Category: Recent Thread Discussions

A new document issued today by Pope Frances, “Ad Theologiam Promovendam (‘to promote theology’), revises the statutes of the Pontifical Academy of Theology (PATH) “to make them more suitable for the mission that our time imposes on theology.”

Pope Francis has called for a “paradigm shift” in Catholic theology that takes widespread engagement with contemporary science, culture, and people’s lived experience as an essential starting point, citing the need to deal with “profound cultural transformations”.

“Theology can only develop in a culture of dialogue and encounter between different traditions and different knowledge, between different Christian confessions and different religions, openly engaging with everyone, believers and nonbelievers,” he writes.

He says Catholic theology must experience a “courageous cultural revolution” in order to become a “fundamentally contextual theology.” Guided by Christ’s incarnation into time and space, theology must be capable of reading and interpreting “the Gospel in the conditions in which men and women live daily, in different geographical, social, and cultural environments.”

The pope contrasted this approach with a theology that is limited to “abstractly re-proposing formulas and schemes from the past” and repeated his long-standing criticism of “desk bound theology.” Instead, he emphasised that theological studies must be open to the world, not as a “‘tactical’ attitude” but as a profound “turning point” in their method, which he said must be “inductive.”

Pope Francis said that this “pastoral stamp” must be placed upon all of Catholic theology. Described as “popular theology,” by starting from “the different contexts and concrete situations in which people are inserted” and allowing itself “to be seriously challenged by reality,” theological reflection can aid in the discernment of the “signs of the times.”

To achieve this “‘outgoing’ theology,” Pope Francis wrote that theology must become “transdisciplinary,” part of a “web of relationships, first of all with other disciplines and other knowledge.” This engagement, he wrote, leads to “the arduous task” of theologians making use of “new categories developed by other knowledge” in order to “penetrate and communicate the truths of faith and transmit the teaching of Jesus in today’s languages, with originality and critical awareness.”

Pope Francis also wrote that priority must be given to “the knowledge of people’s ‘common sense,’” which he described as a “theological source in which many images of God live, often not corresponding to the Christian face of God, only and always love.”

(English version of the document not available yet … )

+++

At the root of this, I think Pope Francis has an issue with ‘clerical conservatism’ by which the clergy regards itself as superior to the laity, who should be quiet and do what they’re told. This conservatism has played, and continues to play, its part in the scandals that have dome so much damage to the Church.

 

Thomas  Nov 2, 2023

Visit thread: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20877/

 

 

I understand that the Eucharist is an important ceremony for Christians, installed by Jesus himself on the last supper with his disciples, probably on Seder evening.

What I don’t understand is why there is a difference in interpretation.

Catholic dogmatics insist that it is an essential Catholic belief that the bread and the wine REALLY become the Blood and Body of Jesus.

I don’t get this: Just imagine it REALLY became human blood, would you drink it? And the bread, if it REALLY became raw human meat, would you eat it?

Now, the Reformed say, it’s a symbol. I don’t think that anyone in the Roman Catholic Church would say that it REALLY transforms in the way I said above. But if not, what is the difference to those who say, it’s a symbol?

 

talib-al-kalim  Friday at 5:25 PM

Visit thread: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20905/#post-385800

 

 

Firstly I do not post this to have an argument of faith. I post it so we can all consider our actions against the knowledge that God is Love. All that is not Love, is thus from our own selves and the disintegration of Love is a sign of our neglect of the virtue of Love.

On 11 March 1936, prior to the 2nd world Shoghi Effendi the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith wrote the following to the Bahá’ís of the West.

“The process of disintegration must inexorably continue, and its corrosive influence must penetrate deeper and deeper into the very core of a crumbling age. Much suffering will still be required ere the contending nations, creeds, classes and races of mankind are fused in the crucible of universal affliction, and are forged by the fires of a fierce ordeal into one organic commonwealth, one vast, unified, and harmoniously functioning system, Adversities unimaginably appalling, undreamed of crises and upheavals, war, famine, and pestilence, might well combine to engrave in the soul of an unheeding generation those truths and principles which it has disdained to recognize and follow. A paralysis more painful than any it has yet experienced must creep over and further afflict the fabric of a broken society ere it can be rebuilt and regenerated….

(11 March 1936 to the Bahá’ís of the West, published in The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh: Selected Letters (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1991), pp. 193–94) [6]

There are many more passages such as this available. Shoghi Effendi after the 2nd world war also offered that further conflict was inevitable and in the 1950’s wrote this.

“…The violent derangement of the world’s equilibrium; the trembling that will seize the limbs of mankind; the radical transformation of human society; the rolling up of the present-day Order; the fundamental changes affecting the structure of government; the weakening of the pillars of religion; the rise of dictatorships; the spread of tyranny; the fall of monarchies; the decline of ecclesiastical institutions; the increase of anarchy and chaos; the extension and consolidation of the Movement of the Left; the fanning into flame of the smouldering fire of racial strife; the development of infernal engines of war; the burning of cities; the contamination of the atmosphere of the earth, these stand out as the signs and portents that must either herald or accompany the retributive calamity which, as decreed by Him Who is the Judge and Redeemer of mankind, must, sooner or later, afflict a society……”

These are all born out of our inability to Love each human as part of the one Family of humanity.

What else can be offered. Love is the key.

How will humanity find Unity, without the Love that God has given us?

 

Tony Bristow-Stagg Oct 17, 2023

Visit thread: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20859/

 

 

… God be with and help them all.

 

Thomas  May 13, 2021

Visit thread: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19733/

 

 

There is no conclusive evidence much less objective proof that Yeshua (the son of god/or god himself) ever existed.
Change my mind . . .

By the first century A.D., the Jews were looking for strong, magnetic leaders who could deliver them from the wrath of the Roman Empire. The Essenes developed the idea of a messiah figure that would provide this. Several Jewish leaders were set to take over after the death of the Jewish King Herod, who primarily worked for the Romans. To qualify as a messiah, someone needed to be from the bloodline of King David. None of the descendants of King David and their misled disciples succeeded, and most were killed.

While these messiah figures drew support from the claim they descended from King David, wherein Judaic tradition did this claim that Davidic pedigree was necessary to become a Messiah come from? When King David ruled Israel (circa 10th century B.C.E.), the conviction arose that his progeny would “rule forever, not only over Israel but also over all the nations”.

One that stands out is a former slave of King Herod by the name of Simon of Perea. Simon was the first heretical Jew who managed to convince a large portion of the Jews that he was the King of Jews and Jehova’s Messiah. When the Roman Empire caught wind of this they dispatched military units to put an end to this claim. They would eventually corner and behead Simon in 4 B.C.

Anthronges was another deified Messiah who waged a serious war against the Roman Empire and also lost. Next came Yeshua the Nazarene. Proclaiming himself king of the Jews, Yeshua was eventually hunted down and crucified. Oddly enough, Yeshua was far from a warrior, would never be able to lead men in battle or control the logistics of a military campaign. Had King David met Yeshua, he would have been greatly disappointed with the gentle ideas of this self-proclaimed messiah.

New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, eloquently stated:
“To call Jesus the messiah was for most Jews completely ludicrous. Jesus was not the powerful leader of the Jews. He was a weak and powerless nobody—executed in the most humiliating and painful way devised by the Romans, the ones with the real power.”

After Yeshua there came a dozen other Messianic campaigns, none of which are publicized by the Abrahamic faith, and all of which ultimately failed. Theudas in 58 C.E., Menachem ben Judah ben Hezekiah, Simon ben Kosevah, Moses of Crete, Abu Isa, Al-Ra’i” (“the shepherd of the flock of his people”), Saüra the Syrian, to name a few.

Yeshua (Jesus) failed as a messiah and stood in a long line of failed messiahs. This clearly postulates the early Christians designed (i.e. fabricated) a mythical being that would be the principal hero of their faith and philosophy.


John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived. According to Remsburg, “Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles – increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

Josephus	Juvenal	Lucanus
Philo-Judæus	Martial	Epictetus
Seneca	Persius	Hermogones Silius Italicus
Pliny Elder	Plutarch	Statius
Arrian	Pliny Younger	Ptolemy
Petronius	Tacitus	Appian
Dion Pruseus	Justus of Tiberius	Phlegon
Paterculus	Apollonius	Phædrus
Suetonius	Quintilian	Valerius Maximus
Pausanias	Dio Chrysostom	Lysias
Florus Lucius	Columella	Pomponius Mela
Lucian	Valerius Flaccus	Appion of Alexandria
Quintius Curtius	Damis	Theon of Smyrna
Aulus Gellius	Favorinus

 ‘Amir Alzzalam Sep 19, 2023

Visit Thread: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20799/

When I was in college, I was approached randomly by a girl who asked me a few confusing questions. I remember one of them was about who I thought “the lamb” was in the Bible. She then told me about who she called “God the Mother”, and asked for my number so she could invite me to her Bible study. I thought she was just a random, nice Christian student who was trying to convert me. Years later, I found out that there is a Korean group called World Mission Society Church of God, and that they regularly approach college students (mostly female) and try to get them to join their religion. They always bring up “God the Mother” and ask you to a Bible study.

Other than this, I’ve never been approached by evangelists or proselytizers in public before. I was curious if you guys have ever had an experience like this, and what you think of public attempts to convert people. I don’t get offended by it, but I’m skeptical that it works. Firstly, especially as a woman, I’m a automatically on my guard when strangers try to approach me randomly (obviously not if its just to ask the time or for directions or whatever, but if it feels like they have an ‘agenda’). Secondly, I think that there are much more efficient ways to reach your intended audience, like via the internet, pamphlets that you leave out, etc. It’s a less aggressive way of getting your message across. Finally, I think a lot of people tend to associate public evangelization with cults these days.

I’d like to know what you guys think about this topic.

Modesty 28/09/2023

Visit thread: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20819/

In a protracted dialogue with a Baha’i member of the forum it seems to me the particular distinction between orthodox or traditional Christianity and the Baha’i is a rebuttal of the idea of the Immanent Presence in the latter, and a subsequent lack of a shared comprehension of the mystical dimension of the Christian faith. It was with this in mind that I was looking for insight, and came across this article published online, from a Baha’i magazine.

Entitled:
Mysticism and the Bahá’í Faith by Farnaz Ma’sumian, published in Deepen, 1995 Spring, 6:3, pages 12-17.

Introduction
Almost every claim made here is demonstrably mistaken … I was going to list them, but I realised I would be refuting every statement made. If anyone would like to discuss this further, I’m open to it.

The Realm of the Divine Essence
The transcendental nature of the Divine Essence is greatly emphasized in the Bahá’í Writings. He is beyond man’s comprehension and imaginative power. In other words, man can never hope to understand the Divine Essence through his intelligence nor through his feelings and inner experiences.
It would seem the Transcendent is emphasised at the expense of the Immanent, and this I would point to as a short-coming of the Baha’i doctrine generally, and thus impacting on its discussion of the mystical dimension.

The conceptions of the devoutest of mystics, the attainments of the most accomplished amongst men, the highest praise which the human tongue or pen can render are all the product of man’s finite mind and are conditioned by its limitations. …..From time immemorial He hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self, and will everlastingly continue to be wrapped in the impenetrable mystery of His unknowable Essence…(Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, 1973, p. 62).
And the Christian mystics would assert the same, yet at the same time assert a profound sense of union with the Divine, a cessation of the sense of ‘I and Thou’, a deep and sustaining sense of that ‘unknowable essence’ which nevertheless makes itself known, if only in part.

The Bahá’í conception of God envisions a Being Who is independent of His creation … is completely separate from it, in the same manner that the painter is separate from his painting. In other words, He does not dwell in man. Man is not a portion of God nor can he ever hope to become united with His Essence.
Here we see no sense or sign of the dimension of the Divine Immanence – the painter and painting analogy disallows it.

This Immanent sense is there in the Abrahamics, in the Greek Philosophers, in nearly all the world’s Religious traditions. Even Buddhism encompasses it, albeit in a non-theistic manner.

Here lies one of the major differences between mysticism as viewed by most mystics and the Bahá’í Faith. The ultimate goal of the mystic is to attain the presence of the Absolute, and to become one with Him. This idea is well expressed in the words of the fourteenth century mystic Henry Suso:

He forgets himself, he is no longer conscious of his selfhood; he disappears and loses himself in God, and becomes one spirit with Him, as a drop of water which is drowned in a great quantity of wine. (Happold, 1990, p. 99).

The Bahá’í Faith emphatically rejects the idea that the finite man will ever be able to attain the presence of the Infinite or that a creature can merge with the Uncreated.
This sunders and places a chasm between the Baha’i Faith and the Abrahamics, and indeed most all of the traditions it claims to speak for.

The Realm of the Prophets

For the mystic there are simply two planes of existence; the realm of God (the world of Divine Essence), and the realm of creation which includes man and the prophets. The Bahá’í Writings maintain that in addition to the two aforesaid realms, there is the world of the prophets which acts as a link between the world of God and the world of creation. In other words, God reveals Himself to man through His prophets. It is through Them that God’s covenant with man is renewed in every dispensation (Schaefer, 1983).

Here the sundering is made irrevocable.

The Baha’i writings effectively introduce a third realm, or rather an intermediate realm between God and man, the realm of the prophets, and in so doing allows Divine Immanence with regard to the prophets, but in so doing disallows immanence with regard to common humanity.

Bahá’u’lláh said:

The door of the knowledge of the Ancient Beauty hath ever been, and will continue for ever to be, closed in the face of men….

This is a staggering statement … it utterly ignores – or refutes – the prayer of Jesus in John 17…

… No man’s understanding shall ever gain access unto His holy court.

Again, an absolute statement that refutes the idea of Immanence, of Union between self and Self … I think it refutes a central idea of every religious tradition. I stand to be corrected.

As a token of His mercy, however, and as a proof of His loving-kindness, He hath manifested unto men the Day Stars of His divine guidance, the Symbols of His divine unity, and hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self. Whoso recognizeth them hath recognized God….(Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings, p. 49).

This stands in utter contrast to the self-understanding of the Prophets of Israel, and even the Prophet Muhammed himself (pbuh). While distancing himself as among the prophets who stand apart from humanity, he also claims divinity by his enjoyment of the self-knowing of God.

These Manifestations of God have a unique station, and no matter how far man may spiritually advance he can never reach the station of prophethood… It is not a difference in degree, but in kind (typology) which distinguishes Prophets from the rest of mankind… They are, by nature, a higher form of existence.
Emphasis mine. The Manifestations are some for of demiurgic being.

The Bahá’í Faith maintains that human beings have a dual nature: a physical body and an immortal soul. Nonetheless, the Manifestations of God, besides these two natures possess a third one that is unique to Their station. This third nature is the capacity to receive divine revelation and to infallibly transmit it to mankind.

Know that the Holy Manifestations, though they have the degree of endless perfections, yet, speaking generally, have only three stations. The first station is the physical: the second station is the human, which is that of the rational soul: the third is that of the divine appearance and the heavenly splendor … The physical station is phenomenal … The second is the station of the rational soul … The third station is … the Word of God, the Eternal Bounty, the Holy Spirit… (Abdu’l- Bahá, Some Answered Questioned, pp. 151-152).

There we have it … the Holy Spirit is the private purview of the ‘Manifestations’.

I am thunderstruck … I would have considered the Bah’i as misguided … now I think it’s worse than that.

ThomasSep 24, 2023

Visit thread: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20812/page-2#post-383840

Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion? : NPR

This was a debate sponsored by National Public Raido (USA). You can listen to a 50-minute recording of the debate, or you can download a PDF written transcript of the debate.

Nick the Pilot Nov 22, 2011

Visit Thread: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/14801/

 I have reduced or stopped consuming animals…

• For religious reasons
• I don’t wish to harm animals
• I don’t wish to end a life to sustain mine
• Health reasons

When I first started (early 80s) on the quit eating meat thang…vegetarian was synonymous with today’s vegan….to me vegan came about when there pecame varieties of vegetarians…pescatarians, lacto, ovo etc.

I am weird (need I tell you?) I quit eating store-bought meats….capitalist farm raised meats where profits ruled.  I saw cows put on weight at feedlots prior to slaughter, watched cows freak as they saw the cows in front of them killed and swung away to be butchered. I saw chicken leg bones that were fractured under the weight of a growing chickens with more breast meat faster than the legs could sustain them.

I was a hunter when I quit buying storebought.  I still ate what got in front of my gun.  I still ate what a friend raised, or I petted, or knew it’s name.

In a few years time I quit hunting…and quit eating meat on a weekly/monthly basis.  But occasionally…when in rome….I did not pass up trying gator or roo in Australia, or a five critter chili in Colorado.  When folks were oooing and ahhing about some great steak last year around a fire…I tried a bite…prolly my last bite of cow.

It ain’t religious or animal welfare for me really….it is health.  I had to bosses who had to quit eating meat due to heart issue, and a brain disease (looking back I think mad cow, wasting disease, prions) both were in their 60s for both it was absolute hell to change their diets after 6 decades of habits.

I told my doc I was considering it.  I told him the above reasons why.  And what he said cemented the deal.   He responded, “Why? You are still healthy.”  I said, “You are an idiot, and you are fired” and I quit eating meat.

When my aorta blew up, they checked my heart, and despite being over 60 and overweight they could not believe how clean my arteries are.

wil May 26, 2023

Visit thread: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/20648/