on this earth that claim to be and believe it or not People believe them and follow them and worship them as God. Doubt is a good thing and it is a good measuring tool in deciding what your going to believe in if you choose to believe in anything.
Any religion that lets you or encourages you to doubt it is a good religion because it is not afraid. That religion knows that if there is truly God then he can stand up to your finite limited human doubt. And that is partially why at this time in my life I am still Catholic.
**can expand on this if necessary**
4. Detail what you read for this class.
5. What grade did you finally receive on the midterm? I received an “A”
6. What grade do you deserve in this class? Substantiate your answer. “A” I read the majority of the readings watched all the videos, participated in class, made sure my posts were high quality.
7. List any extra credit or other circumstances that may help youroverall grade. I read many books during the course of this class that dealt with the subject matter regarding the faiths of Islam, Protestant and Catholic Christianity. Philosophy and World religions as a whole.
8. List all of your postings for this class.9. What precisely do we know for "certain" (in terms of documentation/ history) about the life of Jesus Christ? Be specific and be sure to substantiate your answer.
10. Compare and contrast Judaism with Islam. What are the similarities and what are the differences? Outline it.
Judaism Compared to Islam.
Both are considered Abrahamic faiths claiming a connection to “Abraham” Jews understand the revelation of God to them as a chosen people but Islam only acknowledges that the revelation of God was to Abraham and that it warrants the Jews no such special title. Islam see’s itself as the final, perfect and true fulfillment of the 2 other Abrahamic faiths Judaism and Christianity.
Islam, sharing very little with Christianity finds itself in more of a connection with Judaism. It constantly reiterates its Monotheistic belief that there is only one God just as Judaism does. Christians, in the eyes of Islam have detracted from this with its Trinitarian concept of the father, son and the Holy spirit 3 persons in One God formula. Islam is set up like Judaism in similar fashion regarding prayer, dietary guidelines and moral laws. One example would be Halal and Haram. (acceptable and forbidden) foods being comparable to “Kosher” and non-Kosher foods in Jewish tradition. The ideas are not the same though similar in many respects. Something Kosher for a Jew may not necessarily be Halal for a Muslim. Alcohol for one example.
Islam adds an entirely new spin on many of the stories of what Christians consider the Old testament. For example, Muhammad is considered to be a descendant of Ishmael and Muslims constantly point to both Old and New testament texts as prophecies for the coming last prophet Muhammad where as Jews would not recognize such interpretations.
11. Compare and contrast Taoism with Confucianism. What the similarities and what are the differences? Outline it.
12. How did Judaism evolve away from its polytheistic roots into a monotheistic religion? There are a few theories regarding how this happened and I’ll just give one of them here in a nutshell. Judaism “grew up” so to speak in a world surrounded by polytheistic paganism. One of the “gods” of these Polytheist eventually became “Yahweh” It is said that this particular “god” of many “gods” was Abrahams specific god who he was devoted to. Over the course of time this “one of many gods” revealed to Abraham that he was in fact the “Supreme God” and he was the only one to be worshipped. Later this was revealed to Moses that this same God was the God of Abraham and Moses convinced the Israelites that they were one and the same. That’s the evolution in a nutshell and what followed was the relationship between the Jews and their God, which eventually became the Christian and then Muslim God.
Part of this relationship is described in the following excerpt from the bible and a book by Karen Armstrong titled “A History of God”
“So now, fear Yahweh and serve him perfectly and sincerely; put away the gods that you once served beyond the River [Jordan] and in Egypt and serve Yahweh. But if you will not serve Yahweh, choose today whom you wish to serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the River of the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are now living. Joshua 24:14-15
“The people had a choice between Yahweh and the traditional gods of Canaan. They did not hesitate. There was no other god like Yahweh; no other deity had ever been so effective on behalf of his worshippers. His powerful intervention in their affairs had been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Yahweh was up to the job of being their elohim. They would worship him alone and cast away their other gods. Pg 24.
13. How is the Koran different from the Christian Bible? Be specific in your answers.
The Koran is different in Many ways than the bible. The Koran is considered to be the literal words of God while the bible Is considered to be inspired by God and is the Word of God though not literally the “words of God” in the sense that Islam portrays the Koran. The Koran is comprised of 114 chapters different lengths. It has over 6000 verses but is still shorter than the New Testament. The revealing of Christian biblical revelation lasted over centuries by different authors in different eras which reflect complete clear and different styles in writing. The Koran was revealed over a period of 20+ years and then compiled together written in Arabic. The Koran appeals to the Bible as a connection but the Bible in both old and New testaments never speak of or appeal to the Koran for any connection. The Koran draws its connection “forcefully” in many ways appealing to the bible and at the same time claiming the bible as not the perfect word of God and has been corrupted. Because of the discrepancies in the theology found in the Koran and bible, Muslims teach according to the Koran of course that the “True Muslim Bible” has been lost. The Koran references stories in the old and new testament but with added information such as the “7 heavens” added to the story of Genesis, and the Muslim teaching that Jesus was only a prophet never claiming to be “God” or the son of God.
The Koran constantly reminds the reader that it is the fulfillment and full truth not found in the bible and in a way you can say it discourages the bible as any authority since anything that can be found in the bible can be found in the Koran. Any other translation of the Koran outside of Arabic is not truly considered the “Koran” rather an interpretation of it. Muslims believe that the Koran can only truly be understood correctly in its full beauty in the original language. The Bible, need not be read and understood in its original written language in order to be considered valid understanding.
**Can expand on this if Necessary**
14. What are the differences between Roman Catholicism and those religions which identify themselves as Protestant-Christian?
The answer to this question is a one word answer. The thing is that “one” word answer can have a book written about it. The primary difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestant-Christian religions is “Authority”. All and any differences that these different types of Christianity have can trace their roots back to authority. Before I continue explaining what that “authority” is I would like to outline for you some important information regarding Christianity itself that will help set up the back drop on why the authority for Catholic Christianity and Protestant Christianity differ.
Christianity can be divided into 3 major divisions. In no particular order I’ll list them here. There is Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christianity. The first two, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox are considered “Apostolic” which means that they can trace themselves back to Christ and the Apostles. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism split from each other in 1054 a.d. But still both can trace themselves back to the Apostles themselves. Protestant Christianity however, is not able to trace itself back to the apostles. They are disconnected from the first 15 centuries of Christianity and find their earliest roots by a Man named Martin Luther in the 16th Century. This fact, as we will see later also contributes to the differences between Catholic and Protestant Christianity.
Lets examine more in depth these 3 divisions to see what makes them different regarding Authority. I’m going to start with Roman Catholicism first.
Roman Catholic. The Catholic church adheres to not 1, not 2 but 3 sources of Authority when it comes to defining doctrine, teaching on matters of faith and Morals and understanding the fullness of Gods plan. These three authorities are “Sacred Scripture” “Sacred Tradition” and “The Sacred Magisterium”.
Sacred Scripture is the Written word of God. The bible. 73 books of the Old and New testament. Divided as 46 Old and 27 New.
Sacred Tradition is the living tradition of the Church. Some of these traditions include the Mass and the Canon of the Bible.
Sacred Magisterium. The Sacred Magisterium is the church itself. The living authority that interprets infallibly the Word of God. The bishops in Union with the Pope.
All three of these traditions together formulate the authority of the Catholic church. They all work in conjuction together and neither of them supercede the other nor can they contradict each other. Kind of like the United states government set up of Executive, Judicical and Legislative branches. All three are in place as a checks and balance system providing a Tripod stand that holds up the Catholic faith as a whole. In a way you can say that the Church is always the final authority, being the living interpreter and teacher of the word but it cannot contradict Sacred Scripture. For example, the Church cant one day proclaim that we no longer need to follow a particular book and throw it out of the bible. This is not possible. The Church is the servant of Scripture as it states in paragraph 86 of the Catechism of the Catholic church. In this set up of 3 authorities we see that the church upholds its ancient traditions and understanding of scriptures primarily by the teaching of the church. Consequently and probably due to the sheer size of the 1 billion worldwide Catholics we find that many lay members are unfamiliar with the scriptures and sometimes unclear of what exactly is the “Tradition” of the church. We see a heavily reliance on the church for any and all teachings of the faith particularly in the West.
The Eastern Orthodox have a different view of the Magisterium then Roman Catholics. They operate on 2 of the 3 authorities of the Roman Catholic church. They accept Scripture and Tradition as the final authority but reject the Roman Catholic Magisterium because of their rejection of the primacy of Rome. They believe that the Church is not “One Universal” in the sense that Roman Catholics understand it but that they are many churches and each individual church is “One” in communion with each other. Because of the rejection of the Magisterium as understood by Roman Catholics we see the effects it has had on Eastern Orthodox. Without a true visible unified head one can point out the reason why the E. Orthodox have had issues regarding being in communion with each other. For example Church “A” is in communion with church “B” and Church “B” is in communion with Church “C” but “C” and “A” aren’t in communion with each other. Another disadvantage we see is the fact that they have not had an Ecumenical council in ages and there isn’t one on the horizon again possibly due to the lack of a central figure found in the Roman Catholic church’s Hierarchy.
Finally we have the Protestant denominations. Under this 3rd category we have a whopping 33,000+ denominations under this umbrella. The primary reason for this is the sole authority of which Protestantism was founded off of. Virtually all Protestant denominations believe in the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” which is Latin for the phrase “The bible alone” They reject both the Tradition and the Magisterium and operate under the belief that “Sacred scripture” alone is the final authority in faith matters. Consequently as we can clearly observe this ideology has had some interesting results especially when it comes to the idea of “Memes” This particular “Meme” or ideolgoy which was started by Martin Luther in the 16th century has had a very rapid reproduction rate. I would equate the idea of “Sola scriptura” to the opening up of Pandora’s box because ever since this first began we have seen an explosion of radically different interpretations of scripture that ranges from the conservative Lutherans to the radical extreme fundamentalists of Westboro Baptists church. The very nature of Protestantism which itself is “Protest” and “rebellion” have caused it to give birth to countless denominations and non-denominational churches (which are really Non-denominational denominations). Because of the rejection of the 2 authorities modern Protestantism finds itself as a distant relative of early Christianity and has been all but divorced from the ancient traditions and understandings of early Christians.
**Can expand on this topic if necessary**
15. Why is atheism appealing to many in America today? Atheism is very appealing in America today because it sells a message of “freeing” oneself from a deity that has dominion over the individual. In essence, you become your own god and you are free from any and all moral obligation. Anything you choose is a product of your own will that you choose for yourself. You can neither impose or have anyone else’s morality imposed on you. This makes life guilt free and you can basically do whatever you want without any consequences inside the law of the land. That plus the fact that Some atheists are absolutely no different than radical fundamentalists religions. Instead of hijacking early Christianity claiming there is some 1500-1800 year gap that links them together, these Atheists hijack science and claim it as their own propagating the idea that religion and science are at war while Atheism is the father of Science. This is an inaccurate view that has somehow found its way around many schools across America. Atheism aligns itself with science and makes itself appear smarter than what it is. Not to say that it is stupid but some atheist use this tactic to masquerade Science as opposed to religion when in fact they can co-exist. The truth is to claim oneself, as an Atheist requires a certain amount of that dreaded word. “Faith”
16. What is the appeal of new religious movements, like the one founded by Adi Da? Ive had the privilege, (if you want to call it that) of dealing with this question in real life this year. For nearly 3 months I spent all of my Saturdays, and Tuesday evenings studying with a “new religious” movement known as the “Worldwide Missionaries Society Church of God” Without going into detail im going to be upfront. They are a cult and to make matters worse they are a “End of the World” Cult that teaches as an “Apocalyptic Eschatology”. Unfortunately there is a young girl I knew who was caught in this group and because of her desire to convert me to her faith I was able to study with them for a few months.
Over the course of my time there I kept track on word documents of the scenarios I found myself in, the behavior and actions of the members of this cult. I’m going to detail here what I witnessed in order to answer this question.
I had read it before. In philosophy, Sociology classes but its entirely different thing when you are actually going through it. You read about the Human beings “Deep seeded” desire to believe in a higher power. Is it the “God gene?” is it built into our DNA to believe in something? Maybe so, and if it is hardwired in your brains all these people from that religion had it built into them strongly. They are taught that a Korean man who has come and already died was the Second coming Christ and that a Korean woman currently alive at the time that I am writing this is in fact “Mother God”
They believe it with all their might too. There are many reasons I observed as to why they believe this. They needed that church to help them cope with their real lives. Maybe some of them were lonely and sad. Maybe they needed friends and they found them in that church. They needed hope, they needed faith and spiritual nourishment and they found it in the message of that church. It made them feel alive and free. It made them feel special and chosen with its many promises. Some of the cult members would probably be quick to argue that they were in no such depression or need for anything but because of the message of the church and the “Prophecies of the bible” (as interpreted by their god of course) led them to see the truth. Some of them are financially well off. One thing I would like to stress is that these people were completely normal in all aspects accept when it came to their faith. In the videos I watched they hugged their “woman god” and truly believed she was God. Imagine the feeling of being able to hug God in the flesh right now. The amount of emotion that overcame them was incredible to witness. I felt bad for them and almost wanted it to be real just for them. The reality of the situations is that it “IS” real for them.
Feeling special helps them to cope with their problems and failures in life. It helps them not to feel alone. Some of them came from broken homes or from settings where they didn’t have the attention they desired. Some of them felt lost but the church brought them home. They truly sought out what they believed to be the truth but they didn’t put much effort beyond what their elders in the church taught them. To do so would be to “challenge God” They discouraged thinking outside the box and with good reason. It wasn’t hard for me to get them to think “outside the box” frequently at the lunch table. It was like I was dealing with the limited mindset of a young pre-teen or teenager trying to find himself regardless of what age they actually were.
Ultimately the reason people fall for New religious movements is for all the reasons stated above. They want to “Matter” in this sea of religious cofusion. They want to be able to proclaim that they have the truth. They want to feel love, special and important. The truth is we all do, we just go about it different ways. Sometimes these new religious movements use that desire we have as humans to exploit others to submit to them.
**can expand on this topic if necessary**
17. What are the fundamental differences between science and religion?
EXTRA CREDIT: write an essay examining how learning to "doubt" changed your views on religion.
I’m not going to pretend to anyone that I have all the answers. my life is blissful and amazing because I believe in the Bible because that would do absolutely no justice to my answers and to the Catholic perspective of things. Life is hard. Its filled with joy sometimes and other times its filled with trials and hardships. Much of the Joy I have felt ive attributed to God either directly or indirectly. Other times I wasn’t sure if he was even there as I question everything just as everyone does. Maybe its possible that God has tried to make it easy for us to know his existence but just as in the parable of the Wheat and the weeds the doubt has clouded the truth.
In the parable the farmer plants the good seed and then while everyone is sleeping the evil one comes and plants the bad seed. The wheat and the weeds grow side by side together until the Harvest in which the Wheat is to be bundled and taken to the barn and the weeds are to be thrown into the fiery furnace. The meaning is that there will always be good side by side with Evil. There always be doubt next to truth. There will always be that negative next to that positive. Evil will always be there to influence good people to do bad things. Evil will always be there to cast doubt and create problems for those trying to do good. Does that mean Doubt is evil? No not at all. Doubt is good. As a Catholic I was encouraged to NOT swallow everything given to me and to test it myself. Because of that I have tested many different faiths against the Teachings and understandings of Christianity through the Catholic faith. . I’ve tested atheism, Islam, Orthodox Catholics, and Protestantism to name some. Not nearly as thoroughly and exhaustive as I would like to have, but I still am currently working on it all.
If you want a strictly logical unspiritual reason to believe in God then its possible that quest will lead to “the primary objective” of the species and that is to duplicate our DNA.
I’ve pondered for nearly 10 years now the alternative to faith in God, which is not having any. In studying we find that there is an idea that “Religion” may be hardwired into our DNA. Why is that? Well in terms of evolution it may have evolved because the guy who believed in a God of sorts outlived the guy who couldn’t because his faith basically saved his life on many different occasions. It gives the individual a purpose a reason to go on. It keeps us masked from the fact that we are living in a big giant Ball of Death and there is no escape for any of us. Logically if this is all there is to it. We die and nothing matters anyways. But if there is God it all matters and this is partially how..
So lets say that everything I said in my previous paragraph is still true but there is God. We still have it hardwired in us to duplicate ourselves. Religion is hardwired in our DNA because it was put there so that we may seek God. It gives us a fighting chance just like our “desire to eat and drink”, enables us to live because we know eating and drinking is good for us. By seeking God and finding him we are given a purpose and become instruments to him and more beneficial to everyone around us. We still live in a giant Ball of death but we are able to find Joy in it through the Grace of God. This is our trial, this is our Quest. I can go on for hours but I will not here. So basically I am not afraid to test my faith, the faiths of others and the idea of no God at all, which in fact is still faith. As professor Lane put it in one of our required readings concerning Mysticism he stated
“Doubt it so much, in sum, that you would want to "test" the veridicality of mysticism itself.” –David Lane
This is the approach I have taken for religion as a whole. I’m not simply a blind believer. The idea of blind faith both sickens me and makes me Jealous. Why? One, I have personally observed and due to my studies, know absolutely that certain faiths can not be true at all. I’ll use the example of Apocalyptic cults. Obviously the blind leading the blind. On the other hand If there is God I wish I could just blindly believe in him like I did when I was younger, when it was easier to pray, easier to believe. When the supernatural was just around the corner.
I must admit at some point in Faith you have to make a choice of taking that “Leap” You have to pick the guy who you don’t mind being Duped by if "Religion is all a lie” so to speak. Personally I pick Jesus. Why? Because Christs message is solid in its full context. If there was a God and he wanted us to love each other and be ONE than loving our enemies and turning the other cheek makes complete sense. I don’t want to go in much detail about that here but I will say for now in reference back to what Hudson Smith said in our first assigned video viewing (but in my own words and version of course)
“If there is God, The Catholic faith is the language I choose to speak to him from because he calls to me from this direction.”
So for me I pick Jesus the apostles and his 2000 year old church, all the saints and the Martyrs from that Church. All the good and the bad people from it (Wheat and the weeds). Why? Partially because Christs message is solid to me in its full context. Because Christianity is a religion that claims to be fact not a philosophy or idea. In short If there is a God and he wanted us to love each other and be ONE than loving our enemies and turning the other cheek makes complete sense. Do I know God is really calling to me from this direction? The true answer is I don’t know. But it seems the most logical to me if it is.
If I am going to be duped and Religion is all a lie I’ll be duped by Jesus. Not Mohamed’s Jihad, not Joseph smiths Mormons. Not Chuck smiths Calvary chapel. Not the “Bible alone” (which really means, the guy who sees his interpretation Credits the Holy spirit but for some reason disagrees with the other 30,000 different interpretation from other guys who all believe the holy spirit is guiding them too. That is just not logical and is why I have to reject all of Protestant Christianity) Each of the other faiths ive mentioned have failed my tests to see if they can stand up to Scrutiny. For example the Mormons (LDS) cant stand up to historical/archaelogical scrutiny for the claims of the Book of Mormon to save their lives. Islam also relies on people to not be familiar with Judaism and early Christianity to plead its case. As a skeptical person this is unacceptable to me. If you are going to be true and if God has revealed to you truth please don’t give me straw man arguments and false information to make your case. Its dishonest and learning to doubt Relgion as a whole has taught me that if Occams razor can make it bleed easily its probably not true.
In the end none of us know the “Absolute Truth” but at the same time its important for us to know what “Isn’t and cant” be true to protect ourselves from dangerous beliefs or dangerous ideologies. For example I’m not God but there are people on this earth that claim to be and believe it or not People believe them and follow them and worship them as God. Doubt is a good thing and it is a good measuring tool in deciding what your going to believe in if you choose to believe in anything.
Any religion that lets you or encourages you to doubt it is a good religion because it is not afraid. That religion knows that if there is truly God then he can stand up to your finite limited human doubt. And that is partially why at this time in my life I am still Catholic.
**can expand on this if necessary**
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Midterm Exam
NAME: Gabriel Mares
USERNAME: Archangel703
2. Attendance: How many times late? How many classes missed? (be accurate) I was mostly, but never more than 10 mins late due to the time I get off of work and the time it took me to get home then to school. I have perfect attendance otherwise. No absences.
3. To read or not to read, that is the question: Be honest. Have you done all of the required course readings so far? I have not done all the required reading but I’d guesstimate about 70%-80% as of this point.
4. Have you watched the linked videos and films so far? Yes
5. Any extra credit that you like to list? If trying to free a friend from an apocalyptic cult counts as extra-credit I am listing it here =P. Side books that were not assigned that deal with what was discussed or assigned in class that have/am reading alongside the class are
Rapture: The end times error that leaves the bible behind: David B Currie
Mary Magdalene Amy Welborn
An exorcist tells his story: Gabriele Amorth
Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger: Gary G Michuta
The Mass of the Early Christians : Mike Aquilana
The Bible and the Quran: Jacques JomierInside Islam: Daniel Ali, Robert Spencer.
9. What are the seven dimensions to religion, according to Ninian Smart, and mentioned in Andrea Diem's book, WHEN SCHOLARS STUDY THESACRED? Ninian Smart Defined religion as an “organism with seven dimensions” meaning that religions is alive and active. The 7 dimensions are 1 Myths (Sacred stories, Historical myths filled with hagiography and symbolism. Purely symbolic myths. 2. Rituals: Activities that are repeated and connect one with the sense of the sacred. 3. Experiences: Religious experiences of the sacred. 4. Doctrines: The philosophy and belief system of the Religion. 5.. Ethics: The Moral code of the religion. 6. Social Aspect: The organizational form of the Religion. 7. Material From: The Sacred objects, items of the religion.
10. Apply those seven dimensions to Buddhism (taking any sect orgroup within that tradition) and describe, in brief, how they are incorporated within Buddhism as a whole Details are key.
Myths: Buddhas birth
Rituals: Yoga, different meditation practices, chants, sayings
Experiences: attaining enlightenment through meditation. Developing mastery over ones mind.
Doctrines: The 4 noble truths, 1.There is suffering, 2. Craving, The cause 3. There is cessation to suffering. There is a way to attain the Cessation of the suffering through the 8th Fold paths.
Ethics: The Eight fold Path, Prajna, Samadhi, Sila,
Social Aspect: Monks, different buddhist schools
Material Forms: Buddhist texts, symbols statues, Temples
11. Apply those seven dimensions to Hinduism (taking any sect orgroup within that tradition) and describe, in brief, how they are incorporated within that indic system. Details are key.
Myths: Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita
Rituals: Bhakti, Karma, Raja, Jnana, Yoga
Experiences: Different type of Yoga, Mantras.
Doctrines: Ahimsa the belief in the respect for all life because the divine permeates everything and everyone, human, animal and all things. Dharma (ethics and duties) Samsara (the cycle of birth, death and rebirth) Karma (cause of action and reaction)
Ethics: Ahimsa (non-violence) respect for all life. Vegetarian.
Social Aspect: Ashramas, divided into 4 stages, Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha, Sannyasa. Varnas caste system: brahmins, (priests) Kshatriyas (warriors) Vaishyas (business class) Shudras (servants, slaves)
Material Forms: Temples, statues, idols, Vedas
12. Do you think that there should be more than seven dimensions inexplaining a particular religion? If not, why not. If yes, can youdetail which dimension you would add. Yes, I believe you can add more dimensions to religion. Two that I have thought of can be…
One, Religious experiences of the Diabolical which somewhat falls under the category of “Experiences” but since it is listed as only sacred it can be divided into good/bad experiences. An example of this would be Demonic possession or the feeling of being oppressed by a diabolical entity. This would involve paranormal activities and such that would also include dealings with the 7th dimension “Material forms” in order to prevent or provoke such experiences. Another Dimension would be “The study of Science/History in relation to the religion” This would include of course, the study of the natural sciences/history and how they prove/disprove the religion, how they are in harmony, not in harmony. The possibilities of one approving, or disproving the other. For example verifying the historical information regarding certain stories of the religion. Verifying miracles, or the possibility of them through science. These are just some examples. They are not entirely new dimensions rather sub dimensions but either way all 7 of Smart’s Dimension are intertwined just the same.
13. What was the secret that Faqir Chand realized in Iraq and howdoes it help explain religious experiences and beliefs other thanhis own? You can say that he realized that he didn’t know anything, or realized his own ignorance so to speak. The idea that the “guru” wasn’t doing anything rather it was the people projecting the ideas in their own minds onto the guru’s claiming it was the guru helping them, when all along it was them. They were projecting their beliefs onto the individuals. This can be explained when people “give” or “project” their religious beliefs onto their own prophets, pastors, gods etc..etc. in a way to make them real, when in fact it is the self projection of their own ideas.
14. In the Bhagavad Gita, briefly describe Krishna's advice toArjuna in terms of whether to fight or not to fight. Do you thinkKrishna's advice was wise? Why? Why not?
Krishna's advice to Arjuna is basically a teaching of thinking beyond the now and the human self but rather adhering to a much larger eternal and immortal life. Arjuna is hesitant on the grounds that he does not understand the meaning of what is about to take place. Krishna explains that his lack of will to fight is against and is blocking the Dharma of the Universe (Universal Harmony of things) Krishna does not deny the "flesh, Matter" so to speak rather shows that they are connected and inseperable and are required to maintain harmony. He reveals himself as both divine and material in order to get his point across. The war to be fought was a just war and fits into the ideals of the Harmony of the universe.
Krishna's advice was wise, in the sense that he was teaching the importance of not forsaking the importance of the current situation. He teaches that they are both intertwined with the eternal and required to co-exist in Harmony.
15. Compare and contrast the life and teachings of Ramana Maharshiwith Charan Singh (as mentioned in the Enchanted Land).
16. Why do you think that Sikhism evolved from a non-militaristicreligion into one advocating the bearing of arms? Be sure to back upyour answer. They were threatened and evolved in such a way to defend their religion. Like Christianity which was founded on such messages as "Turn the other Cheek" and "Love your enemy" the Sikhs were forced to defend themselves when threatened
17. In what significant ways is Sikhism different than Jainism? Besure to substantiate your answers. Jainism does not believe in a god, Sikhism does. Jains are vegetarians, while Sikhs are not. Jains are passive non violent and though Sikhs claim to be, violence is acceptable in their religion in a form of defense.
18. How is the Sikh holy book, The Guru Granth Sahib, fundamentallydifferent than other religious scriptures, like the Bible or theKoran? The book was written mostly by the founders of the actual religion. The writers consisted of different faiths into one book of religious scripture. The book is considered the actual guru of the religion and is to be regarded as such by Sikhs. To put it in another understanding it would be as if the next Pope were to be the “Bible itself” or that maybe the next Mormon Prophet is the actual Book of Mormon. This in itself is unique to the Sikh faith, though the protestant notion of Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is actually on target in comparison as it is regarded as the sole authority. The difference being that the Guru Granth Sahib was written by people of different faiths. The Bible is composed of Same faith writers, assuming Christianity is the continuation of Judaism.
19. Explain why speaking in tongues is not a unique religiousexperience only bestowed on Christians. How did your teacher relatesuch a phenomenon with sexual experiences? Clue: think neurology andthink cultural variabilities. Trying to speak when in an ecstatic state will yield similar results in people as can be shown in different faiths. The response is correlated to the actions of the reptilian brain stem. The “animal” portion of the human brain so to speak. Professor Lane discussed the reaction of trying to talk during sexual intercourse would be equivalent to trying to speak in an ecstatic state due to the mindset of the individual being in a similar situation in an ecstatic religious experience.
20. Imagine the following scenario: Buddha, Mahavira, Krishna, andGuru Nanak are asked about the religions founded in their name. Ifyou could show them how their religions evolved over time (centuriesafter their death), which specific parts do you think they would NOTrecognize or acknowledge. In other words, which part of theirreligions would they see as CONTRADICTING their original intentions.This is a speculative question, but be sure to ground it with somepertinent quotes/facts/ details.Detail your answer for each of them.
21. What are the common features in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, andSikhism? Be sure to be accurate here. The share similar beliefs regarding Reincarnation (eastern philosophy of the cycle of death and rebirth), Vegetarianism and Karma. According to wikipedia.org it states” All three traditions have notions of karma, dharma, samsara, moksha, and various yogas. Of course, these terms may be perceived differently by different religions. For instance, for a Hindu, dharma is his duty. For a Jain, dharma is his conduct. For a Hindu, dharma is piety. For a Jain, dharma is righteousness.” –wikipedia We see t hat, though the wording may be similar the actual understanding of the word can vary. They each believe in forms of meditation, reciting from sacred texts, singing songs, hymns and reciting prayers.
22. How does Darwinian evolution help explain why religions arose inthe first place? It leads to the primary objective, which is possibly to merely propagate the species. Religions arose probably because the human that was able to believe was able to live longer in different situations. Whether it was hunting in a dangerous scenario, living in a dangerous land. Religion both gave him a sense of fear, and a sense of awe in order to keep him going. Religion develops so that it creates order to keep the species alive longer so it can reproduce. Religion is a powerful Meme to ensure reproduction.
EXTRA CREDIT:
23. Why does Richard Dawkins think that believing in God is a delusion? Based on the evidence provided in science, evolution and the philosophy's of different religions across the world. He believes they can be explained like viruses of the Mind (Memes) The Hypothesis of God is inferior to the scientific theories of Natural selection and Evolution without God. He believes that believing in God is a delusion because the belief of something that isnt factually true and can not be supported by evidence is a "Delusion" He believes the evidence for God is not only lacking but improbable at best.
24. How would the theory of consciousness as a virtual simulatorhelp explain the belief in mysticism? Because the experiences aren’t mystical if it can be shown that it is your brain that is producing the images inside your head and that they are not coming from an outside mystical source. Out of body experiences and near death experiences can be explained by showing that it was the brain all along that was playing a “Movie” in your head just like dreams.
25. What is the most interesting thing you have learned so far in this class? Why? One of the most interesting thing that i have learned in this class was the idea that if God does exist it is possible that he does use our "Human" genetic make up to communicate with us. For example, a Speaking in tongues, ecstatic experience can be traced back to the brain, however there is nothing stopping the possibility that we were designed in such a way to be able to communicate with God. That is of course if we were designed at all. I also enjoy the emphasis on researching and studying for ourselves to find out what "is" and what "isnt" It's important not to swallow everything you are taught, read or learn. There is always another explanation and the same goes for what we are taught by the professor in class as he regularly explains not to "Buy his propaganda" or "Drink his Kool-aid"
USERNAME: Archangel703
2. Attendance: How many times late? How many classes missed? (be accurate) I was mostly, but never more than 10 mins late due to the time I get off of work and the time it took me to get home then to school. I have perfect attendance otherwise. No absences.
3. To read or not to read, that is the question: Be honest. Have you done all of the required course readings so far? I have not done all the required reading but I’d guesstimate about 70%-80% as of this point.
4. Have you watched the linked videos and films so far? Yes
5. Any extra credit that you like to list? If trying to free a friend from an apocalyptic cult counts as extra-credit I am listing it here =P. Side books that were not assigned that deal with what was discussed or assigned in class that have/am reading alongside the class are
Rapture: The end times error that leaves the bible behind: David B Currie
Mary Magdalene Amy Welborn
An exorcist tells his story: Gabriele Amorth
Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger: Gary G Michuta
The Mass of the Early Christians : Mike Aquilana
The Bible and the Quran: Jacques JomierInside Islam: Daniel Ali, Robert Spencer.
9. What are the seven dimensions to religion, according to Ninian Smart, and mentioned in Andrea Diem's book, WHEN SCHOLARS STUDY THESACRED? Ninian Smart Defined religion as an “organism with seven dimensions” meaning that religions is alive and active. The 7 dimensions are 1 Myths (Sacred stories, Historical myths filled with hagiography and symbolism. Purely symbolic myths. 2. Rituals: Activities that are repeated and connect one with the sense of the sacred. 3. Experiences: Religious experiences of the sacred. 4. Doctrines: The philosophy and belief system of the Religion. 5.. Ethics: The Moral code of the religion. 6. Social Aspect: The organizational form of the Religion. 7. Material From: The Sacred objects, items of the religion.
10. Apply those seven dimensions to Buddhism (taking any sect orgroup within that tradition) and describe, in brief, how they are incorporated within Buddhism as a whole Details are key.
Myths: Buddhas birth
Rituals: Yoga, different meditation practices, chants, sayings
Experiences: attaining enlightenment through meditation. Developing mastery over ones mind.
Doctrines: The 4 noble truths, 1.There is suffering, 2. Craving, The cause 3. There is cessation to suffering. There is a way to attain the Cessation of the suffering through the 8th Fold paths.
Ethics: The Eight fold Path, Prajna, Samadhi, Sila,
Social Aspect: Monks, different buddhist schools
Material Forms: Buddhist texts, symbols statues, Temples
11. Apply those seven dimensions to Hinduism (taking any sect orgroup within that tradition) and describe, in brief, how they are incorporated within that indic system. Details are key.
Myths: Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita
Rituals: Bhakti, Karma, Raja, Jnana, Yoga
Experiences: Different type of Yoga, Mantras.
Doctrines: Ahimsa the belief in the respect for all life because the divine permeates everything and everyone, human, animal and all things. Dharma (ethics and duties) Samsara (the cycle of birth, death and rebirth) Karma (cause of action and reaction)
Ethics: Ahimsa (non-violence) respect for all life. Vegetarian.
Social Aspect: Ashramas, divided into 4 stages, Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha, Sannyasa. Varnas caste system: brahmins, (priests) Kshatriyas (warriors) Vaishyas (business class) Shudras (servants, slaves)
Material Forms: Temples, statues, idols, Vedas
12. Do you think that there should be more than seven dimensions inexplaining a particular religion? If not, why not. If yes, can youdetail which dimension you would add. Yes, I believe you can add more dimensions to religion. Two that I have thought of can be…
One, Religious experiences of the Diabolical which somewhat falls under the category of “Experiences” but since it is listed as only sacred it can be divided into good/bad experiences. An example of this would be Demonic possession or the feeling of being oppressed by a diabolical entity. This would involve paranormal activities and such that would also include dealings with the 7th dimension “Material forms” in order to prevent or provoke such experiences. Another Dimension would be “The study of Science/History in relation to the religion” This would include of course, the study of the natural sciences/history and how they prove/disprove the religion, how they are in harmony, not in harmony. The possibilities of one approving, or disproving the other. For example verifying the historical information regarding certain stories of the religion. Verifying miracles, or the possibility of them through science. These are just some examples. They are not entirely new dimensions rather sub dimensions but either way all 7 of Smart’s Dimension are intertwined just the same.
13. What was the secret that Faqir Chand realized in Iraq and howdoes it help explain religious experiences and beliefs other thanhis own? You can say that he realized that he didn’t know anything, or realized his own ignorance so to speak. The idea that the “guru” wasn’t doing anything rather it was the people projecting the ideas in their own minds onto the guru’s claiming it was the guru helping them, when all along it was them. They were projecting their beliefs onto the individuals. This can be explained when people “give” or “project” their religious beliefs onto their own prophets, pastors, gods etc..etc. in a way to make them real, when in fact it is the self projection of their own ideas.
14. In the Bhagavad Gita, briefly describe Krishna's advice toArjuna in terms of whether to fight or not to fight. Do you thinkKrishna's advice was wise? Why? Why not?
Krishna's advice to Arjuna is basically a teaching of thinking beyond the now and the human self but rather adhering to a much larger eternal and immortal life. Arjuna is hesitant on the grounds that he does not understand the meaning of what is about to take place. Krishna explains that his lack of will to fight is against and is blocking the Dharma of the Universe (Universal Harmony of things) Krishna does not deny the "flesh, Matter" so to speak rather shows that they are connected and inseperable and are required to maintain harmony. He reveals himself as both divine and material in order to get his point across. The war to be fought was a just war and fits into the ideals of the Harmony of the universe.
Krishna's advice was wise, in the sense that he was teaching the importance of not forsaking the importance of the current situation. He teaches that they are both intertwined with the eternal and required to co-exist in Harmony.
15. Compare and contrast the life and teachings of Ramana Maharshiwith Charan Singh (as mentioned in the Enchanted Land).
16. Why do you think that Sikhism evolved from a non-militaristicreligion into one advocating the bearing of arms? Be sure to back upyour answer. They were threatened and evolved in such a way to defend their religion. Like Christianity which was founded on such messages as "Turn the other Cheek" and "Love your enemy" the Sikhs were forced to defend themselves when threatened
17. In what significant ways is Sikhism different than Jainism? Besure to substantiate your answers. Jainism does not believe in a god, Sikhism does. Jains are vegetarians, while Sikhs are not. Jains are passive non violent and though Sikhs claim to be, violence is acceptable in their religion in a form of defense.
18. How is the Sikh holy book, The Guru Granth Sahib, fundamentallydifferent than other religious scriptures, like the Bible or theKoran? The book was written mostly by the founders of the actual religion. The writers consisted of different faiths into one book of religious scripture. The book is considered the actual guru of the religion and is to be regarded as such by Sikhs. To put it in another understanding it would be as if the next Pope were to be the “Bible itself” or that maybe the next Mormon Prophet is the actual Book of Mormon. This in itself is unique to the Sikh faith, though the protestant notion of Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) is actually on target in comparison as it is regarded as the sole authority. The difference being that the Guru Granth Sahib was written by people of different faiths. The Bible is composed of Same faith writers, assuming Christianity is the continuation of Judaism.
19. Explain why speaking in tongues is not a unique religiousexperience only bestowed on Christians. How did your teacher relatesuch a phenomenon with sexual experiences? Clue: think neurology andthink cultural variabilities. Trying to speak when in an ecstatic state will yield similar results in people as can be shown in different faiths. The response is correlated to the actions of the reptilian brain stem. The “animal” portion of the human brain so to speak. Professor Lane discussed the reaction of trying to talk during sexual intercourse would be equivalent to trying to speak in an ecstatic state due to the mindset of the individual being in a similar situation in an ecstatic religious experience.
20. Imagine the following scenario: Buddha, Mahavira, Krishna, andGuru Nanak are asked about the religions founded in their name. Ifyou could show them how their religions evolved over time (centuriesafter their death), which specific parts do you think they would NOTrecognize or acknowledge. In other words, which part of theirreligions would they see as CONTRADICTING their original intentions.This is a speculative question, but be sure to ground it with somepertinent quotes/facts/ details.Detail your answer for each of them.
21. What are the common features in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, andSikhism? Be sure to be accurate here. The share similar beliefs regarding Reincarnation (eastern philosophy of the cycle of death and rebirth), Vegetarianism and Karma. According to wikipedia.org it states” All three traditions have notions of karma, dharma, samsara, moksha, and various yogas. Of course, these terms may be perceived differently by different religions. For instance, for a Hindu, dharma is his duty. For a Jain, dharma is his conduct. For a Hindu, dharma is piety. For a Jain, dharma is righteousness.” –wikipedia We see t hat, though the wording may be similar the actual understanding of the word can vary. They each believe in forms of meditation, reciting from sacred texts, singing songs, hymns and reciting prayers.
22. How does Darwinian evolution help explain why religions arose inthe first place? It leads to the primary objective, which is possibly to merely propagate the species. Religions arose probably because the human that was able to believe was able to live longer in different situations. Whether it was hunting in a dangerous scenario, living in a dangerous land. Religion both gave him a sense of fear, and a sense of awe in order to keep him going. Religion develops so that it creates order to keep the species alive longer so it can reproduce. Religion is a powerful Meme to ensure reproduction.
EXTRA CREDIT:
23. Why does Richard Dawkins think that believing in God is a delusion? Based on the evidence provided in science, evolution and the philosophy's of different religions across the world. He believes they can be explained like viruses of the Mind (Memes) The Hypothesis of God is inferior to the scientific theories of Natural selection and Evolution without God. He believes that believing in God is a delusion because the belief of something that isnt factually true and can not be supported by evidence is a "Delusion" He believes the evidence for God is not only lacking but improbable at best.
24. How would the theory of consciousness as a virtual simulatorhelp explain the belief in mysticism? Because the experiences aren’t mystical if it can be shown that it is your brain that is producing the images inside your head and that they are not coming from an outside mystical source. Out of body experiences and near death experiences can be explained by showing that it was the brain all along that was playing a “Movie” in your head just like dreams.
25. What is the most interesting thing you have learned so far in this class? Why? One of the most interesting thing that i have learned in this class was the idea that if God does exist it is possible that he does use our "Human" genetic make up to communicate with us. For example, a Speaking in tongues, ecstatic experience can be traced back to the brain, however there is nothing stopping the possibility that we were designed in such a way to be able to communicate with God. That is of course if we were designed at all. I also enjoy the emphasis on researching and studying for ourselves to find out what "is" and what "isnt" It's important not to swallow everything you are taught, read or learn. There is always another explanation and the same goes for what we are taught by the professor in class as he regularly explains not to "Buy his propaganda" or "Drink his Kool-aid"
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Response: Disproving/ "Bible was wrong"
-"A classic example to illustrate the resilience of religion and its evolutionary nature occurred in the Catholic Church. In the 15 thcentury, most of the Roman Catholic Church still believed that the sun revolved around the earth."
-Quote
My response:
To clarify, this was the prevalent view of the Scientists of the time. It wasn't like the Church believed in a geocentric view and was oppressing a group of valiant non-believing scientist that held a heliocentric view. This is not true. The church funded and was at the forefront of science during this era. For example during these times the Jesuits were known for their highly respected Scientist in Rome.
-"Those who thought otherwise were severely reprimanded, or put in jail, or tortured, or, worst yet,executed."
-Quote
My Response:
This is false. Though the geocentric view was the reigning viewpoint at that time amongst scientist both views existed and you were not reprimanded for holding it. In fact it was freely discussed and studied within the church during Galileo's time and the time preceding him.
"-"At this time, devout Christians felt that their sacredbook, the Bible, indicated that the earth was the center of theuniverse. If astronomers, like Galileo and Copernicus, showedevidence to the contrary it would mean that the Bible was wrong. And,if the Bible were wrong, it would mean that God was wrong. And if Godwas wrong…well, he was no longer God. Such a thought was impossiblein light of the Church's strident orthodoxy. Hence, to question theBible's astronomical version of cosmology was akin to questioningGod's Supreme Authority and Knowledge."
-Quote
My Response:
Again this is a false assumption, and this was not the official teaching of the Church. It is true that it was held by Church clergy and members that this may contradict their particular interpretations of the scripture but in no way would it or did it disprove God or threaten to disprove the Church's understanding. The church issued a disciplinary ruling regarding a scientist who was supporting an unproven theory and demanding that the entire church bend to his understanding of scripture in order to fit his interpretation. There was simply no way, or no reason the church should have bent to Galileo. At the time, there wasn't even the ability to prove his theory correct. It's actually a good thing that the church didn't rush to embrace his view because it ultimately turned out that his ideas weren't even entirely accurate. He believed the sun was the center of the Universe itself. Current science has proven that Galileo and the opposition were both partially right and wrong. Galileo may have been correct regarding the mobility of the earth but was wrong in the immobility of the sun. His opposition was correct in holding to the mobility of the sun but wrong about the earth. If the Catholic Church just rushed in and accepted Galileo's views. (and there were many in the Catholic church who supported his views) The church would have embraced what current Science has ultimately disproved.
That would have been the real blunder.
"It is little wonder,therefore, that the scientist Bruno burned at the stake. Better for afalse believer to die than to have millions of faithful have theirbelief in God shattered."
-Quote
My Response:
He died as a heretic and this had nothing to do with his scientific views Regarding Copernican thought. By the way Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic cleric, and his views were not suppressed by the church in fact he delayed publication of a book regarding his Heliocentric view, not for fear of the church, as it was freely discussed in the church but fear of his scientific colleagues at the time.
-"Five centuries later, however, Pope John-Paul II essentially apologized for the Church's blunder and itsmaltreatment of intellectual pioneers (this same pope acknowledgedthe irrefutable evidence of evolution)."
-Quote
My Response:
The Pope wasn't admitting that the Church was wrong in its official teachings. He was apologizing for the bad treatment of people inhistory by members of the Church. In no way is this the church conceding and or admitting that the church was a separate and opposing force of science. Also In no way did the pope acknowledge and state that the theory of Evolution was "irrefutable" The theory of Evolution is still exactly that. A theory. And it is still debated. The church rejects Darwinian Evolution which outright rejects God, but allows for either Creationism or Theological Evolution. (which is God induced Evolution so to speak).
-"Above is the question of evolution disproving the Bible and ofhistory. Galileo proved that the world was round, not flat and he waskilled for going against the Church."
-Quote
My Response:
The fathers of the Church taught that the Earth was a Sphere 1000 years before Galileo. That's not even counting every other Catholic before Galileo that held that point of view. The Church did not kill Galileo. Nor, was he silenced because of his heliocentric view. He wasn't the only one with that view at that time. It was the way hewent about it as I stated earlier.
-"The Spanish Inquisition and theCrusades are more instances in which historians can be critical ofthe Roman Catholic Church and its abuse of power."
-Quote
My Response:
This is a blanket statement, that requires further clarification to understand what point you are trying to make here. If you areassuming that the crusades and the inquisition were random powertrips by the Catholic Church than this is an inaccurate understanding of history. Though I cannot say more without knowing what specifically you are talking about here.
-"I pondered this question one-day in sixth grade class. Why were there no dinosaurs in the Bible? We know for a fact that dinosaurs existbut there is nothing in the Bible about them. This is because the early writers of the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs, they had not been discovered in their lifetime, but later. You can't write about what you don't know. It is said that God inspired the early writers of the Bible. You can believe this or not…"
–Quote
My Response:
I've often pondered this myself. I've always speculated where the dinosaurs fit into all of this and if all the theories regarding them are correct or far fetched ideas masquerading as true science. Admittedly, I haven't looked into dinosaurs thoroughly enough to draw some sort of Conclusion, though I watched Jurassic park 1,2, and 3. =P
-"A reader can take the stories literally or not or they can just be read and reserve judgement on whether they believe everything they read or hear."
-Quote
My Response:
This goes for everything we read and hear. We must Investigate thoroughly before making a judgment. Many of the things that were written here were inaccurate about the Catholic church and it all goes back to my other post titled "When Fundamentalism drowns out Reality" Facts are important.
Fundamentalism isn't just a Bible Christian yelling out bible verses and quotes from Chick Publications in order to prove the existence of God and their truth as irrefutable fact. Fundamentalism is just as alive and well in a Secular Atheist quoting Darwinism Evolution theories and quotes from the book " The God delusion" as irrefutable facts.
They are both extreme faith
-Quote
My response:
To clarify, this was the prevalent view of the Scientists of the time. It wasn't like the Church believed in a geocentric view and was oppressing a group of valiant non-believing scientist that held a heliocentric view. This is not true. The church funded and was at the forefront of science during this era. For example during these times the Jesuits were known for their highly respected Scientist in Rome.
-"Those who thought otherwise were severely reprimanded, or put in jail, or tortured, or, worst yet,executed."
-Quote
My Response:
This is false. Though the geocentric view was the reigning viewpoint at that time amongst scientist both views existed and you were not reprimanded for holding it. In fact it was freely discussed and studied within the church during Galileo's time and the time preceding him.
"-"At this time, devout Christians felt that their sacredbook, the Bible, indicated that the earth was the center of theuniverse. If astronomers, like Galileo and Copernicus, showedevidence to the contrary it would mean that the Bible was wrong. And,if the Bible were wrong, it would mean that God was wrong. And if Godwas wrong…well, he was no longer God. Such a thought was impossiblein light of the Church's strident orthodoxy. Hence, to question theBible's astronomical version of cosmology was akin to questioningGod's Supreme Authority and Knowledge."
-Quote
My Response:
Again this is a false assumption, and this was not the official teaching of the Church. It is true that it was held by Church clergy and members that this may contradict their particular interpretations of the scripture but in no way would it or did it disprove God or threaten to disprove the Church's understanding. The church issued a disciplinary ruling regarding a scientist who was supporting an unproven theory and demanding that the entire church bend to his understanding of scripture in order to fit his interpretation. There was simply no way, or no reason the church should have bent to Galileo. At the time, there wasn't even the ability to prove his theory correct. It's actually a good thing that the church didn't rush to embrace his view because it ultimately turned out that his ideas weren't even entirely accurate. He believed the sun was the center of the Universe itself. Current science has proven that Galileo and the opposition were both partially right and wrong. Galileo may have been correct regarding the mobility of the earth but was wrong in the immobility of the sun. His opposition was correct in holding to the mobility of the sun but wrong about the earth. If the Catholic Church just rushed in and accepted Galileo's views. (and there were many in the Catholic church who supported his views) The church would have embraced what current Science has ultimately disproved.
That would have been the real blunder.
"It is little wonder,therefore, that the scientist Bruno burned at the stake. Better for afalse believer to die than to have millions of faithful have theirbelief in God shattered."
-Quote
My Response:
He died as a heretic and this had nothing to do with his scientific views Regarding Copernican thought. By the way Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic cleric, and his views were not suppressed by the church in fact he delayed publication of a book regarding his Heliocentric view, not for fear of the church, as it was freely discussed in the church but fear of his scientific colleagues at the time.
-"Five centuries later, however, Pope John-Paul II essentially apologized for the Church's blunder and itsmaltreatment of intellectual pioneers (this same pope acknowledgedthe irrefutable evidence of evolution)."
-Quote
My Response:
The Pope wasn't admitting that the Church was wrong in its official teachings. He was apologizing for the bad treatment of people inhistory by members of the Church. In no way is this the church conceding and or admitting that the church was a separate and opposing force of science. Also In no way did the pope acknowledge and state that the theory of Evolution was "irrefutable" The theory of Evolution is still exactly that. A theory. And it is still debated. The church rejects Darwinian Evolution which outright rejects God, but allows for either Creationism or Theological Evolution. (which is God induced Evolution so to speak).
-"Above is the question of evolution disproving the Bible and ofhistory. Galileo proved that the world was round, not flat and he waskilled for going against the Church."
-Quote
My Response:
The fathers of the Church taught that the Earth was a Sphere 1000 years before Galileo. That's not even counting every other Catholic before Galileo that held that point of view. The Church did not kill Galileo. Nor, was he silenced because of his heliocentric view. He wasn't the only one with that view at that time. It was the way hewent about it as I stated earlier.
-"The Spanish Inquisition and theCrusades are more instances in which historians can be critical ofthe Roman Catholic Church and its abuse of power."
-Quote
My Response:
This is a blanket statement, that requires further clarification to understand what point you are trying to make here. If you areassuming that the crusades and the inquisition were random powertrips by the Catholic Church than this is an inaccurate understanding of history. Though I cannot say more without knowing what specifically you are talking about here.
-"I pondered this question one-day in sixth grade class. Why were there no dinosaurs in the Bible? We know for a fact that dinosaurs existbut there is nothing in the Bible about them. This is because the early writers of the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs, they had not been discovered in their lifetime, but later. You can't write about what you don't know. It is said that God inspired the early writers of the Bible. You can believe this or not…"
–Quote
My Response:
I've often pondered this myself. I've always speculated where the dinosaurs fit into all of this and if all the theories regarding them are correct or far fetched ideas masquerading as true science. Admittedly, I haven't looked into dinosaurs thoroughly enough to draw some sort of Conclusion, though I watched Jurassic park 1,2, and 3. =P
-"A reader can take the stories literally or not or they can just be read and reserve judgement on whether they believe everything they read or hear."
-Quote
My Response:
This goes for everything we read and hear. We must Investigate thoroughly before making a judgment. Many of the things that were written here were inaccurate about the Catholic church and it all goes back to my other post titled "When Fundamentalism drowns out Reality" Facts are important.
Fundamentalism isn't just a Bible Christian yelling out bible verses and quotes from Chick Publications in order to prove the existence of God and their truth as irrefutable fact. Fundamentalism is just as alive and well in a Secular Atheist quoting Darwinism Evolution theories and quotes from the book " The God delusion" as irrefutable facts.
They are both extreme faith
Response: All worth it/Read it for yourself
"In World Religions we are called to read the original texts of our own religion even though it usually is unnecessary or not called for. In Catholicism it is not required to read the Bible, but theydo go over it every Sunday a little piece at a time."
Quote
-de_evilgryphon
In Catholicism it is very much required to read the bible. The Catechism of the Catholic church states in Paragraphs 131-133
131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigour, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure andlasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scriptureought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."
132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
The Church emphasizes that the Scriptures be read and understood in full context especially in light of the Ancient Sacred Tradition and teachings of the Church in order to get a full, complete comprehensible and concise understanding of the Text. If you divorce yourself from the historical interpretation of the scriptures you will most definitely lose the understanding of what certain verses are trying to say. This isn't just for faith reasons, but for a very important historical understanding as well. You will not gain a true understanding of Christianity reading the "bible alone" using an "easy to read" English translation with your modern mind interpreting everything. Though I recommend doing it as part of understanding, you are most likely "not going to walk away a Bible expert."
For example, the point I brought up in Class while professor Lane was explaining Jesus' Reference of "The son of Man" as a humbling and human title. If you read that text with naked eyes you can and will probably gather that's all it may have been. The reality is you would completely miss the fact that the title "The son of Man" is a very special title in reference to King David of the Old Testament and the Jews understood that title as something far from just being a "regular man of sorts". This is crucial in understanding the gospels. This information alone can skew your understanding of the Scriptures. (and it has for many newer Christian Denominations) Another example is when professor Lane quoted the "My God why have you forsaken me" (Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34) at first glance you may read only that this was the man Jesus proclaiming that he has been forsaken by God and that even he probably lost faith in his whole mission at this point. However that exact line in its correct context is the exact opposite. It is in fact known as a "Todah" a Hebrew word meaning "Thank offering" or "Thanksgiving" , (Fun Fact: TheGreek "Eucharist" means the same thing). Far from being an act of loss of faith from Jesus, this line was understood to be a powerful expression of confidence in God's sovereignty and mercy.
Scott Hahn, an ex-Presbyterian minister now Author, Theologian and Catholic apologist writes in his book "The Lambs Supper"
"Perhaps the classic example of the todah is Psalm 22, which begins with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' Jesus Himself quoted this as He hung dying upon the cross. His listeners would have recognized the reference, and they would have known that this song, which begins with a cry of dereliction, ends on a triumphant note of salvation. Citing this todah, Jesus demonstrated his own confident hope for deliverance" (pg. 33)
And as far as the understanding that every Sunday the Catholic church "goes over the bible a little piece at a time" in no way should that be understood as the Catholic is lacking in scriptural teachings and or readings. In fact it can be easily shown that one single Catholic Mass is "Soaked and drenched" in biblical verses and language. The readings, hymns, responses, are recognizable from verses all over the bible, New and Old testaments. Another interesting fact is that if you attend Mass every Sunday for 3 years,you will have been read pretty much the entire bible cover to cover. And that's only based on the Readings, not the actual language and songs through out the Mass. Many people, even Catholics are unaware that the Liturgy of the Mass is based on the Book of Revelation and is in fact essential to understanding the meaning of the book of Revelation. Most people think it's a weird and crazy "End of the world book" that needs to be demythologized. But for the earliest Christians, the Liturgy of the Mass was based on the Book of Revelation. (otherwise known as Apocalypse or "Unveiling")
Not to long ago in a debate between apologists from the Catholic Church and the non-denominational church of Calvary Chapel, the members from Calvary chapel made the claim that the "Traditions ofthe Catholic Mass weren't begun until 1394 A.D". This claim is certainly strange, foreign and unsupportable. Especially considering the fact that the Mass was essential for early Christians inunderstanding the book of Revelation which was written as early as 68A.D!
Also I would like to add in personal experience, that recently I was attending a "Christian denomination" of sorts that would fellowship literally from 9 a.m to 9 p.m. on Saturdays. They had Three separate 1 hour services throughout the course of the day. Due, to their deeply rooted anti-Catholic views and misunderstandings, they constantly boasted that they studied the bible more in one of their services than the Catholics did at any Mass. However it was noted by me that contrary to what they believed a single Catholic Mass in fact had more biblical references and language than all 3 of their daily services combined. I will close by stating that though nothing I have stated here can solely prove that the Catholic Church is the true religion. What I have stated helps to show that the Catholic Church does require the study and understanding of Scriptures and is deeply rooted in them in worship and teachings. This post Plus my other post I wrote titled "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger" helps to show theUnique historical relationship the Catholic church has with the Bible that no other Christian denomination has. This is important to know if we are to understand Christianity to its fullest.
Quote
-de_evilgryphon
In Catholicism it is very much required to read the bible. The Catechism of the Catholic church states in Paragraphs 131-133
131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigour, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure andlasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scriptureought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."
132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
The Church emphasizes that the Scriptures be read and understood in full context especially in light of the Ancient Sacred Tradition and teachings of the Church in order to get a full, complete comprehensible and concise understanding of the Text. If you divorce yourself from the historical interpretation of the scriptures you will most definitely lose the understanding of what certain verses are trying to say. This isn't just for faith reasons, but for a very important historical understanding as well. You will not gain a true understanding of Christianity reading the "bible alone" using an "easy to read" English translation with your modern mind interpreting everything. Though I recommend doing it as part of understanding, you are most likely "not going to walk away a Bible expert."
For example, the point I brought up in Class while professor Lane was explaining Jesus' Reference of "The son of Man" as a humbling and human title. If you read that text with naked eyes you can and will probably gather that's all it may have been. The reality is you would completely miss the fact that the title "The son of Man" is a very special title in reference to King David of the Old Testament and the Jews understood that title as something far from just being a "regular man of sorts". This is crucial in understanding the gospels. This information alone can skew your understanding of the Scriptures. (and it has for many newer Christian Denominations) Another example is when professor Lane quoted the "My God why have you forsaken me" (Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34) at first glance you may read only that this was the man Jesus proclaiming that he has been forsaken by God and that even he probably lost faith in his whole mission at this point. However that exact line in its correct context is the exact opposite. It is in fact known as a "Todah" a Hebrew word meaning "Thank offering" or "Thanksgiving" , (Fun Fact: TheGreek "Eucharist" means the same thing). Far from being an act of loss of faith from Jesus, this line was understood to be a powerful expression of confidence in God's sovereignty and mercy.
Scott Hahn, an ex-Presbyterian minister now Author, Theologian and Catholic apologist writes in his book "The Lambs Supper"
"Perhaps the classic example of the todah is Psalm 22, which begins with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' Jesus Himself quoted this as He hung dying upon the cross. His listeners would have recognized the reference, and they would have known that this song, which begins with a cry of dereliction, ends on a triumphant note of salvation. Citing this todah, Jesus demonstrated his own confident hope for deliverance" (pg. 33)
And as far as the understanding that every Sunday the Catholic church "goes over the bible a little piece at a time" in no way should that be understood as the Catholic is lacking in scriptural teachings and or readings. In fact it can be easily shown that one single Catholic Mass is "Soaked and drenched" in biblical verses and language. The readings, hymns, responses, are recognizable from verses all over the bible, New and Old testaments. Another interesting fact is that if you attend Mass every Sunday for 3 years,you will have been read pretty much the entire bible cover to cover. And that's only based on the Readings, not the actual language and songs through out the Mass. Many people, even Catholics are unaware that the Liturgy of the Mass is based on the Book of Revelation and is in fact essential to understanding the meaning of the book of Revelation. Most people think it's a weird and crazy "End of the world book" that needs to be demythologized. But for the earliest Christians, the Liturgy of the Mass was based on the Book of Revelation. (otherwise known as Apocalypse or "Unveiling")
Not to long ago in a debate between apologists from the Catholic Church and the non-denominational church of Calvary Chapel, the members from Calvary chapel made the claim that the "Traditions ofthe Catholic Mass weren't begun until 1394 A.D". This claim is certainly strange, foreign and unsupportable. Especially considering the fact that the Mass was essential for early Christians inunderstanding the book of Revelation which was written as early as 68A.D!
Also I would like to add in personal experience, that recently I was attending a "Christian denomination" of sorts that would fellowship literally from 9 a.m to 9 p.m. on Saturdays. They had Three separate 1 hour services throughout the course of the day. Due, to their deeply rooted anti-Catholic views and misunderstandings, they constantly boasted that they studied the bible more in one of their services than the Catholics did at any Mass. However it was noted by me that contrary to what they believed a single Catholic Mass in fact had more biblical references and language than all 3 of their daily services combined. I will close by stating that though nothing I have stated here can solely prove that the Catholic Church is the true religion. What I have stated helps to show that the Catholic Church does require the study and understanding of Scriptures and is deeply rooted in them in worship and teachings. This post Plus my other post I wrote titled "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger" helps to show theUnique historical relationship the Catholic church has with the Bible that no other Christian denomination has. This is important to know if we are to understand Christianity to its fullest.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Why Catholic Bibles are bigger
Ok, I'm going to try and simplify this as much as I can while maintaining all the key facts. In no way does what I write here givean exhaustive report of what I'm going to talk about, but it willgive something solid for you to investigate further if you are interested. In another post I did earlier I had mentioned a time when I was in class and one of my professors (not professor Lane) statedthat Catholics added 7 books to the bible not found in Protestant(non-Catholic Christian) Bibles after the Reformation in the 1500's.I knew this wasn't historically accurate but I never got to share mypoint in that class as I was quickly silenced. But here I will share and try to condense it down as much as possible.
Since the very beginning of Christianity the Christians used two Canons, the Greek and Hebrew Canons. The Greek Canon known as the Septuagint contained 46 books. The seven books in the Old Testamentare referred to by Catholics as "Deuterocanonicals". Protestants refer to them as the "Apocrypha." The seven books in Catholic bibles that Protestants don't have are "Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2Maccabees, Baruch, Judith, Tobit. Catholics still use the same Old Testament canon that has always been used in Christianity. We know factually that the apostles; the early church fathers and all early Christians used the Septuagint until the 1500s. There are roughly 350 quotationsof the Old Testament to be found in the New Testament, and of these 300 are quoted directly from the Greek Septuagint, including Old Testament citations attributed to Jesus. This brings us back to what professor lane explained in our class a couple weeks back. Remember that famous prophecy about Jesus and the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Hebrew Bible does not say "virgin"but "young woman" while the Septuagint does say "virgin" Here is an example of the Septuagint clearly being quoted in the New Testament Greek.
And so begins the story of why Catholics have 7 more books in the Old Testament than Protestants. The Hebrew Canon which contains 39 books was believed to have been drafted by Jewish rabbi's in or around 100 a.d (long after Jesus died) possibly in reaction to the ChristianChurch. One of the main reasons for the Jews omitting the "Apocrypha"books were that they could not find any original translations in Hebrew of the disputed books. Hence, the possibility that this was in reaction to the Christian church because of the fact that the NewTestament was being written in Greek. In 4th century councils the Church affirmed the 46-book canon as the inspired Word of God, Not the 39 Hebrew Canon. Christians accepted and used the Greek Septuagint Canon. They did not accept the 39 book Hebrew canon thatthe Non-Christian Jews that didn't even believe in Jesus created muchlater.
Protestant bibles which only have 39 books in their Old Testament came about in the 1500's when Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant reformation took out the 7 books of the bible. Basicallyhis own reasoning and judgment were enough for doing so, take for example the following statement regarding Luther's feelings on the issue
"I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice" -Martin Luther
It is noteworthy to see here that Martin Luther who also wanted to throw out more books of the bible Esther and even New Testament books such as James and Revelation passes his own personal judgment on a undisputed canonical book along with "2 Maccabees"
Aside from that, they appealed to the same reasoning of the Jews that there were no original Hebrew counterparts for the writings. The interesting fact is that for hundreds of years the Christians had already believed and used the 46 book canon. The writings of the early church fathers and other early Christian writings refer to the46 book canon. And on top of that supporting information anyone familiar with the findings of the Dead sea scrolls found at Qumran are aware of the fatal blow to the argument against the Disputed books because guess what was found?
Yes, that's right. They found Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books!
So ultimately the 39 book Canon that Protestants use (King james, NIV etc..etc.) is the result of a decision made by
1. Non-Christian Jewsthat did not believe in Jesus, who persecuted the early Christians and who threw out the books long after his death. Logically what authority do Jews that don't believe in Christianity have over Christians to change the Canon of the Old testament by taking outbooks Used by Christian writers, Jesus, the apostles and early church fathers?
2. A Man in the 1500's, Martin Luther who even wanted to throw out more books of the bible (who also added the word "Alone"to his German translation which is not found in the original Greek,in an attempt to give more credibility to his new doctrine, Salvation by Faith alone "Sola Fide" unheard of in Christianity for 1500 yearsbut that's a different issue worth noting though as this is another foundation of Protestantism which began from this man just like thecanon of the bible missing books)
Lets take a look at what history says happened regarding the Canon ofthe bible in the Church prior to Martin Luther's time of the 1500's.The Canon of the Bible had already been affirmed in "Rome in A.D.382, the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393, the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397, by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D., by the Sixth Council of Carthage in A.D. 419, the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (A.D.787), " You can also add Florence 1442, and Trent 1546 (though Trentpost dates Martin Luther's reformation).
That information plus the Dead Sea scrolls paints us a solid picture of why the Catholic and Non-Catholic bibles differ. We see that the grounds that there were no Hebrew writings for the disputed books ultimately proved this reasoning unsupportable. And it takes no faith, or no Conspiracy theory to prove this point. The finding of the Dead Sea scrolls were basically history reaching its hand farinto the present time and slapping the face of unreasonable and untrue claims that there were no Hebrew writtings of those books. It was in fact the Catholic church, its Catholic Councils, its Catholic bishops, Popes and early church fathers that canonized the Bible that all Christians, Catholics or not would believe in as the Inspired word of God for all the ages to come.
So in the future if you ever hear your professors or anyone say that "Catholics added 7 books to the bible" ask them to show you how? When? where? Who did it and why?
And as a Catholic if you are ever in a position where anon-Catholic Christian is quoting bible verses against you and the Catholic church left and right Proclaiming proudly that they don't need the Church and "The bible is their only foundation!".
Say to them "That is fine but at least understand this. Your Foundation which you claim is that bible, came from the Catholic church… and no, That is not my personal subjective belief that is not my faith. That is just History my friend.
That is just factual History…"
As i said earlier it takes no faith or no conspiracy theory to prove that point. The straight hard facts and evidence already do it. But don't just take my word for it. I will end here with the founding Father of Protestantism to prove the point further. Lets see what the Father of "The bible alone" and "Faith alone" have to say on the subject of Catholics and the bible
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]-that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it" -Martin Luther.
To which Catholics respond…
"Amen…"
Since the very beginning of Christianity the Christians used two Canons, the Greek and Hebrew Canons. The Greek Canon known as the Septuagint contained 46 books. The seven books in the Old Testamentare referred to by Catholics as "Deuterocanonicals". Protestants refer to them as the "Apocrypha." The seven books in Catholic bibles that Protestants don't have are "Wisdom, Sirach, 1 & 2Maccabees, Baruch, Judith, Tobit. Catholics still use the same Old Testament canon that has always been used in Christianity. We know factually that the apostles; the early church fathers and all early Christians used the Septuagint until the 1500s. There are roughly 350 quotationsof the Old Testament to be found in the New Testament, and of these 300 are quoted directly from the Greek Septuagint, including Old Testament citations attributed to Jesus. This brings us back to what professor lane explained in our class a couple weeks back. Remember that famous prophecy about Jesus and the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 quoted in Matthew 1:23. The Hebrew Bible does not say "virgin"but "young woman" while the Septuagint does say "virgin" Here is an example of the Septuagint clearly being quoted in the New Testament Greek.
And so begins the story of why Catholics have 7 more books in the Old Testament than Protestants. The Hebrew Canon which contains 39 books was believed to have been drafted by Jewish rabbi's in or around 100 a.d (long after Jesus died) possibly in reaction to the ChristianChurch. One of the main reasons for the Jews omitting the "Apocrypha"books were that they could not find any original translations in Hebrew of the disputed books. Hence, the possibility that this was in reaction to the Christian church because of the fact that the NewTestament was being written in Greek. In 4th century councils the Church affirmed the 46-book canon as the inspired Word of God, Not the 39 Hebrew Canon. Christians accepted and used the Greek Septuagint Canon. They did not accept the 39 book Hebrew canon thatthe Non-Christian Jews that didn't even believe in Jesus created muchlater.
Protestant bibles which only have 39 books in their Old Testament came about in the 1500's when Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant reformation took out the 7 books of the bible. Basicallyhis own reasoning and judgment were enough for doing so, take for example the following statement regarding Luther's feelings on the issue
"I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice" -Martin Luther
It is noteworthy to see here that Martin Luther who also wanted to throw out more books of the bible Esther and even New Testament books such as James and Revelation passes his own personal judgment on a undisputed canonical book along with "2 Maccabees"
Aside from that, they appealed to the same reasoning of the Jews that there were no original Hebrew counterparts for the writings. The interesting fact is that for hundreds of years the Christians had already believed and used the 46 book canon. The writings of the early church fathers and other early Christian writings refer to the46 book canon. And on top of that supporting information anyone familiar with the findings of the Dead sea scrolls found at Qumran are aware of the fatal blow to the argument against the Disputed books because guess what was found?
Yes, that's right. They found Hebrew copies of some of the disputed books!
So ultimately the 39 book Canon that Protestants use (King james, NIV etc..etc.) is the result of a decision made by
1. Non-Christian Jewsthat did not believe in Jesus, who persecuted the early Christians and who threw out the books long after his death. Logically what authority do Jews that don't believe in Christianity have over Christians to change the Canon of the Old testament by taking outbooks Used by Christian writers, Jesus, the apostles and early church fathers?
2. A Man in the 1500's, Martin Luther who even wanted to throw out more books of the bible (who also added the word "Alone"to his German translation which is not found in the original Greek,in an attempt to give more credibility to his new doctrine, Salvation by Faith alone "Sola Fide" unheard of in Christianity for 1500 yearsbut that's a different issue worth noting though as this is another foundation of Protestantism which began from this man just like thecanon of the bible missing books)
Lets take a look at what history says happened regarding the Canon ofthe bible in the Church prior to Martin Luther's time of the 1500's.The Canon of the Bible had already been affirmed in "Rome in A.D.382, the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393, the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397, by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D., by the Sixth Council of Carthage in A.D. 419, the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (A.D.787), " You can also add Florence 1442, and Trent 1546 (though Trentpost dates Martin Luther's reformation).
That information plus the Dead Sea scrolls paints us a solid picture of why the Catholic and Non-Catholic bibles differ. We see that the grounds that there were no Hebrew writings for the disputed books ultimately proved this reasoning unsupportable. And it takes no faith, or no Conspiracy theory to prove this point. The finding of the Dead Sea scrolls were basically history reaching its hand farinto the present time and slapping the face of unreasonable and untrue claims that there were no Hebrew writtings of those books. It was in fact the Catholic church, its Catholic Councils, its Catholic bishops, Popes and early church fathers that canonized the Bible that all Christians, Catholics or not would believe in as the Inspired word of God for all the ages to come.
So in the future if you ever hear your professors or anyone say that "Catholics added 7 books to the bible" ask them to show you how? When? where? Who did it and why?
And as a Catholic if you are ever in a position where anon-Catholic Christian is quoting bible verses against you and the Catholic church left and right Proclaiming proudly that they don't need the Church and "The bible is their only foundation!".
Say to them "That is fine but at least understand this. Your Foundation which you claim is that bible, came from the Catholic church… and no, That is not my personal subjective belief that is not my faith. That is just History my friend.
That is just factual History…"
As i said earlier it takes no faith or no conspiracy theory to prove that point. The straight hard facts and evidence already do it. But don't just take my word for it. I will end here with the founding Father of Protestantism to prove the point further. Lets see what the Father of "The bible alone" and "Faith alone" have to say on the subject of Catholics and the bible
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists [Catholics]-that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it" -Martin Luther.
To which Catholics respond…
"Amen…"
Response: When Fundamentalism drowns out reality…
"You make a good point about Catholism and its historical substance. The organization of the church that spread in the Roman Empirebefore 325 AD does point a few rituals that were practiced before 325 AD, such as Baptism and the Eucharist. It wasn't until Aruis of Alexandria created an controversy among Christians that compelled the Roman Emperor to deal with the growing problem, hence forth Catholic "universal"."
-Quote Ironicmyopia
Yes, that was definitely a major heresy that afflicted the church. It took a long time to stamp out Arianism which is the first heresy that completely denied the divinity of Jesus. Also, Its not that a "few"rituals were practiced before 325 A.D it can be shown that "all" Catholic Doctrinal practices were in effect prior to 325 a.d. though not necessarily in the form we see them in exactly today. (By doctrinal im talking about the Doctrines not disciplinary practices such as Celibacy for certain clergy) Through the writings of the early church fathers we see the constant living tradition regarding the church as "Catholic" the teachings regarding the Eucharist, TheMass as a Sacrifice, Confession, Baptism, the Church Hiearchy, Confirmation and so on.
The Term Catholic wasnt coined or developed after the Arian Heresy which began in 318 A.d. (Arius a priest began teaching that Jesus wasnot God) The Church had been known as Catholic long before that time. A Protestant early church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes "As regards `Catholic,' its original meaning was 'universal'or 'general" (now my words) Which is part of the understanding that these church fathers viewed the Church as a visible organization separate from Heretics, Gnostics and any other dissidents to the apostolic faith. J.N.D Kelly also confirms this in his writings though the actual material to quote is not in my possession at themoment. The important point being that even honest protestant scholars must acknowledge this historical information.
The following are but a few examples of early church writings regarding "Catholic" the Mass, the Eucharist. This in and of itself doesn't Prove there is a God, it doesn't Prove that Christianity is the Truth, but it does help prove that the early church was none other than Catholic…
Ignatius of Antioch
Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2[A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Didache
"Assemble on the Lord's day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice maybe a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, `Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord,and my name is the wonder of nations' [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14[A.D. 70]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the fleshand the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
-Quote Ironicmyopia
Yes, that was definitely a major heresy that afflicted the church. It took a long time to stamp out Arianism which is the first heresy that completely denied the divinity of Jesus. Also, Its not that a "few"rituals were practiced before 325 A.D it can be shown that "all" Catholic Doctrinal practices were in effect prior to 325 a.d. though not necessarily in the form we see them in exactly today. (By doctrinal im talking about the Doctrines not disciplinary practices such as Celibacy for certain clergy) Through the writings of the early church fathers we see the constant living tradition regarding the church as "Catholic" the teachings regarding the Eucharist, TheMass as a Sacrifice, Confession, Baptism, the Church Hiearchy, Confirmation and so on.
The Term Catholic wasnt coined or developed after the Arian Heresy which began in 318 A.d. (Arius a priest began teaching that Jesus wasnot God) The Church had been known as Catholic long before that time. A Protestant early church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes "As regards `Catholic,' its original meaning was 'universal'or 'general" (now my words) Which is part of the understanding that these church fathers viewed the Church as a visible organization separate from Heretics, Gnostics and any other dissidents to the apostolic faith. J.N.D Kelly also confirms this in his writings though the actual material to quote is not in my possession at themoment. The important point being that even honest protestant scholars must acknowledge this historical information.
The following are but a few examples of early church writings regarding "Catholic" the Mass, the Eucharist. This in and of itself doesn't Prove there is a God, it doesn't Prove that Christianity is the Truth, but it does help prove that the early church was none other than Catholic…
Ignatius of Antioch
Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2[A.D. 110]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp16:2 [A.D. 155]).
The Didache
"Assemble on the Lord's day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice maybe a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, `Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord,and my name is the wonder of nations' [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14[A.D. 70]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the fleshand the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Mary Magdalene, Isaiah, the gospels: a Catholic perspective…
Never forget that professor lane is continually reminding us to not "accept what he is saying as "truth" For example those of you inclass last Thursday who were shaken up by finding out that "virgin"was not in the Hebrew manuscripts. And those of you who were shaken about the gospels. I bet it sounded to you as if there was an unreasonably long period between Jesus and the writings of the gospel. Or that Mary magdalene may not be who you were taught she was. Everything is not as obscure as you think and there is always multiple sides to every story. This rings true especially for a Catholic. In no way do i intend to share a deep and thorough response in any of these categories, im just going to throw some things out there as "food for thought"
The gospels
Catholics have something called "Sacred Tradition" Included in this tradition is Oral tradition which has preserved the core meaning ofthe gospels. For example you may have understood by the professors statement that Paul, who wrote 50% of the new testament ( a man who never even seen Jesus) can possibly be responsible for the bulk of Christian beliefs. Well, We know as Catholics through sacred tradition that the Apostles and those that studied under them known as the "Early church" fathers preserved and consistently taught the same things that we find in the Gospels. For example some of the Gospel writers such as John, taught early church fathers such as Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. So there isn't this huge vast gaping hole of information that you may have probably thought there was.The core of information is preserved for a Catholic.
Oral tradition was vital in Jewish culture and it has been passed on in the Catholic Church. For example the Olivet discourse in which Jesus forewarns the destruction of the Jewish temple (manyRapturists and Dispensationalist mistakenly interpret this to be ateaching of the End of the world) was passed on correctly in Scripture. How do we know this? We know this because Christianity Exists! If his followers didn't understand and believe Jesus they would have been killed during the siege of Jerusalem, which is also when the temple was destroyed. If you believed Jesus was the Messiah, and if you believed what Jesus said then you showed your Faith withyour Feet. You left Jerusalem and hid, and by doing so, you saved your life, as it was a massacre for many who remained during the siege between 68-70 a.d.
Mary Magdalene,
The cause of confusion over the identity of Mary Magdalene in the Gospels is rooted in two main factors. One being there is more than one "Mary" in the gospels and Two there are many unnamed women in the gospels. So to make a long story short, In the Catholic faith the church is well aware of this fact. Since the beginning Mary has been revered as "Apostle of apostles" The identity of the unnamed women in the gospels was believed to have possibly been her by different people since the beginning of the church. There has been arguments presented that she was demeaned specifically in the Homily of Pope Gregory I known as "Homily 33" in which he stated "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark and what did these seven devils signify, if not the vices?" Further reading of this homily shows no evidence of Mary Magdalene being demeaned rather revered and an example of a repentant sinner rising as "Apostle toapostles" an inspiration and an example for people to reflect on their own sinful ways. (remember the apostles were hiding while she went to the tomb)
The Bottom line. We don't know exactly if she was any of the unamed women. She could have been. the Catholic Church knows this and always has been aware of the possibilities. A faithful Catholic need not have their faith shaken by this. Remember investigate to get the full perspective. (in no way have I presented it here)
Lets move on to Isaiah.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV)
It is well known that the Greek Septuagint translated the words "young woman" as Virgin but this in no way takes away from the messianic prophecy. How so? In short you could say they were synonyms in the Jewish culture. Remember professor lanes explanation of the "Camel walking through and Eye of a needle" We are quick to imagine a Camel walking through an actual sewing needle because its what we are familiar with now. Professor lane gave two alternate examples. The frizzy thread and the Camels that were walking through the thin walkway known as "the needle". You can apply this same understanding as well to Isaiah and the differing translations.Culturally for us now it would be strange for me to refer to your little sister ages 12-14 as a "Virgin" but technically, and(hopefully should would be)it would be true to assume that. So it wouldn't be wrong for me to refer to her as such. Even more can be said for the Jewish culture at that time. A young woman was basically the Same as a "Virgin" This doesn't prove that the Prophecy of the Messiah is true. It just shows that the term translated as young woman and Virgin doesn't really debunk anything. (by the way this is a very small and informal argument, books have been written regarding this topic I do not intend to write one here.)
However I'm still going to take Professor Lanes "Messiah prophecy"debunking a bit farther. Many christians are also surprised to find out that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was already fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah! Don't believe me? You only need to read a bit further in order to know for certain that it was.
"Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." Isaiah 8:3-4 (NIV)
Without going into further detail about it. (and I can) this prophecy was fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah. However, from a Catholic perspective we know that "An event can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment, and when it is, we need to consider the entire historical context of the events to receive a full and complete understanding."
Further arguments can be made from Isaiah 9:7
"Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this."
Many question, "Where is this kingdom? There isn't one so Jesus couldn't have possibly fulfilled this prophecy!."
The fact that Isaiah 7:14 is rendered "young woman", "Virgin"or "young maiden" shouldn't make a Catholic flinch for the reasons I stated earlier. And as for the "kingdom" by being a Catholic you wake up in that Kingdom everyday in the Catholic church.
Remember to investigate your faith. Fire every single skeptical missile you have at it and if its real it will stand. Investigate all the information so that you will know for certain as much as you can about any given topic or something stated as fact. In the end we dont truly know and we will never in our lifetime unlock the secret of the universe. It always comes to faith at some point. But theres nothing wrong with testing as many facts as you can against that faith. After all if there is "God" he just might meet us somewhere in this earthly life during our investigation.
Investigate! Don't just Kneel and drink professor Lanes "Kool aid"! =P
The gospels
Catholics have something called "Sacred Tradition" Included in this tradition is Oral tradition which has preserved the core meaning ofthe gospels. For example you may have understood by the professors statement that Paul, who wrote 50% of the new testament ( a man who never even seen Jesus) can possibly be responsible for the bulk of Christian beliefs. Well, We know as Catholics through sacred tradition that the Apostles and those that studied under them known as the "Early church" fathers preserved and consistently taught the same things that we find in the Gospels. For example some of the Gospel writers such as John, taught early church fathers such as Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. So there isn't this huge vast gaping hole of information that you may have probably thought there was.The core of information is preserved for a Catholic.
Oral tradition was vital in Jewish culture and it has been passed on in the Catholic Church. For example the Olivet discourse in which Jesus forewarns the destruction of the Jewish temple (manyRapturists and Dispensationalist mistakenly interpret this to be ateaching of the End of the world) was passed on correctly in Scripture. How do we know this? We know this because Christianity Exists! If his followers didn't understand and believe Jesus they would have been killed during the siege of Jerusalem, which is also when the temple was destroyed. If you believed Jesus was the Messiah, and if you believed what Jesus said then you showed your Faith withyour Feet. You left Jerusalem and hid, and by doing so, you saved your life, as it was a massacre for many who remained during the siege between 68-70 a.d.
Mary Magdalene,
The cause of confusion over the identity of Mary Magdalene in the Gospels is rooted in two main factors. One being there is more than one "Mary" in the gospels and Two there are many unnamed women in the gospels. So to make a long story short, In the Catholic faith the church is well aware of this fact. Since the beginning Mary has been revered as "Apostle of apostles" The identity of the unnamed women in the gospels was believed to have possibly been her by different people since the beginning of the church. There has been arguments presented that she was demeaned specifically in the Homily of Pope Gregory I known as "Homily 33" in which he stated "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark and what did these seven devils signify, if not the vices?" Further reading of this homily shows no evidence of Mary Magdalene being demeaned rather revered and an example of a repentant sinner rising as "Apostle toapostles" an inspiration and an example for people to reflect on their own sinful ways. (remember the apostles were hiding while she went to the tomb)
The Bottom line. We don't know exactly if she was any of the unamed women. She could have been. the Catholic Church knows this and always has been aware of the possibilities. A faithful Catholic need not have their faith shaken by this. Remember investigate to get the full perspective. (in no way have I presented it here)
Lets move on to Isaiah.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. (NIV)
It is well known that the Greek Septuagint translated the words "young woman" as Virgin but this in no way takes away from the messianic prophecy. How so? In short you could say they were synonyms in the Jewish culture. Remember professor lanes explanation of the "Camel walking through and Eye of a needle" We are quick to imagine a Camel walking through an actual sewing needle because its what we are familiar with now. Professor lane gave two alternate examples. The frizzy thread and the Camels that were walking through the thin walkway known as "the needle". You can apply this same understanding as well to Isaiah and the differing translations.Culturally for us now it would be strange for me to refer to your little sister ages 12-14 as a "Virgin" but technically, and(hopefully should would be)it would be true to assume that. So it wouldn't be wrong for me to refer to her as such. Even more can be said for the Jewish culture at that time. A young woman was basically the Same as a "Virgin" This doesn't prove that the Prophecy of the Messiah is true. It just shows that the term translated as young woman and Virgin doesn't really debunk anything. (by the way this is a very small and informal argument, books have been written regarding this topic I do not intend to write one here.)
However I'm still going to take Professor Lanes "Messiah prophecy"debunking a bit farther. Many christians are also surprised to find out that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was already fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah! Don't believe me? You only need to read a bit further in order to know for certain that it was.
"Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." Isaiah 8:3-4 (NIV)
Without going into further detail about it. (and I can) this prophecy was fulfilled in the lifetime of Isaiah. However, from a Catholic perspective we know that "An event can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment, and when it is, we need to consider the entire historical context of the events to receive a full and complete understanding."
Further arguments can be made from Isaiah 9:7
"Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this."
Many question, "Where is this kingdom? There isn't one so Jesus couldn't have possibly fulfilled this prophecy!."
The fact that Isaiah 7:14 is rendered "young woman", "Virgin"or "young maiden" shouldn't make a Catholic flinch for the reasons I stated earlier. And as for the "kingdom" by being a Catholic you wake up in that Kingdom everyday in the Catholic church.
Remember to investigate your faith. Fire every single skeptical missile you have at it and if its real it will stand. Investigate all the information so that you will know for certain as much as you can about any given topic or something stated as fact. In the end we dont truly know and we will never in our lifetime unlock the secret of the universe. It always comes to faith at some point. But theres nothing wrong with testing as many facts as you can against that faith. After all if there is "God" he just might meet us somewhere in this earthly life during our investigation.
Investigate! Don't just Kneel and drink professor Lanes "Kool aid"! =P
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Jainism Extremism and some other ism’s
I was thinking more about extremist ideas as they relate tofundamentalism in religion. It seems that all extremism andfundamentalism really do is defeat the religion it is representing atits Core. Its root. For example, Jainism in its extremefundamentalist form does the exact opposite of what it sets out to bein the first place. "Compassion for all life, human and non-human" isa central belief in Jainism yet when it is practiced in its extremeform it becomes self-defeating. In order to preserve the "living"down to the smallest organism in such an extreme manner you causemore damage than you try to prevent. For example, avoiding lightsfrom video cameras, or even avoiding eating mostly all types of foodyou end up destroying the most important living thing. Your "humanself" You destroy a central doctrine by taking it to the extreme. Soit becomes a double edged sword so to speak. It dies at the root,never really having a chance to grow. We see this same repeating ideawhen anyone takes a Religion in an extreme fundamentalist approach.
Professor Lane spoke in an earlier class about "licking Jesus" whenhis communion instructor informed him that "Jesus didn't want to bechewed." Now the Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith but bydoing that, professor lanes teacher completely undermined, ignoredand stripped the Eucharist of its true meaning by bringing upsomething that is pretty much irrelevant to the true meaning of theEucharist to a Catholic. So because this person went about it in anextreme way he destroyed it at the root. Didn't allow it to grow.
Another example would be Islam "The religion of Peace" at what point does that equate with suicide bombings and killing others in order to force your peaceful religion on to others? And again with "Biblealone Christian fundamentalists" It is designed to take Christianity back to its supposed true fundamentals using the idea of "SolaScriptura" (Latin for Bible alone) yet at the very heart of thatdoctrine we know it is self defeating as Professor lane explained in class last Thursday. There wasn't even a Clear and universal New Testament until the 4th Century! Not only is that a glaring inconsistency but we also know that the Bible itself nowhere says that the "bible alone" should be the sole rule of authority forChristians. This idea was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Again because of the extremism of the people thatdecided to take Protestant Christianity too far they ultimatelydefeat it at its core.
I realize I have made some blanket statements here, but basically mypoint is that when you take a religion to its extreme fundamentals, you basically kill it at its root. You black out what is probably supposed to be its shining point by either taking it too far or misrepresenting it.
It can even be argued that by taking a religion to its fundamental root, you possibly can even make it clear that it just doesn't work,therefore can't be true. That's another possibility and a subject foran entirely new Post.
Thoughts?
Professor Lane spoke in an earlier class about "licking Jesus" whenhis communion instructor informed him that "Jesus didn't want to bechewed." Now the Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith but bydoing that, professor lanes teacher completely undermined, ignoredand stripped the Eucharist of its true meaning by bringing upsomething that is pretty much irrelevant to the true meaning of theEucharist to a Catholic. So because this person went about it in anextreme way he destroyed it at the root. Didn't allow it to grow.
Another example would be Islam "The religion of Peace" at what point does that equate with suicide bombings and killing others in order to force your peaceful religion on to others? And again with "Biblealone Christian fundamentalists" It is designed to take Christianity back to its supposed true fundamentals using the idea of "SolaScriptura" (Latin for Bible alone) yet at the very heart of thatdoctrine we know it is self defeating as Professor lane explained in class last Thursday. There wasn't even a Clear and universal New Testament until the 4th Century! Not only is that a glaring inconsistency but we also know that the Bible itself nowhere says that the "bible alone" should be the sole rule of authority forChristians. This idea was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Again because of the extremism of the people thatdecided to take Protestant Christianity too far they ultimatelydefeat it at its core.
I realize I have made some blanket statements here, but basically mypoint is that when you take a religion to its extreme fundamentals, you basically kill it at its root. You black out what is probably supposed to be its shining point by either taking it too far or misrepresenting it.
It can even be argued that by taking a religion to its fundamental root, you possibly can even make it clear that it just doesn't work,therefore can't be true. That's another possibility and a subject foran entirely new Post.
Thoughts?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
When Fundamentalism drowns out Reality…
"The Church of Rome denies the finished work of Christ but believes in the continuing sacrifice that produces such things as sacraments and praying for the dead, burning candles, and so forth. All of these were borrowed from mystery Babylon, the mother of all pagan customs and idolatry, none of which is taught in the New Testament."
-Tim LaHaye
I like the point that the Professor brought up in class when we were learning about Hinduism. He brought up the point of judging and jumping to conclusions about other faiths we don't understand. He made the comparison between the many Hindu gods and the Catholic saints. It is so easy to condemn something we truly don't understand.It is so easy to mock something on the grounds that it is foreign to us. Over the years while studying I have wondered "why is it that we give in so easily to what we read and hear without truly verifying itfor ourselves?". It is so easy for us to misunderstand something about religion and look no further. What makes it worse is that not only do we put forth no effort to verify from multiple sources the truth of the subject but it also seems we make the mistake of then turning around and proclaiming what little we know about a religion as "undisputed doctrine"! A fine example of this is the first quote I opened up this topic with. Tim LaHaye co-author of the "Left Behind"Book series is a well-respected minister, author and judging by the 50 million plus copies this book series has sold, he has a lot of people that are willing to listen to what he says.
This creates a problem though. This is what creates the many misunderstandings and misconceptions of faith. Here we have a well-respected author with a huge audience yet every line he has writtenin that quote is filled with blunders and inaccuracies about theCatholic Faith. No I'm not arguing from a perspective of faith and Idon't have any interest in trying to sling bible passages out there to try and defend the Catholic faith in this particular writing. In fact these points can be proven purely historically that the statements he is making are inaccurate. It can be proven historically that praying for the dead is an older Christian practice than the Canon of the Bible! It can be proven historically and factually that the sacraments of the Catholic faith have no link to paganism and are completely independent of paganism. The sacraments are no more pagan than the symbol of the cross is. We know historically that the symbol of the cross pre-dates Christianity but we also would be foolish toclaim that the cross is derived from paganism. This problem has arisen partially because of what we also talked about inclass. "Fundamentalism". Tim LaHaye is a "Christian" fundamentalist. As a Catholic I deal with this type of fundamentalism constantly. Let me share another experience with you about Christian Fundamentalism
I was in a World religions class a few years back that I did notcomplete and the Professor stated in one of his lessons that "The Catholic Church added 7 books to the bible" and that was why the Canon of the Catholic church consisted of 73 books and not 66 as allprotestant Canons do. Now, again, without having to rely on faith toprove my point I knew that this was historically impossible and that there were no grounds for this claim unless one had an obscure view of history. How was it that this idea that spawned from "Fundamentalism" found its way into the very classroom of a Secular school? Another thing that struck me as odd is that this teacher was the exact opposite of Professor Lane in that he refused to take any religious topic to the controversial level. Still, the point remained. "Fundamentalism" had found its way into the Classroom out of this teacher's mouth. I raised my hand curious where he learned this information. Had the "fundamentalist" voice been so loud that it actually drowned out reality? His explanation and answer wasthat he was unclear and didn't remember the exact details but wouldlook into it. I shared what I knew regarding the Canonization of the Bible which reached as far back as the synod of Rome in 382 a.d andthen the later councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 a.d.which listed all the books that Catholics still have in the bible.The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther removed them during thereformation in the 1500's. (There's much more detail regarding this Idon't intend to cover here) Unfortunately for the classroom, the professor brushed off my knowledge quickly changed the subject and ofcourse the class was left with the Professors "Undisputed Doctrine"to fill their minds. Christian Fundamentalism has even taken it so far as to deny that the Catholic Church had anything to do with the bible at all. Not even Martin Luther, a founding father ofProtestantism would agree with such a "deviation from history" that fundamentalism brings about. Again it doesn't take faith to prove this point as it can be understood clearly from the text of this next historical quote from one of the founding fathers of Protestantism.
"We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
-Martin Luther
The list goes on. We find these radical ideas in every faith if one takes a Fundamentalist approach. As a Catholic I have dealt with many Bible Christian Fundamentalists whose view of the Catholic faith is so misunderstood that it isn't even Catholicism anymore that they are disagreeing with, rather a mixture of false information projected to be Catholicism. An Archbishop by the name of Fulton J. Sheen put this reality in perspective when he said
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church-which is, of course, quite a different thing."
-Arch Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
So where do we draw the line? What are we supposed to do to protect ourselves from the Ocean of Misconceptions? I say we take ProfessorLanes advice and search for ourselves. Don't buy his or anyone's "information" without checking into it yourself. This includes what I have written here. I have quoted three different people and have given no citations to where I got these quotes from. I could be completely making this information up. Its been done manytimes in the books, magazines and the posters we read. Its done in lectures, on T.V and in Music. Don't buy it that easily.
Will we ever find the Truth? Who knows, but it doesn't hurt to try and get as close to it as we possibly can. We owe it to ourselves totest our faith, to test our knowledge and to search for the answers. Did Christians really believe Jesus was really God? Is the Book ofMormon really American history? Was Muhammad a true prophet of God? If we are going to be a member of any of these faiths we owe it to ourselves to investigate their claims. We must increase our Knowledge and understanding of different religions because without knowledge we will simply be lead to the Ocean of Misconceptions and forced to walk the Plank…
..and I don't want to Jump in that ocean without some blow up orange "floaties" on my arms
None of us should…
-Tim LaHaye
I like the point that the Professor brought up in class when we were learning about Hinduism. He brought up the point of judging and jumping to conclusions about other faiths we don't understand. He made the comparison between the many Hindu gods and the Catholic saints. It is so easy to condemn something we truly don't understand.It is so easy to mock something on the grounds that it is foreign to us. Over the years while studying I have wondered "why is it that we give in so easily to what we read and hear without truly verifying itfor ourselves?". It is so easy for us to misunderstand something about religion and look no further. What makes it worse is that not only do we put forth no effort to verify from multiple sources the truth of the subject but it also seems we make the mistake of then turning around and proclaiming what little we know about a religion as "undisputed doctrine"! A fine example of this is the first quote I opened up this topic with. Tim LaHaye co-author of the "Left Behind"Book series is a well-respected minister, author and judging by the 50 million plus copies this book series has sold, he has a lot of people that are willing to listen to what he says.
This creates a problem though. This is what creates the many misunderstandings and misconceptions of faith. Here we have a well-respected author with a huge audience yet every line he has writtenin that quote is filled with blunders and inaccuracies about theCatholic Faith. No I'm not arguing from a perspective of faith and Idon't have any interest in trying to sling bible passages out there to try and defend the Catholic faith in this particular writing. In fact these points can be proven purely historically that the statements he is making are inaccurate. It can be proven historically that praying for the dead is an older Christian practice than the Canon of the Bible! It can be proven historically and factually that the sacraments of the Catholic faith have no link to paganism and are completely independent of paganism. The sacraments are no more pagan than the symbol of the cross is. We know historically that the symbol of the cross pre-dates Christianity but we also would be foolish toclaim that the cross is derived from paganism. This problem has arisen partially because of what we also talked about inclass. "Fundamentalism". Tim LaHaye is a "Christian" fundamentalist. As a Catholic I deal with this type of fundamentalism constantly. Let me share another experience with you about Christian Fundamentalism
I was in a World religions class a few years back that I did notcomplete and the Professor stated in one of his lessons that "The Catholic Church added 7 books to the bible" and that was why the Canon of the Catholic church consisted of 73 books and not 66 as allprotestant Canons do. Now, again, without having to rely on faith toprove my point I knew that this was historically impossible and that there were no grounds for this claim unless one had an obscure view of history. How was it that this idea that spawned from "Fundamentalism" found its way into the very classroom of a Secular school? Another thing that struck me as odd is that this teacher was the exact opposite of Professor Lane in that he refused to take any religious topic to the controversial level. Still, the point remained. "Fundamentalism" had found its way into the Classroom out of this teacher's mouth. I raised my hand curious where he learned this information. Had the "fundamentalist" voice been so loud that it actually drowned out reality? His explanation and answer wasthat he was unclear and didn't remember the exact details but wouldlook into it. I shared what I knew regarding the Canonization of the Bible which reached as far back as the synod of Rome in 382 a.d andthen the later councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 a.d.which listed all the books that Catholics still have in the bible.The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther removed them during thereformation in the 1500's. (There's much more detail regarding this Idon't intend to cover here) Unfortunately for the classroom, the professor brushed off my knowledge quickly changed the subject and ofcourse the class was left with the Professors "Undisputed Doctrine"to fill their minds. Christian Fundamentalism has even taken it so far as to deny that the Catholic Church had anything to do with the bible at all. Not even Martin Luther, a founding father ofProtestantism would agree with such a "deviation from history" that fundamentalism brings about. Again it doesn't take faith to prove this point as it can be understood clearly from the text of this next historical quote from one of the founding fathers of Protestantism.
"We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."
-Martin Luther
The list goes on. We find these radical ideas in every faith if one takes a Fundamentalist approach. As a Catholic I have dealt with many Bible Christian Fundamentalists whose view of the Catholic faith is so misunderstood that it isn't even Catholicism anymore that they are disagreeing with, rather a mixture of false information projected to be Catholicism. An Archbishop by the name of Fulton J. Sheen put this reality in perspective when he said
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church-which is, of course, quite a different thing."
-Arch Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
So where do we draw the line? What are we supposed to do to protect ourselves from the Ocean of Misconceptions? I say we take ProfessorLanes advice and search for ourselves. Don't buy his or anyone's "information" without checking into it yourself. This includes what I have written here. I have quoted three different people and have given no citations to where I got these quotes from. I could be completely making this information up. Its been done manytimes in the books, magazines and the posters we read. Its done in lectures, on T.V and in Music. Don't buy it that easily.
Will we ever find the Truth? Who knows, but it doesn't hurt to try and get as close to it as we possibly can. We owe it to ourselves totest our faith, to test our knowledge and to search for the answers. Did Christians really believe Jesus was really God? Is the Book ofMormon really American history? Was Muhammad a true prophet of God? If we are going to be a member of any of these faiths we owe it to ourselves to investigate their claims. We must increase our Knowledge and understanding of different religions because without knowledge we will simply be lead to the Ocean of Misconceptions and forced to walk the Plank…
..and I don't want to Jump in that ocean without some blow up orange "floaties" on my arms
None of us should…
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The Red Pill or the Blue pill?
Which have you taken?
Anyone familiar with the Movie the Matrix which made its debut in 1999 I believe should understand this concept. The concept can easilybe applied to the feeling of taking this World religions class under David lane. To many young and new students fresh out of high school, returning students or whoever you may be this can be compared somewhat to "The world of the Matrix". We stumbled into the class from our familiar worlds and upon sitting down in the classroom we waited for our new teacher in anticipation. We immediately began applying what Twelve plus years of education had taught us of our previous teachers and professors. We wondered, "I he/she going to suck? Be boring be heavy on homework, make us read make us take a lot of tests? Is it going to be easy? Hard? Heavy on the note taking?
I'm willing to wager that no one imagined that we would actually walk into the classroom at Mt. Sac and find 2 seats. In one sits David Lane as Morpheus and the other is reserved for you as the character Neo. It doesn't matter that there are 15-20 other people in the Class he is only talking to you and his revelation to you is quite simple yet profound. He speaks to you and tells you…
"I have two pills in my hands. One in each hand. A blue pill and a Red pill. The blue pill contains the knowledge and information ofeverything you know now and everything you thought you knew. The other contains an entire new world that you didnt know existed but does in fact exist.
You can choose to live in the world that you know now, and be oblivious to what it is that other world consists of or You can take the other which contains a world of new information that will challenge the way you used to think and may change the way you view life.
He does issue you a warning though and the warning is that the Red pill contains information that will require you to think above and beyond what you thought you knew. You may have to unlearn what you thought you were familiar with. It will take you out of your comfortable and cozy world. He can only promise you what the red pill only is …"Truth" it doesn't mean its going to bring you hapiness or sadness. It is what it is.
You can easily choose the blue pill and continue what you were doing. Drop the class, leave or sleep through lectures. Thats completely fine its your life. The red pill is not for everyone. in fact i'd say the blue pill is much more easier to swallow.
Now here is the spin on the Red Pill, Blue Pill ideology that is not put forth in the Matrix but is offered by Professor Lane. He doesn't proclaim his Red Pill to be "Absolute Truth" In fact the people who do drop his class because they are easily offended or lose their faith don't realize that he never said that his red pill was "Thee Truth" itself. He doesn't proclaim to be the all knowing Sage or the Guru of World religions classes everywhere. He isn't really the Truth holding Morpheus and we aren't Neo being awakened from the "Matrix of Lies that mask us". We must all remember and he does in fact stress it every class that he is an "Idiot"
No. I really don't think he's an idiot. In fact he's a genius and is loaded with information. There is meaning behind that statement and this is it. He will be the first to tell you that despite him having all that information. his knowledge is only a very small fraction ofthe Pie of Knowledge that is out there. He is merely sharing his "Slice of the Pie" with you. Take his pie and Put it with yours so that you will increase your very own Pie of Knowledge. That is what this is all about. There remains one constant for both Teacher and Student. Neither will ever have the "Whole Pie of Knowledge!
When the time came for me to make my decision I took the Red pill and went tumbling with Lane down the Rabbit Hole. It took a bit of courage because its hard to leave the comfort of the box we put ourselves in but as we learned in class. Knowledge is power. I knew that the Red pill would expand my knowledge. I know I needed to test my faith. If my faith were real it would hold up and stand up to the Test. It would force me to investigate the even deeper possibilities of our meaning in this world. Is it merely to duplicate the Species or is there something deeper? Some people may be offended by this logic but that is the whole point of what im trying to say here. Just because you are finding out for the first time that it may be hardwired in our DNA to duplicate ourselves that doesn't mean there is no such thing as God.
Put your piece of the Pie next to the Professors as he encourages you to do. It can very well be that we have this hardwired into our DNA as it is Gods plan for us to duplicate. Its as if everyone suddenly forgot the command in every religious book about "Being fruitful andMultiplying".
Sound familiar?
Take the red pill and tumble down the Rabbit hole. You never know what you can do with the new knowledge you attain.
I mean, imagine if Neo never took the Red pill in the Matrix. What would have happened "new" in his life from that point on?
Nothing right?
Exactly!…
Anyone familiar with the Movie the Matrix which made its debut in 1999 I believe should understand this concept. The concept can easilybe applied to the feeling of taking this World religions class under David lane. To many young and new students fresh out of high school, returning students or whoever you may be this can be compared somewhat to "The world of the Matrix". We stumbled into the class from our familiar worlds and upon sitting down in the classroom we waited for our new teacher in anticipation. We immediately began applying what Twelve plus years of education had taught us of our previous teachers and professors. We wondered, "I he/she going to suck? Be boring be heavy on homework, make us read make us take a lot of tests? Is it going to be easy? Hard? Heavy on the note taking?
I'm willing to wager that no one imagined that we would actually walk into the classroom at Mt. Sac and find 2 seats. In one sits David Lane as Morpheus and the other is reserved for you as the character Neo. It doesn't matter that there are 15-20 other people in the Class he is only talking to you and his revelation to you is quite simple yet profound. He speaks to you and tells you…
"I have two pills in my hands. One in each hand. A blue pill and a Red pill. The blue pill contains the knowledge and information ofeverything you know now and everything you thought you knew. The other contains an entire new world that you didnt know existed but does in fact exist.
You can choose to live in the world that you know now, and be oblivious to what it is that other world consists of or You can take the other which contains a world of new information that will challenge the way you used to think and may change the way you view life.
He does issue you a warning though and the warning is that the Red pill contains information that will require you to think above and beyond what you thought you knew. You may have to unlearn what you thought you were familiar with. It will take you out of your comfortable and cozy world. He can only promise you what the red pill only is …"Truth" it doesn't mean its going to bring you hapiness or sadness. It is what it is.
You can easily choose the blue pill and continue what you were doing. Drop the class, leave or sleep through lectures. Thats completely fine its your life. The red pill is not for everyone. in fact i'd say the blue pill is much more easier to swallow.
Now here is the spin on the Red Pill, Blue Pill ideology that is not put forth in the Matrix but is offered by Professor Lane. He doesn't proclaim his Red Pill to be "Absolute Truth" In fact the people who do drop his class because they are easily offended or lose their faith don't realize that he never said that his red pill was "Thee Truth" itself. He doesn't proclaim to be the all knowing Sage or the Guru of World religions classes everywhere. He isn't really the Truth holding Morpheus and we aren't Neo being awakened from the "Matrix of Lies that mask us". We must all remember and he does in fact stress it every class that he is an "Idiot"
No. I really don't think he's an idiot. In fact he's a genius and is loaded with information. There is meaning behind that statement and this is it. He will be the first to tell you that despite him having all that information. his knowledge is only a very small fraction ofthe Pie of Knowledge that is out there. He is merely sharing his "Slice of the Pie" with you. Take his pie and Put it with yours so that you will increase your very own Pie of Knowledge. That is what this is all about. There remains one constant for both Teacher and Student. Neither will ever have the "Whole Pie of Knowledge!
When the time came for me to make my decision I took the Red pill and went tumbling with Lane down the Rabbit Hole. It took a bit of courage because its hard to leave the comfort of the box we put ourselves in but as we learned in class. Knowledge is power. I knew that the Red pill would expand my knowledge. I know I needed to test my faith. If my faith were real it would hold up and stand up to the Test. It would force me to investigate the even deeper possibilities of our meaning in this world. Is it merely to duplicate the Species or is there something deeper? Some people may be offended by this logic but that is the whole point of what im trying to say here. Just because you are finding out for the first time that it may be hardwired in our DNA to duplicate ourselves that doesn't mean there is no such thing as God.
Put your piece of the Pie next to the Professors as he encourages you to do. It can very well be that we have this hardwired into our DNA as it is Gods plan for us to duplicate. Its as if everyone suddenly forgot the command in every religious book about "Being fruitful andMultiplying".
Sound familiar?
Take the red pill and tumble down the Rabbit hole. You never know what you can do with the new knowledge you attain.
I mean, imagine if Neo never took the Red pill in the Matrix. What would have happened "new" in his life from that point on?
Nothing right?
Exactly!…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)