Mass in Latin again

[BlaznFattyz]

What is your take on the verse about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven? I feel sure it doesn't mean you have to be financially poor to enter heaven but never sure if it is talking about greed or humility.

Salaam

it has to do with needs. a rich man has already attained wealth--they are not hungry, they have a home, cars, good health care, money in the bank, etc., and because of that, there is less chance that they have need for god in their life; they have already attained success without god--they rely on themselves but they are spiritually bankrupt if all that they do is not for the glory of god. a poor person or one who has nothing is more likely to accept god and the promise of a better eternal life in heaven since this life is temporal and they got the short end of the stick, and although life may be hard, god is worshiped even when all is lost because they need to believe, and because of that the last shall be first, and the first shall be last; and the lowly will be exalted, and they self-exalted will be lowered.

 

[Thomas]

Hi all —

Discussions between Saltmeister and Muslimwoman highlighted issues I had not picked up on before (are we off topic or what?), and I was thinking last night about the questions that have been raised.

Does it seem naive to suggest Christ's Second Commandment applies here?
Love thy neighbour as thyself.

There's a telling discourse in Matthew 25:36-40
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me ... Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me."

In line with discussions, Jesus does not condemn anyone for being poor, hungry, thirsty, a criminal ... nor does He make a virtue out of poverty ... but He does condemn a culture (the cult) that mistreats the unfortunate.

Society has the right to limit the freedoms of those who abuse those freedoms, but in so doing society does not have the right to abuse the abuser, and when such happens, society is no better.

Society also needs to be vigilant, as Deb says, with regard to the question of whether it is serving or failing its members.

I am reminded of the fuss when Lord Longford chose to visit Myra Hindley, 'The Moors Murderer' ... he was part of the prisoner visitor system, but society has determined that some crimes (according to its own self-determined values) lie outside the pale of Christian charity.

From my perspective, Scripture posits transcendentals, or rather Christ utters absolutes, and we play with fire when we seek to relativise what He has stated as the case. In other words, Jesus says, 'Love thy neighbour,' and we say 'OK, but not him, surely?'

To be 'blessed of my Father' to be lesser, to be more hungry, more thirsty etc., than anyone else ... this is too often a cause of pseudopiety and is questionable from a number of psychological viewpoints, but too often becomes a 'virtuous sign' — I consider the guru who wraps himself into contorted knots, or buries himself in a hole, equally as pointless in action as the stylite or the flagellant.

The parable of the widow's mite, and especially of the rich man and the publican in the temple, provide a commentary here.

With regard to the eye of the needle:
"And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?" Matt 19:24-25

I have always found their response intriguing. If by 'riches' Jesus means material wealth alone, then what's their problem? They are poor fisherman, who've given up everything to follow Jesus — they are surely living examples of the very point He's making, but they don't see it that way.

I think Jesus weas not talking of material wealth, but talking of the material self — we have to give ourselves up to God, and our neighbour, without reserve. But, in so doing, we don't have to give ourselves over to abuse. Everyone remembers 'turn the other cheek', but rarely as often do they recall 'cast not your pearls before swine' or 'give not that which is holy to the dogs'.

The social dimension needs constant vigilance, and as society becomes more comfortable, the degree of vigilance declines ... that's the direction the West is currently headed.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I think there is much in what Salmeister says, but I cannot accept his idea of vindication v redemption, as it seems to simply reverse the issue ... it's again deciding who is justified, and who isn't ... it is discriminatory, whereas the message of Christ is universal — He addresses human nature, not the accidents of circumstance.

But the issues raised are real, and relevent, and if I were to come up with one word, as I did last night, then it would be 'complacency' — perhaps the counterpoint to InLove's 'vigilance'.

By the close of the 1st Christian century, the church in Rome, subject to periodic persecution, was supporting over 1500 widows, orphans, etc., in short society's dispossessed, in a civilisation that had no mechanism to care for the underdog, and saw no need for one. The idea of social inclusion was revolutionary, and it was one of the reasons for Christianity's epidemic spread ... Christians cared for the wellbeing of their neighbour. It has been recorded that in Liturgical celebrations, slaves would stand alongside senators, equal in status in their religious community, although worlds apart, outside it. A Roman Senator berrated the Senate for failing the population, and said in exasperation, "why, even the Christians take better care of their people than we do!"

Many would like to present Christ as little more than a social reformer, a champion of the underdog who was killed by the state. If such alone was the case, one would have to acknowledge that He failed miserably. But that was not His mission, the social dimension follows from the spiritual, and if the spiritual is ordered properly, the social will naturally follow.

+++

Two thousand years later, I live in a country that professes, somewhat precariously, a Christian ethos. Personally I don't agree, this is a secular society, it tells itself its ethos is humanitarian, in actuality it is materiaistic and consumerist.

A couple of years ago, a tsunami struck the Far East one Boxing Day morning, and within hours, it seems, the British public had pledged something like £30m in donations ... the government was caught 'on the hop' — although it's not quite as simple for a minister to pledge government money as it is for an individual to reach into his or her pocket.

But the fact remains, to date not one government has ever given all the monies it had pledged to another in distress.

The simple answer is they lie. Politicians make noble statements, and grand promises, and it was all self-serving PR, in the full knowledge that the public will never bother to check.

The 'gifts' are tied up in conditions they know are beyond the capacity of the receivers to meet. We talk of 'democracy' and 'free election' and 'human rights' — but what we actually want is easy access to resources, open markets for our exports, and military installations to spy on our neighbours. The US pledges billions, on condition that the most part of that aid is spent in the domestic US market — in short, they're using national disasters to give the economy a shot in the arm (wars are another moneyspinner — as a US notable commented on Iraq, "when there's this much money to be made, we will always find a good reason to go to war").

UN observers have noted that First World countries make trillions of dollars out of Third World goods, but the revenues and profits go into First Word bank accounts.

+++

What has this to do with the Latin Mass?

A lot. It's the same problem ... complacency.

People, we are being told, don't want the Mass in Latin because they'll have to actually make an effort to understand something they never bother thinking about, and that, it seems, is asking too, too much of anyone ... God forbid that anyone should be required to exert their energies.

Did it ever occur to anyone this might be the ideal shot in the arm to make people ask themselves "What am I doing? What is this actually about?"

So they want the Mass the way they like it ... cosy, comfortable, not too long, not too challenging ... most of all they want to feel that for 45 minutes on a Sunday they are special ... go light on the mystery stuff, get rid of this solemnity ... we're here, aren't we, yeh! Good for us!!! Happy-clappy, let's have a song...

... Bear in mind we have 'Holydays of Obligation' which are days in the Liturgical calendar marking special events, when we are obliged to attend Mass. Recently one such day, traditionally a Thursday, has been moved to Sunday, because people now find it too difficult to go to mass midweek. This, I might add, was not the cry from people who have to walk miles to a church, or face oppression for their faith, but the affluent West, with their cars and microwaves and mobile phones ... 'Hi God? Yes, I've got a window in my filo on Thursd ... no, wait, Sally'll have the Beemer then, parking's a nightmare midweek anyway ... can we shift, say roll it into Sunday?'

+++

And as more than one theologian observed, over twenty years ago, there is the distinct impression that the celebration is somewhat self-congratulatory — and if and when that happens, it is no longer a Liturgy in any real sense, and it runs the very real risk of embodying those very criticisms that Saltmeister has laid against us, in a way that Latin Mass never could, it becomes a social marker.

And yes, I know, soon you'll hear them in the changing rooms at the health spa, "I go to the Latin actually, in town, they're Jesuits you know, they're very good... "

Kyrie eleison...

Thomas
(And the Moslems? Praying five times a day? Five! Are they mad? Have they nothing better to do with their time?)

 

[Thomas]

Hey, Muslimwoman —

Have a look round for 'Reza Shah Kazemi' – he's into serious and intelligent Interreligious Dialogue. And he's roughly in the Perennialist tradition, too, they like him a lot!

Online articles here:
Sacred Web: Sample Articles

Pax tecum,

Thomas

 

[Muslimwoman]

(And the Moslems? Praying five times a day? Five! Are they mad? Have they nothing better to do with their time?)

Hi Thomas

Forgive me, I don't have time to post tonight but I couldn't resist commenting on this.

The answer would be "do I have anything better to do with my time than pray to G-d. Erm, let me think, well now, perhaps, nah, maybe, probably not, so that would just be a definate NO then". LOL

It is one of the things I love about praying at home Thomas. There is none of this wearing your new clothes and polishing your new car before you go, to impress the other worshipers. It is very personal and the only being you are trying to impress is G-d (although I keep my fingers crossed that the angels recording my deeds are a little impressed too!).

Loved your posts, will try to get back tomorrow to comment.

Salaam
Sally

 

[Muslimwoman]

Hey, Muslimwoman —

Have a look round for 'Reza Shah Kazemi' – he's into serious and intelligent Interreligious Dialogue. And he's roughly in the Perennialist tradition, too, they like him a lot!

Online articles here:
Sacred Web: Sample Articles

Pax tecum,

Thomas

Thank Thomas, had a quick peek and looks fascinating. Have bookmarked it for when I get time for a good read.

 

[Thomas]

It is one of the things I love about praying at home Thomas. There is none of this wearing your new clothes and polishing your new car before you go, to impress the other worshipers. It is very personal and the only being you are trying to impress is G-d.

The Abbott of the Benedictine community at Worth, Fr Christopher Jamison, (as seen on TV — 'The Monastery') was on a BBC breakfast news programme, and made a point that many traditions have some focus of spiritual life at home, the Shinto tokonoma, for example. Every Chinese takeaway near us has its little altar, and I believe the practice is common in Moslem houses?

As I understand it, Christians are very bad at this, generally. A cross in every room, it used to be, but no actual focus. I think we find the idea embarassing. My partner, who is not Christian, is a keen gardner, and she wants to recover our front garden from its current paved state. I have asked if we could have some kind of 'grotto' — nothing big, something discreet, even if just a statuette, or a stone, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, which she thinks is a lovely idea, so that will happen.

We are also preparing a more formalised meditation/prayer space for us both. Meanwhile, cluttered around my desk are icons, sayings ... and she bought me a delightfully kitsch set of candles, with Christian images on the side, to burn while I study on my favourite candlestand.

+++

 

[Muslimwoman]

Every Chinese takeaway near us has its little altar, and I believe the practice is common in Moslem houses?

I have never seen one and doubt I ever will, indeed we do not even have altars in mosques. In a mosque there is usually something (often a mosaic font set in the wall) which simply signifies the direction of Mecca but there is no actual focus for prayer.

My home has a glass cabinet, with my books and of course our Quran's have pride of place. Each room (apart from the bathroom and kitchen of course)has a piece of black velvet with a verse from the Quran embroidered on. I am lucky enough to have a spare room which I use for prayer but it is an empty room, with just the words Allahu Akbar on the wall and my prayer mat, nothing else. Anything else may distract me from prayer. However, I can pray in the car, on a beach, virtually anywhere.

This, I think, is one of the major differences in our faiths. Our prayer is focussed purely on G-d, not on a priest or altar or symbol. I believe that is one of the reasons there are so many misunderstandings between the faiths. I can see why a born Muslim would see it as idol worship, yet I know from being a former Chrsitian that you are not actually praying to the symbols. One reason I think interfaith dialogue is so important, to clear up some of these misunderstandings.

 

[Thomas]

This, I think, is one of the major differences in our faiths. Our prayer is focussed purely on G-d, not on a priest or altar or symbol.

Well I know you know, but this might be worthy of a new thread if anyone interested. It's a common error, for sure, and one more pronounced now that the Mass is in the vernacular, as another change was to have the celebrant face the people to be more 'inclusive' (he said a little derisively) ... now everyone thinks we pray to the priest. In the old way priest and people faced the altar and tabernacle together, wherein dwells the Divine Presence.

I can see why a born Muslim would see it as idol worship, yet I know from being a former Chrsitian that you are not actually praying to the symbols.

It's a common accusation amongst post-Reformation churches, too. There's even an element of the iconoclast dispute that rocked the Eastern Church that was to do with appeasing Islamic neighbours.

One reason I think interfaith dialogue is so important, to clear up some of these misunderstandings.

Indeed.

One thing I would say, is that the Mass is still misunderstood. It is not just about prayer — although prayer is man's highest calling — the Christian is called to pray at all times, and to the life of prayer (I'm not making comparisons here) one of the routes by which the Holy Spirit might accomplish the transfiguration of the world — in us and through us.

Prayer is what man gives to God.

The Mass is what God gave to man.

Mass is the participation in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is its central focus.

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

Well, I've pulled that ou of context, but I'm not sure I get it? I don't think you're saying we should not reflect upon the message, or upon our own existence ... but on the other hand, you seem to have a pretty well-sorted philosophical position?

The act of adopting philosophy wasn't what I saw as the problem, it's the idea that adoption of a philosophy is the "on-off switch" that opens the door to heaven and God. If indeed my position can be considered a philosophy, it's not something I use as an "on-off switch" to flick open the door to heaven, but rather a "moderating philosophy" that holds me back and restrains me from thinking in terms of an "on-off switch." This "moderating philosophy" stops me thinking that any philosophy can get me to heaven. That was my point.

That doesn't mean I don't have beliefs about what leads me to God. I may indeed have a rationalisation about how I establish my relationship with God. The relation between a rationalisation and philosophy is that a rationalisation can be temporary, transient or permanent. A rationalisation that is permanent, static and unchanging is a philosophy.

The danger and problem is for people to think that a philosophy, or permanent rationalisation is what opens the door for them to get to heaven and God. This often leads to a group mentality where people think that it is by using the same rationalisation that they get this "special favour" from God -- and then, that they are better because they use that rationalisation.

It's not that I want to point fingers, but that I am identifying something that I want to avoid because I may get the wrong idea and possibly mislead other people by getting them hooked to the same idea because it is something I've promoted.

When we look at individual cases, then we are into shades of grey and degrees of discrimination ... and this human tendency cascades into all our dealings, we reflect it in all our dealings ... and it's then a case of saying that this particular relationship or that, is not right ... which Jesus did, a lot ... half the time He seemed to be upsetting someone, by 'consorting' with the wrong sort of people, but I don't think He was vondicating or validating what sinners did, but rather showing that it is possible to forgive.

And I think we're getting too involved in minutae, and we're missing the big picture — or perhaps I'm not getting a 'big picture' from your viewpoint?

I think there is much in what Salmeister says, but I cannot accept his idea of vindication v redemption, as it seems to simply reverse the issue ... it's again deciding who is justified, and who isn't ... it is discriminatory, whereas the message of Christ is universal — He addresses human nature, not the accidents of circumstance.

Hopefully I haven't given the wrong impression here. The idea wasn't to replace one "black and white view" with another "black and white view."

If I remember correctly, I did suggest at some point that I believed that there should be a "scale" where people are ranked according to the extent to which they needed vindication or felt redemption. That's because we all need vindication, redemption, liberation, love, acceptance, peace, etc. to varying degrees, hence the "shades of grey."

My suggestion was not, however, to replace redemption with vindication. The reason I said what I said was because so much emphasis has been put on the idea of redemption. Vindication is just an example to counteract and divert us away from that emphasis. My intention was not to, once again, put emphasis on yet another "limiting concept." There are other things apart from redemption and vindication, such as need for acceptance, peace, liberation, love, etc.

If you really think about it, the notions of redemption and vindication are actually quite similar. But here's the difference. Redemption implies that we are "guilty" and need to accept that we have done wrong and need to "repent" and concede to our guilt. Vindication implies that we are "not guilty" even though we may have done something immoral or controversial, or suspected of it. It means we are not responsible and therefore "not guilty."

While I concede that, as you said, that it's discriminatory, I think the reverse would also be controversial. It's where God treats everyone the same despite their misdeeds, as long as they accept a particular philosophy. People who have spent most of their lives enjoying themselves are put in the same boat as people who have suffered pain all their lives, having been subjected to persecution, humiliation and alienation by society -- all because they felt "a little bit of guilt" and "needed and felt redemption."

Why should such people be let off so easily, just by adopting the philosophy that "if you repent and believe that Jesus died for you, etc. etc. etc." they should be simply "let off"? Christianity isn't the problem. It's the philosophy. They are treated as equals with people they have abused!!! But they haven't suffered for what they have done. They won't be rejected by God, but I believe that will have to endure some pain as "ones whose works are burnt while they escape through the fire" because of what they believed. Punishment doesn't imply we're not accepted or not forgiven. We won't be honoured as heroes and champions of the light but at least we're still alive and God still loves us.

I don't think that's what Jesus meant during his three to six years (or....I forget how long it was) of ministry. He did say that "those who are first in this world will be last in the next world." Jesus came as a supporter of the "least fortunate" in this world, not those who believed they were favoured by God because they adhered to a philosophy. That's discriminatory but I believe Jesus was right for what he did. It was "affirmative action."

Discrimination isn't wrong. It's only wrong for us because we're not all-seeing and all-knowing. In a democracy we treat everyone equally because of our limited scope of knowledge and understanding. But God's universe isn't necessarily a democracy. The ideals we have in earthly kingdoms doesn't necessarily apply in God's kingdom. God acts according to our needs, not according to Law.

I don't deny that yes, it was "universal" but I believe there was a lot of inequality in what he did, inequality that was justified considering the lives that people lived (highs and lows, rich and poor, weak and powerful, etc.) Jesus didn't treat everyone equally. (He was nice to Matthew, Zaccheus and Mary but scolded the religious leaders.)

 

[Saltmeister]

Why do people always refer to hell? Why see G-d as this big meany that will judge us harshly and punish us needlessly? I do believe my life is a big court room but I see it as an opportunity to learn and grow, to defend myself, to vindicate the trust G-d put in me.

Yes indeed!!! If our lives are an opportunity to do good, then it should be changed from "a big court room" to "a big temple" where we perform rituals of good deeds to honour God, rituals of dedication to things that please God -- instead of a big court room where we are condemned of doing bad deeds.

But then maybe there's a catch -- if our minds aren't focused on honouring God, we could easily be performing the bad deeds of our ungodly lives in "the big temple." The bad deeds are rituals of a life that doesn't honour God and ultimately we desecrate His temple.

In Christianity Jesus is seen as the Cornerstone of that temple, the first, big stone, and we are the little stones that came after him to form the rest of the temple.

In Islam, you might see this differently with the pilgrimage to Mecca and the Kaaba -- the Black Stone.

I suppose this is a philosophical issue -- whether it's just a different flavour of the same thing . . .

 

[Thomas]

If our lives are an opportunity to do good, then it should be changed from "a big court room" to "a big temple" where we perform rituals of good deeds to honour God, rituals of dedication to things that please God -- instead of a big court room where we are condemned of doing bad deeds.

Now we're on common ground. I think we might both agree that:
1 - We need sorting in our relationship to God - everyone does, regardless, we're all equal in that regard, because of a wonded nature, rather than individual action.
2 - We need sorting in our relationships with each other - and Jesus was hot on that issue too ... especially because this is an area where we can actually achive something, and where 'society' can often victimise the weak or unfortunate. Samurai saying: 'the strong eat, the weak are meat' — that's the way competitive culture works, and it's a methodology that Jesus rejects outright.

So whilst we may not actually be opressing our neighbour, we still serve a society that operates by such principles, and we turn a blind eye for the sake of our own comfort, whereas the criminal, the prostitute, the homeless drunk, cannot always be held responsible for his or her own unfortunate condition.

Christ forgave, but he didn't say, 'it's not your fault, keep it up' but rather 'it's not your fault, but you need to stop doing what you're doing.'

I think hypocrisy really annoyed Him.

But then maybe there's a catch -- if our minds aren't focused on honouring God, we could easily be performing the bad deeds of our ungodly lives in "the big temple." The bad deeds are rituals of a life that doesn't honour God and ultimately we desecrate His temple.

And boy does that make Him cross! Consider throwing the moneylenders out of the temple.

In Christianity Jesus is seen as the Cornerstone of that temple, the first, big stone, and we are the little stones that came after him to form the rest of the temple.

And that's what a priesthood should be. As Jesus knew that the Scriptures were revealed of the Father, he had a special axe to grind with those who assumed authority of God over their neighbour, but used that position to benefit themselves.

So I could agree with you that he had an added complaint to lay on those who used their good fortune to the disadvantage of others.

+++

The act of adopting philosophy wasn't what I saw as the problem, it's the idea that adoption of a philosophy is the "on-off switch" that opens the door to heaven and God ... This "moderating philosophy" stops me thinking that any philosophy can get me to heaven. That was my point.

Ah. Agreed. Christianity is Salvation History of the Hebrew tradition, and the reflection upon the data revealed therein in the Greek tradition ... but 'Jesus saves' as the bumper sticker says, not Plato or Aristotle.

The relation between a rationalisation and philosophy is that a rationalisation can be temporary, transient or permanent. A rationalisation that is permanent, static and unchanging is a philosophy.

I tend to disagree — to me philosophy constantly seeks and moves on, once it stops, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes something else — a dogma (in the modern, relative and perjorative sense).

Likewise I tend to view rationalisation as undermining philosophy, by the process of making things comfortable — but I think that depends on what definition we use, as 'rationalise' can mean to make sense of, or to make excuses for...

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

So, let's see. Your god is really annoyed, cross and has an axe to grind. Are you sure it's `G-d' you're talking about there, Thomas?

I do see the context in which you're using these colorful expressions ... but perhaps something is being lost in translation.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Yes indeed!!! If our lives are an opportunity to do good, then it should be changed from "a big court room" to "a big temple" where we perform rituals of good deeds to honour God, rituals of dedication to things that please God -- instead of a big court room where we are condemned of doing bad deeds.

But what about parental responsibility? Where would we humans be if we said to our children "do as you like, there are no consequences"? Imo G-d must also warn us of consequences or we do not know our boundaries. Perhaps rather than calling it a court room or temple, we could call life an educational institute. We must have rules, guidelines and also the freedom to learn, to explore new ideas?

But then maybe there's a catch -- if our minds aren't focused on honouring God, we could easily be performing the bad deeds of our ungodly lives in "the big temple." The bad deeds are rituals of a life that doesn't honour God and ultimately we desecrate His temple.

But did G-d ever ask us to live in a temple? I don't think so. He never said we are to pray every moment of the day and night, He instructs us to live our lives but while remembering Him and His instructions. What keeps me from going out, getting drunk and having an adulterous affair? Only my rememberence of G-d and His instructions. I know my deeds will be judged, so I am careful about what I do. Is that not a mercy from G-d, to help me to live a better life?

In Islam, you might see this differently with the pilgrimage to Mecca and the Kaaba -- the Black Stone.

To be honest, I do not see 'items' or traditions as the temple of my faith. I see people and our deeds as the temple. The Ummah (group of believers) is the temple of Allah. When I look at Mecca to be honest I think of Saudi, of the oppression of women, of the strange pagan rituals that still go on there during the Hajj and of the money that is made during the Hajj month. However, when I see two young girls walking down the street, in their hijab and laughing, I see the temple of Allah. Maybe I just have an odd mind?!

 

[BlaznFattyz]

But what about parental responsibility?

But did G-d ever ask us to live in a temple? What keeps me from going out, getting drunk and having an adulterous affair?

However, when I see two young girls walking down the street, in their hijab and laughing, I see the temple of Allah. Maybe I just have an odd mind?!

the logic of some would consider imparting knowledge to another as an attack of persuasion. but as a parent you know what is right, so it is that which we try to pass on--the right way to do things to the ones we love, even when your child doesn't want to listen, at least you did your part and you keep doing it. and do we not go to college or military after high school? if we want to learn more of something we go to the place that teaches what we know is needed. why is the word of god any different?

why pray in any direction, when god already knows what you want, already knows what you did wrong? its all between you and him no matter where you are, or what you did, his love and grace is greater than your sin. prayers are spiritual to god, not directional at inanimate objects. if he is merciful, then ask for forgiveness and ask for strength and wisdom, and he will give it to you.

if you can realize that god is not unknown, but rather wants to be made known, so you can have a personal relationship with him, you will see that his spirit can dwell with us, guide us, direct us, speak to us, comfort us, and work thru us. then our omniscent god is no longer confined to heaven, but god's spirit which is god is with us as well. otherwise we are just reading a book and talking to ourselves. how can prayer from a sinful person reach a holy and righteous god?

the glory of god can be seen in all things. if he created birds, know that they are singing to him, if you see children playing, know that he created laughter. god knows you are seeking him and that is not odd at all.

 

[Saltmeister]

But what about parental responsibility? Where would we humans be if we said to our children "do as you like, there are no consequences"? Imo G-d must also warn us of consequences or we do not know our boundaries. Perhaps rather than calling it a court room or temple, we could call life an educational institute. We must have rules, guidelines and also the freedom to learn, to explore new ideas?

But did G-d ever ask us to live in a temple? I don't think so. He never said we are to pray every moment of the day and night, He instructs us to live our lives but while remembering Him and His instructions. What keeps me from going out, getting drunk and having an adulterous affair? Only my rememberence of G-d and His instructions. I know my deeds will be judged, so I am careful about what I do. Is that not a mercy from G-d, to help me to live a better life?

Throwing up another limiting concept to describe our lives . . . . wasn't my intention . . . . but I believe living for ourselves can also be living for God, especially if we share what we own and treasure with God.

To be honest, I do not see 'items' or traditions as the temple of my faith.

Very often, I think the "items" are just symbolisms that we can throw away once we see the true meaning behind it.

I see people and our deeds as the temple. The Ummah (group of believers) is the temple of Allah.

Now there's some common ground . . .

Maybe I just have an odd mind?!

You're not alone there . . . sometimes I wonder if I go too far myself . . . or think/analyse something too much.

So whilst we may not actually be opressing our neighbour, we still serve a society that operates by such principles, and we turn a blind eye for the sake of our own comfort, whereas the criminal, the prostitute, the homeless drunk, cannot always be held responsible for his or her own unfortunate condition.

Christ forgave, but he didn't say, 'it's not your fault, keep it up' but rather 'it's not your fault, but you need to stop doing what you're doing.'

I concede!!! But perhaps God will be light on the one who hasn't had an easy life, and hard on the one who was better off and had more opportunities.

I tend to disagree — to me philosophy constantly seeks and moves on, once it stops, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes something else — a dogma (in the modern, relative and perjorative sense).

Likewise I tend to view rationalisation as undermining philosophy, by the process of making things comfortable — but I think that depends on what definition we use, as 'rationalise' can mean to make sense of, or to make excuses for...

I suppose we take the words to mean different things . . . but ultimately, it's a question of whether our lives are justified by God -- which all depends on whether we have given our souls to God, as God can't justify people that don't belong to Him. If we choose to be our own masters, then we must answer for ourselves, and God can't answer for us. That is, unless we allow Him to do that.

 

[Saltmeister]

And that's what a priesthood should be.

Hopefully I didn't diverge too far from the point of the thread; I was just responding to a post a few pages back.

The symbolism of the Cornerstone and us being the other little stones that form the temple, us being in God and God being in us . . . it resonates strongly with how I see the community of God's people. I was wondering then, what it would mean to approach the notion of "mass" from this angle, as this is the concept with which I most strongly identify.

It was interesting reading about what "mass" meant in previous pages. Unfortunately, I have a bad memory and I think it would be too much information for me to process (again) -- (a bit too lazy as well). I recall reading about what you said about Jesus' actually being in the bread/wafer, and something about actually believing that Jesus was actually present in the bread -- that that was the way it was meant to be seen.

I think I see your point (assuming that's the point Catholics have been stressing for decades/centuries) that there's a difference between believing and not believing in something. Non-Catholics tend to see it as wrong to think of a piece of bread as being special, having special powers, or having spiritual significance -- that only people can have a spiritual significance.

But could we be wrong for thinking that? Are we disqualifying/depriving ourselves from something really important in our spiritual journeys? I'm not suggesting Catholics are necessarily better off or more favoured by God because of what they believe, but maybe it helps them.

Is there something special about the bread? The non/anti-Catholic view is that it's just symbolism, that something physical like a piece of bread can never have any spiritual significance especially if it isn't a human or angel (not a spiritual being or incarnation of one).

But Jesus himself said once that "I am the bread from heaven." The Israelites in the wilderness fed on mana from the skies (the "heavens") but Jesus was the real bread from heaven. Is it symbolism or is it really Christ in the bread? . . . or is it symbolic? Could it be both? What if by believing that Christ is in the bread, it doesn't really mean Christ is really in the bread -- the physical bread, but we are actually connecting with the heavenly bread -- the bread in heaven, Christ. By thinking of Christ being in the bread and present in the bread we think of something heavenly and therefore connect with something heavenly and spiritual, thereby opening ourselves up for an experience of God.

So maybe Christ is indeed in the bread, or more likely he is the bread, but not the physical bread -- the heavenly bread. Maybe it's much like the tabernacle -- it was a copy of the real tabernacle in heaven. The Temple of Solomon, again was a representation of the real temple in heaven, of which Christ was the Cornerstone. If we think of the heavenly, we connect with the heavenly.

Who knows? Maybe transubstantiation does, actually work!!! Without such a concept as non-Catholics, we are left desperately looking for alternatives. I'm not much offended by the idea that Catholics/the Catholic Church has that "other churches are wounded." That's not the same as saying other churches are heretical, which happens a lot in non-Catholic/Protestant churches. If there is one thing I would find agreeable (in my perception) of the Catholic position, it's that there's a separation between the organisation and the individual (well, I might be wrong -- please confirm this).

As a non-Catholic, I'm not necessarily a heretic for having an association with other churches. I may have been misguided, but if not, lacking in important knowledge and experience -- but not necessarily "damned" . I am still given credit for being able to think for myself (well, correct me again if I'm wrong).

Maybe older is indeed "better." I don't agree with everything in Catholicism, but, from discussions with you and Quahom, I find a level of sophistication slightly above the "average Christian" (rather than simple Bible thumping) -- perhaps due to what the organisation of the Catholic Church encourages. I do see a dark side, but I think that dark side has been talked about more often than the bright side. Different schools of thought seem to produce different kinds/flavours of individuals -- the Watch Tower Society and Church of LDS -- notable examples. -- and Quakers: a different flavour once again. I don't like the organisations with their methods, their propaganda, indoctrination (the bad fruit) but I like what they produce (the good fruit). Evangelicals, Pentecostals, fundamentalists, you name it. They have their fruits.

With Judaism . . . it has been quite enlightening reading posts and discussions from Dauer . . . it has changed the way I've thought of Jews. They don't see too attached to rigid conceptualisations and tend to be more speculative and contemplative. They seem kind of "detached." Religions/faiths/denominations that have been around longer I suppose get better at exploring spiritual concepts. Judaism has definitely been around longer, and Jews are not necessarily so dogmatic as commonly thought.

 

[Thomas]

I concede!!! But perhaps God will be light on the one who hasn't had an easy life, and hard on the one who was better off and had more opportunities.

And I concede too!!! Seriously, I think yes. The parable of the talents would seem to apply here? And then, if it turns out that not only have you done nothing to use God's gifts to good advantage, but actually set yourself to profit at the disadvantage of others, or even view yourself as 'better' than the disadvantaged, without doing anything to ease their situation ('it's their own fault, after all') ... then yes, if justice means anything, we've got double to answer for.

The rain it raineth on the just,
and also on the unjust fella,
but more upon the just because,
the unjust stole the just's umbrella.

I suppose we take the words to mean different things . . . but ultimately, it's a question of whether our lives are justified by God -- which all depends on whether we have given our souls to God, as God can't justify people that don't belong to Him. If we choose to be our own masters, then we must answer for ourselves, and God can't answer for us. That is, unless we allow Him to do that.

Ah! Now that I do agree with ... philosophy without an act of faith becomes nothing more than a sterile intellectual exercise, which I suppose is just what you were saying ...

It's a tempering thought ... you get to the Pearly Gates and St Peter gives St Michael that knowing nod that says 'ah, just what we need, another clever dick... '

Thomas
(cont: St Michael whispers, 'I know, a Catholic clever dick, too!' 'Hmm,' sighs St Peter, 'and they don't come worse than that...' dips his quill in the pot and I wonder does red mean in or out?)

 

[Quahom1]

And I concede too!!!

Wait a minute....! You both can't concede...otherwise there is no debate!? no arguement, or discord...then it gets..."peaceful" around here ???

We can't have that, no no no, that just wouldn't do!

(LOL) Nice work.

v/r

Q

 

[Muslimwoman]

Q is right, it has gone very quiet in here now.