NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
its just occurred to me that the head of the Church of England is a woman, the Queen !
Hi Tadashi — thought I'd pop in here.
The Catechism is quite explicit that 'all of good heart', regardless of who or where or when they are, so I wish the Curia would think a bit deeper.
Our Lord said: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (John 10:16, emphasis mine.) Something to think about ...
I'm not so inclined to see it like that. I do think the Old Testament shows a people coming to the idea of monotheism, the idea of a transcendent deity, the idea of a God who chooses to be known, rather than remain an ideological or abstract concept.
But then, if we rightly such negative attributes, we must, by the same token, disallow the positive also ... and then we get into something of a conundrum, because should we also say that "God is Love" (1 John 4:8) is not the case? Or that when our Lord said "I am meek, and humble of heart" (Matthew 11:29), He is fibbing?
No. I think the task is to contemplate the words, and seek out the meaning. God is beyond all things, beyond names and categories, but the names and predicates used of God should lead us in contemplation. Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite, in the 5th century, wrote a treatise on this; The Divine Names.
Thomas
We have to get our head round the idea that God and the afterlife are outside of time ... so 'eternal' is only from a human perspective, meaning from now until 'the end of time', or the Last Judgement, or the Second Coming, or whatever one likes to call it.
Yes, the Curia does have a habit of doing that every now and then. If I were the Curia I'd be careful about correcting Pope Francis. It doesn't do to get on the wrong side of a Jesuit!
The Catechism is quite explicit that 'all of good heart', regardless of who or where or when they are, so I wish the Curia would think a bit deeper.
Our Lord said: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (John 10:16, emphasis mine.) Something to think about ...
Judaism does rather assume that whatever happens is ordained by God: If good things happen, God wills it, if bad thing happen, God wills that, too ... and therefore what we did in our history is according to the will of God.
I'm not so inclined to see it like that. I do think the Old Testament shows a people coming to the idea of monotheism, the idea of a transcendent deity, the idea of a God who chooses to be known, rather than remain an ideological or abstract concept.
But then, if we rightly such negative attributes, we must, by the same token, disallow the positive also ... and then we get into something of a conundrum, because should we also say that "God is Love" (1 John 4:8) is not the case? Or that when our Lord said "I am meek, and humble of heart" (Matthew 11:29), He is fibbing?
No. I think the task is to contemplate the words, and seek out the meaning. God is beyond all things, beyond names and categories, but the names and predicates used of God should lead us in contemplation. Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite, in the 5th century, wrote a treatise on this; The Divine Names.
Covered previously.
Thomas
Hi NCOT —
I wandered around a bit after abandoning Catholicism in my early twenties, and after many years, stumbled across the Perennial Tradition completely by accident. Suddenly, I found a language of the spirit that 'spoke' to me. It didn't matter who the author was, if he was a Perennialist, there was the same 'light' in the writings ...
The first book I picked up was The Sword of Gnosis which staggered me. Most of all an essay by Marco Pallis called "The Veil of the Temple", (pdf version here).
From that moment I bought every book on the Perennial Tradition I could get hold of.
There were constant references to 'the Fathers' and 'Patristics' when discussing Christianity, but that had never been mentioned in church nor at school. (Hardly surprising, it's a specialist field.)
So I started reading the Fathers, and my soul caught fire. They spoke to me, just like the Perennialists did. Here was an expression of Christianity which lit me up. As Jean Borella said, "their blood runs in my veins" ... the rest, as they say, is history.
The number of 'coincidences' around this period also suggested that in the Church was where I was supposed to be. I have twice been called (by those who know such things) a Christian Neoplatonist, so that, I suppose, is what I am.
So, my spiral:
Catholicism — Hermeticism — Perennialism — Catholicism
There is an ancient teaching that the movement of the soul is threefold: it is linear (moving through time), cyclic (through its seasons of growth and or decay), and the third, combining the two: it is a spiral.
I wandered around a bit after abandoning Catholicism in my early twenties, and after many years, stumbled across the Perennial Tradition completely by accident. Suddenly, I found a language of the spirit that 'spoke' to me. It didn't matter who the author was, if he was a Perennialist, there was the same 'light' in the writings ...
The first book I picked up was The Sword of Gnosis which staggered me. Most of all an essay by Marco Pallis called "The Veil of the Temple", (pdf version here).
From that moment I bought every book on the Perennial Tradition I could get hold of.
There were constant references to 'the Fathers' and 'Patristics' when discussing Christianity, but that had never been mentioned in church nor at school. (Hardly surprising, it's a specialist field.)
So I started reading the Fathers, and my soul caught fire. They spoke to me, just like the Perennialists did. Here was an expression of Christianity which lit me up. As Jean Borella said, "their blood runs in my veins" ... the rest, as they say, is history.
The number of 'coincidences' around this period also suggested that in the Church was where I was supposed to be. I have twice been called (by those who know such things) a Christian Neoplatonist, so that, I suppose, is what I am.
So, my spiral:
Catholicism — Hermeticism — Perennialism — Catholicism
T
Tadashi
Guest
Again, WOW... Thomas, thank you so very much for all you wrote. I truly appreciate your taking such time for me. It may take a few days for me to digest all the insights and knowledge you've conveyed in your posts... well, if I try to fully understand all the philosophies and thinkers you introduced, it may take me a year or longer! But I'll start taking a crack at them little by little at my pace in the attempt in reaching the Truth and the Divine. So, thank you again.
I'm really glad that I've found such a devout and knowledgeable Catholic as you, so I can ask my honest questions. All my Christian friends are Protestants and some support biblical inerrancy, which I'm adamantly against.
What do you think of biblical inerrancy, I mean, that the whole text of the Bible is without error, because the holy spirit has supervised the writers in the way to have no errors. (but so many contradictions in the Bible...)
Is this more like Protestants' idea as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was declared mostly, if not solely, by evangelical Christians? Do most Catholics hold the same or a similar position?
Tad
I'm really glad that I've found such a devout and knowledgeable Catholic as you, so I can ask my honest questions. All my Christian friends are Protestants and some support biblical inerrancy, which I'm adamantly against.
What do you think of biblical inerrancy, I mean, that the whole text of the Bible is without error, because the holy spirit has supervised the writers in the way to have no errors. (but so many contradictions in the Bible...)
Is this more like Protestants' idea as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was declared mostly, if not solely, by evangelical Christians? Do most Catholics hold the same or a similar position?
Tad
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
My parents are not that religious, so they don't have even any kind of religious ornaments at home (oh, except for a wooden laughing Buddha my mom loves), but my late-grandparents had an small Buddhist alter where they offer food and flowers every day. My grandpa was a Buddhist preacher (not exactly a monk, but something like a Sunday school teacher). But he had no influence on me, I was too young when he passed.
Rituals we conduct were mostly at funerals (Buddhist style). Pre world wars, weddings were often performed in Shinto style, but Western style (at Christian churches) became more popular among westernized young people thereafter, even though the vast majority of them are not Christians.
Also a lot of people like to visit shrines (especially for New Years holidays) and donate money or buy some talismans. I don't know how much they actually believe the efficacy of them, but they do it anyway, simply because it's deeply ingrained into our culture.
I think public schools are completely secular, I don't remember any religious rituals performed there... but our calendar has some religious holidays (related to Shinto) and schools and businesses are closed according to it. But most people don't engage in anything particularly religious but simply enjoy a day off.
Yes, Japanese shrines and temples are good places to visit even simply from the historical and architectural perspectives. And Mt.Fuji is great, though I recommend going there in summer time, because it can be very cold even in spring at the tourist village located half way to the top, or dress very warmly.
Tad
How interesting! I had the impression that Shinto still played at least a small part in most peoples lives. Thank you for answering all my questions. May I as another? What as your opinion of Shinto been throughout your life? And what is it now? Knowing what you know of Shinto? I'm most curious about this religion because I find it most poetic and, from what I've read, it's almost shamanistic in it's cosmology but with an agrarian twist!
Very interesting! I heard there was some friction between the Church and some nuns from those new land on the other side of the pond a while back. Any relation? Has the Pope made any indications on his views on the subject? I'm sure there are other people involved in the decision, but that's the guy I can keep track on.
May I also say that I think you were very eloquent when explaining Catholicism, if I could Believe I would be very interested in your church.
T
Tadashi
Guest
I think it depends on the person. My parents and most people around me were not so religious, but some Japanese are religious enough to follow as many of the Shinto rituals as they can. I hear some people pay a handsome sum of money ($500 or more) now and then to have a priest perform cleansing of evil spirits out of a person's body (for health) or land for a new building/house (for successful venture). Oh, and religious festivals (we call them 'matsuri') are still celebrated with enthusiasm in various regions nationwide all year round. They are a huge tourist attraction.
I was afraid you were gonna ask me that...
To tell you the truth, I had no interest in religions when I was in Japan. I equated religions with myths and superstitions, therefore considered unscientific and nonsensical. But I didn't have any ill-feeling toward people who are religious. I just didn't care either way. Both my parents and I visited shrines for the New Year, just because it's a Japanese thing to do, that was about it. I have a feeling that you know way more about Shinto than I do, since I haven't read anything much
and now am trying to excavate the books I bought long ago about "introducing Japanese culture"... they are buried somewhere in my office. When I find them, I can post some summarization of it, but it may be something you've already read somewhere...Now that my misconception of religions being unscientific is gone (thank God!), I do intend to revisit eastern religions, starting with Buddhism and Shinto, which are the roots of my culture.
Tad
T
Tadashi
Guest
I posted a reply to Nick the Pilot, before the reply to A Cup Of Tea, but it still hasn't shown up... Is it because I included some web links in the post and it's being reviewed by a moderator?
If so, does anyone know how long the reviewing process would usually take...??
(or did it get eaten by the system, does that happen once in a while??)
Tad
If so, does anyone know how long the reviewing process would usually take...??
(or did it get eaten by the system, does that happen once in a while??)
Tad
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
I have a feeling that you know way more about Shinto than I do, since I haven't read anything much
Now that my misconception of religions being unscientific is gone (thank God!), I do intend to revisit eastern religions, starting with Buddhism and Shinto, which are the roots of my culture.
Tad
Book smarts isn't really the same as experience, you know so much you don't realise! If you find fun facts please post them. (You could post a new topic on the subject!)
I sent a message to the Authority here, Brian, he'll probably fix your missing post soon enough.
NiceCupOfTea
Pathetic earthlings
- Messages
- 1,242
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Thanks for the link and the spiral Thomas.
I think my spiral is more like
Aethiest - New Age - Agnostic - Muslim - Christian
I am now entering again into the Christian phase of the spiral
Nick the Pilot
Well-Known Member
Tad,
I think it "got eaten by the system." When you write a post, you should always keep a copy on your computer. This way, if a post disappears, you can quickly post it again.
I think it "got eaten by the system." When you write a post, you should always keep a copy on your computer. This way, if a post disappears, you can quickly post it again.
Interesting!I think my spiral is more like
Aethiest - New Age - Agnostic - Muslim - Christian
I am now entering again into the Christian phase of the spiral
Sorry, ACOT, I jumped the gun — no female cardinals in sight!
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
Drat! It's a big and old place so I'm patient, it's bound to happen at one point.
No, we don't believe that.
We believe that Sacred Scripture is a vehicle of divine revelation, a work of human hands under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We do believe the Holy Spirit ensures that those transcendent truths and realities necessary for salvation are transmitted in the text ... but the material details are the wrapping of the text and might well contain errors because the human agency involved is not infallible.
In short, the New Testament is not the product of some kind of 'automatic writing'.
Interestingly, nowhere in Catholic doctrine are the authors of Scripture dogmatically defined, a question that seems to be of utmost importance to some people, but is, in a very real sense, immaterial. It's the content of Scripture that matters, not the character of the author!
And really, if we knew the author, so what? St Paul comes across as a bloody-minded and belligerent old bugger, but he also happens to be the author of some of the most luminously inspired spiritual texts in the possession of the human race. So where do you go from there?
We also emphasise the importance of understanding "literary forms" if we are to understand the texts. The Bible comprises texts that are mythological, historical, prophetic, poetic, liturgical ... in short many forms of discourse that have to be appreciated on their own terms.
Another really important aspect is Sitz im Leben — this says that a text must be read, as best we can, against its sociological background.
For example, many people claim that Our Lord never declared or expressed His divinity, but that's because they read His words and deeds from a contemporary perspective. If, however, you read from the viewpoint of His Jewish audience, He most certainly did declare His divinity, which was why His audience tried to stone Him on more than one occasion, and why He was condemned for blasphemy.
Another thing Protestantism declares that Catholicism does not subscribe to is Sola Scriptura — that a doctrine must be explicitly stated in the text — the necessity for baptism, for example — or can be drawn from it by valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning.
I've emphasised the last bit, because it's the flaw in the whole argument. Who's logic? Who's deduction? And what about divine inspiration?
Anyway ...
T
Tadashi
Guest
Thank you ACOT for reporting my lost post to an administrator, so I'll wait for a day.
Nick, yes I've kept the copy. If it doesn't show up by tomorrow, I'll try reposting it. (so if I take out the web links, perhaps it'll go through...??)
Oh, how do I contact this authority person, Brian? So if I encounter a problem again in the future, I can ask him directly without bothering you guys every time...
Tad
Nick, yes I've kept the copy. If it doesn't show up by tomorrow, I'll try reposting it. (so if I take out the web links, perhaps it'll go through...??)
Oh, how do I contact this authority person, Brian? So if I encounter a problem again in the future, I can ask him directly without bothering you guys every time...
Tad
T
Tadashi
Guest
I've been reflecting on your question... My initial thought was, though Buddhism gave me the idea of reincarnation, Shinto has had no influence on me because I paid no attention to it. But now that I'm thinking a bit deeper... that the reason, before my realization of God, I chose to call myself agnostic but not an atheist was because I always had this feeling that something could be up there... This sense may have been cultivated, subconsciously, by Shinto's concept of god(s).
It's somewhat difficult to define "what faith means" to most Japanese people. Most of them would probably say 'agnostic', 'atheist' or 'Buddhist', but they usually don't think that deep in what they mean by it. We (including so-called atheists) happily celebrate commercialized Christmas and exchange gifts (of course kids love Santa), and go to Shinto shrines for the new year. And we practice Buddhist rituals especially for funerals and pray a lot for the deceased (believing in souls), but I doubt many of us can correctly state how Buddha lived and achieved Enlightenment. Most Japanese are only following rituals just as a cultural thing.
But I think most of us have a vague sense of something transcendental as I often hear parents (mine included) say to children "the sun is watching, the ground can hear, so be aware", that kind of thing. So I think even when some say they're an atheist, it mostly means that they don't belong to a particular religion. I've never really met any Japanese claiming to be an atheist actually adamantly deny the 'possibility' of a deity, so they're really agnostic but they don't even care enough to get the definition right. haha...
Tad
T
Tadashi
Guest
Hi Thomas,
Learning that Catholics don't believe in biblical inerrancy is a great relief and encouragement for me. Would I be correct to assume that none of the early church Fathers took the position of any of the gospels or other writings by Paul, Luke, etc. being the direct, immediate word of God? If so then how did this idea come out? Was it Martin Luther?
Yes, I believe the Bible is inspired by God, but not 'dictated' (big difference). Therefore it's important to study the Bible, but not just blindly follow everything it says without examining it.
I feel many Protestants embrace the notion of inerrancy, and sometimes it is difficult to show them what I feel to be an 'irrationality' in their arguments, that they insist even if you don't understand what the Bible says, it's the Word of God, so you trust it, and that requires complete faith... (to me that's blind faith...)
I was given the verse, more than a handful times, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" by those who sincerely worry about my salvation and I do appreciate their kind concerns for me. But I "trust in the Lord with all my heart" by trusting my God-given conscience and my God-given ability to reason.
All my Christians friends are very good people and they treat me with respect even when I appear to be a heretic to them, and I love them dearly, but I feel this belief of inerrancy is doing more harm than good... I could bring up the list of contradictions in the Bible and make them see, but I'm afraid of possibly destroying their faith IF their faith is solely built on the biblical inerrancy... and I don't want to do that... that's my dilemma.
I try introducing to them writings from theologian Marcus Borg, and articles from Red-letter Christians and other similar sites now and then. Bart Ehrman is a bit too risky though I like him. His findings and opinions didn't affect my faith in God/Jesus, but it may shake that of inerrantists, or they may simply dismiss Ehrman as a minion of the devil. lol
Thank you again Thomas, for your insightful replies and heartfelt kind words...
I'm still contemplating many points you've made in your posts... and I may ask you more questions later...
Tad
Learning that Catholics don't believe in biblical inerrancy is a great relief and encouragement for me. Would I be correct to assume that none of the early church Fathers took the position of any of the gospels or other writings by Paul, Luke, etc. being the direct, immediate word of God? If so then how did this idea come out? Was it Martin Luther?
Yes, I believe the Bible is inspired by God, but not 'dictated' (big difference). Therefore it's important to study the Bible, but not just blindly follow everything it says without examining it.
I feel many Protestants embrace the notion of inerrancy, and sometimes it is difficult to show them what I feel to be an 'irrationality' in their arguments, that they insist even if you don't understand what the Bible says, it's the Word of God, so you trust it, and that requires complete faith... (to me that's blind faith...)
I was given the verse, more than a handful times, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" by those who sincerely worry about my salvation and I do appreciate their kind concerns for me. But I "trust in the Lord with all my heart" by trusting my God-given conscience and my God-given ability to reason.
All my Christians friends are very good people and they treat me with respect even when I appear to be a heretic to them, and I love them dearly, but I feel this belief of inerrancy is doing more harm than good... I could bring up the list of contradictions in the Bible and make them see, but I'm afraid of possibly destroying their faith IF their faith is solely built on the biblical inerrancy... and I don't want to do that... that's my dilemma.
I try introducing to them writings from theologian Marcus Borg, and articles from Red-letter Christians and other similar sites now and then. Bart Ehrman is a bit too risky though I like him. His findings and opinions didn't affect my faith in God/Jesus, but it may shake that of inerrantists, or they may simply dismiss Ehrman as a minion of the devil. lol
Thank you again Thomas, for your insightful replies and heartfelt kind words...
I'm still contemplating many points you've made in your posts... and I may ask you more questions later...
Tad
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
There are probably better ways, but I just press the red/white/black '!' symbol by the left side of our posts, under our name and avatar. Lots of people with a low post count get posts put on review at random, it for bot detection I believe. But there are no moderators here to review any more so Brian is the go-to guy.
Thank you, I liked this post a lot, and it also reflects my impression of modern Japanese spirituality which was a nice surprise!
Sweden is also one of those countries that tops the atheist charts, but we were Christians a long time and it's deeply ingrained in our culture and mindset, even if lots find it hard to admit.
Well it depends when you want to draw a line in the sand.
From the very beginning, there was Scripture and Tradition. It's worthwhile remembering that there was a religion before the New Testament was written, so really, the Tradition produced the Scripture, not the other way round, as many people assume.
But the Galileo fiasco was kicked off, in some measure, by a Catholic monk who insisted on Biblical inerrancy ... but then the 'Historical Critical Method' of examining Scripture was also kicked off by a Catholic monk, so we're not all fundamentalists.
The Reformation was a revolt against the authority of Rome, so the reformers necessarily had to separate Scripture from the Tradition, so as to assert themselves as the new 'Tradition' authority.
Luther wanted to throw Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation out of the Canon, so there was no real debate about Biblical inerrancy. Rather it was about interpretation.
The issue took on a new focus in the 20th century America, when historical criticism began to say that certain texts were 'myths' or 'legends' — creation in six days, the Flood, and so on ... it was then that Evangelical Christians began making a big deal out of the matter.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), agreed by over 200 Evangelical Christian leaders, was intended to assert Biblical inerrancy against the trend towards a 'liberal' interpretation of Scripture.
Inerrancy applies only to the 'original manuscripts' (which no longer exist, but can be inferred on the basis of extant copies), not to the copies or translations themselves.
Inerrancy does not assume a blind literal interpretation, but allows for 'figurative', 'poetic' and 'phenomenological' language, so long as it was the author's intent to present a passage as 'literal' or 'symbolic'.
This last bit is telling — I can guarantee that here at IO there would be a big difference of opinion over what Our Lord meant 'literally', and what He meant 'symbolically' (and therefore can be ignored ... )
But the point is, I think the Chicago Statement is not so 'black and white' as many Protestants assume. So I'm afraid I regard those who assert absolute inerrancy as a type of fundamentalism.
Yes. That's what we believe.
Yes. But we have to acknowledge there are times when doctrines cannot be affirmed by reason alone. The Virgin Birth and The Resurrection are 'unreasonable', 'illogical' and 'irrational'. So is reincarnation, really — it's a question of faith, not empirical evidence ... and this is what the text is getting at.
When I broke with the Catholic Church as a young man, I can remember arguing with my parents that Our Lord was 'a wise teacher' and that was all. The rest was mythological nonsense. That was me trusting my own powers of reasoning ... we are not infallible.
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I hope I don't upset you too much when I say I have a very low opinion of the 'Jesus Seminar' and their 'Quest for the Historical Jesus'. It's the third incarnation of the Quest, and like it's predecessors, it rejects the idea of the transcendent and the supernatural.
In a way, it's the opposite of the inerrant fundamentalism. Inerrancy says the Bible is true, because it's the Word of God. The Seminar says it's the words of men and nothing more, because they can't believe in revelation or inspiration. It's Christ according to an empirical and basically materialist credibility.
... See? I can be quite dismissive, if not belligerent. But I can explain myself if you want. N.T. Wright, an Anglican theologian whom I respect for his insight (something I find the JS lacks), has spoken eloquently against it. You can read some of it here. (I find Wright's idea of Paul's conversion breath-taking, so I am sold on him.)
Thomas