Judeo-Christian wackiness

[someguy]

In any event, its pretty arrogant to think that just because you believe all philosophies are "hypocritical or full of BS" that they actually are. You will find, in general, that most of the "BS" in philosophy comes from idiotic interpretations and translations --- and not from the philosophies themselves.

Lets start with this one. So you are calling me arrogent. I find everything is full of contradictions. This is my view I expressed it. My saying something I think is true doesn't make me arrogent. Other wise every one here is arogent. I am generalizing about phillosophy but I generalize about alot of stuff as do you and every one else here. Consider this for a second How many pages did Plato write. So he expressed two views on some matters with out a doubt. Then he couldn't act on both right. So he probably was a hypocrite right. I'm kind of tired right now so where this is going won't mak sense at all. I'll just quit here for now and maybe in the morning or something. Maybe I'll just move on.
One last thing is phillosophy a hobby or what with you Heretic? Just curious no big deal if you don't answere.

 

[loki09789]

As far as "Catholic" points are being made, let me clarify something for interp of my own future posts.

There is no ONE Catholic Church as much as there is a Catholic Community of churches that all recognize the Pope as the earthly leader and who share a common foundation of sacraments and BASE ideologies. I don't know off the top of my head, but there are even churchs that are 'member's of the Catholic community that are exempt or excused from observing certain rituals/customs with permission from the Papal authority. There are also 'catholic' churches/communities that are not recognized by the Pontif folks, but are very spiritual and consider themselves Catholic. Right in our community of Buffalo, there is a single church being lead by non priests, unordained people who are beautifully inspired and very educated (in terms of Catholism) accomplishing incredible acts of charity in a tough part of town. THey petitioned for membership/recognition by the Catholic community (Roman catholic specifically) and are still waiting for final word.

Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Ukrainian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox.... Just a few, that doesn't even get into the Catholic Orders such as the Judists, Franciscans, Jesuits, the MUTITUDE of Nun orders devoted to Mary and the Nativity/Immaculate conception.....

Much like martial arts, there might be one name or a common set of fundamentals, but there are many different ways that organizations have claimed is "THE" way for things to be organized - without leaving the boundaries of Catholicism.

Makes it hard to say that 'WE believe" or "ALL YOU folks" about anything.

I would say that Someguy and Heretic are the only ones speaking exclusively from a 'personal set of values' that is based on what has come before. I have put myself in a strange position as a member of this Catholic community where I have to qualify things by saying that "I believe this" which at times is distinct from what "The Church" (Meaning the Roman Catholic maintstream) teaches. Heretics point about the duality/paradoxical nature of life/religion is true about christianity: MOST christian organizations/interpretations do not do a very good job of outlining/reconciling the duality or paradoxs - but that is because of the very patchwork asimilatory nature of the belief.

Plus the dogma, canon law and set customs of Christianity are partially motivated through history by a desire to control the earthy body of members MORE than leading people to spiritual fulfillment/realization. spirituality/self actuallization is the motivation of the individual person and is not the primary interest of the 'church' (who ever you want to plug in). I remember coming across stories of Buddhist monks in little Vietnamize villages who tried to convince the people that US soldiers were demons and not there to help them/protect them. Without diverging into a political conversation, the priest was seemingly intimidated by the possibility of loosing his influence over the villiagers to the modern medical and technical 'corruptions' that the soldiers brought. One point was about a dieing child who could/should have been saved by a simple bar of soap and a change in hygene practices. The priest was afraid that if the family adopted the western values/beliefs around that bar of soap that they would loose the lesson/message they were suppose to learn through the experience..... WOW! A lesson at the expense of a child's life. Even Abraham was spared the actual act in the bible (of course there are far more children slain,destroyed, enslaved... in the BIble so it is again the paradox).

If anyone knows of some of these small or less well known orders/churches that are part of the Catholic community I would love to learn more.

 

[Cruentus]

If anyone knows of some of these small or less well known orders/churches that are part of the Catholic community I would love to learn more.

I had a list at one time...it was HUGE. If I can dig it up again, I'll let you know!

:asian:

 

[heretic888]

To someguy....

Lets start with this one. So you are calling me arrogent.

Technically, I referred to the content of your beliefs as "arrogant".

I find everything is full of contradictions. This is my view I expressed it. My saying something I think is true doesn't make me arrogent. Other wise every one here is arogent.

Ummm.... nice try, but no cigar.

Making a sweeping generalization about an entire field of knowledge is about as close to "arrogant" as you can get, particularly when said generalization is that the entire field is "full of BS". Statements like that are usually enforced by an extreme ignorance of the subject matter --- similar to how religious conservatives tend to classify science as a whole, and how many so-called "hard scientists" tend to regard sociology and psychology.

Tell me, have you read every philosophical work out there?? Do you have any basis whatsoever for condemning every philosopher's work as being "full of BS"??

I am generalizing about phillosophy but I generalize about alot of stuff as do you and every one else here.

I don't generalize about entire disciplines and fields of knowledge. You saying "philosophy is full of hypocrisy" is about as valid as me saying "biology is full of mamby-pamby fluff that has no evidence". Its inane to an extreme.

Consider this for a second How many pages did Plato write. So he expressed two views on some matters with out a doubt. Then he couldn't act on both right. So he probably was a hypocrite right.

Invalid assumptions with no support whatsoever. I challenge you to prove anything you just claimed.

Also, expressing two views on a single matter is not necessarily "hypocrisy" --- it may be a pluralistic attempt at holism.

One last thing is phillosophy a hobby or what with you Heretic? Just curious no big deal if you don't answere.

Technically, philosophy is everybody's hobby --- even if they don't have one.

If you must know, I'm studying psychology in college. I draw upon psychological data and research in support of some of my philosophical ideas quite often.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

In response to Loki/Paul...

There is no ONE Catholic Church as much as there is a Catholic Community of churches that all recognize the Pope as the earthly leader and who share a common foundation of sacraments and BASE ideologies. I don't know off the top of my head, but there are even churchs that are 'member's of the Catholic community that are exempt or excused from observing certain rituals/customs with permission from the Papal authority. There are also 'catholic' churches/communities that are not recognized by the Pontif folks, but are very spiritual and consider themselves Catholic. Right in our community of Buffalo, there is a single church being lead by non priests, unordained people who are beautifully inspired and very educated (in terms of Catholism) accomplishing incredible acts of charity in a tough part of town. THey petitioned for membership/recognition by the Catholic community (Roman catholic specifically) and are still waiting for final word.

Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Ukrainian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox.... Just a few, that doesn't even get into the Catholic Orders such as the Judists, Franciscans, Jesuits, the MUTITUDE of Nun orders devoted to Mary and the Nativity/Immaculate conception.....

Thanks for the clarification, Paul. Very informative. :asian:

Makes it hard to say that 'WE believe" or "ALL YOU folks" about anything.

I don't believe I made any claims like that. If it was construed that way, I apologize for my lack of clarification. I was simply addressing specific points that Tunisan/Paul brought up (in which he did cite Church statements to support).

Heretics point about the duality/paradoxical nature of life/religion is true about christianity: MOST christian organizations/interpretations do not do a very good job of outlining/reconciling the duality or paradoxs - but that is because of the very patchwork asimilatory nature of the belief.

I believe this is true, but I also believe it is more than that. I feel Christianity as a whole, and more "open-minded" organizations like the Catholic Church in particular, are in the midst of a change, a modernization (if you will). Remember Bishop Spong's book "Christianity Must Change or Die"?? I think it really addressed a lot of the issues promptly.

Plus the dogma, canon law and set customs of Christianity are partially motivated through history by a desire to control the earthy body of members MORE than leading people to spiritual fulfillment/realization. spirituality/self actuallization is the motivation of the individual person and is not the primary interest of the 'church' (who ever you want to plug in).

This I would definately agree with.

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

Thanks for the clarification, Paul. Very informative.

I agree. Thanks Paul M.!

I believe this is true, but I also believe it is more than that. I feel Christianity as a whole, and more "open-minded" organizations like the Catholic Church in particular, are in the midst of a change, a modernization (if you will). Remember Bishop Spong's book "Christianity Must Change or Die"?? I think it really addressed a lot of the issues promptly.

I'd have to agree again. I think that Christianity is moving towards being more "openminded." It is my belief that it started off that way, but started to get wierd when Government entities (with the help of some people in the church leadership) said, "Hey, this Christianity stuff would be a GREAT tool to control the masses!" Perhaps many of us are going back to our roots, so to speak.

 

[heretic888]

I think that Christianity is moving towards being more "openminded." It is my belief that it started off that way, but started to get wierd when Government entities (with the help of some people in the church leadership) said, "Hey, this Christianity stuff would be a GREAT tool to control the masses!" Perhaps many of us are going back to our roots, so to speak.

Well, the thing we all have to understand is that the first three centuries of Christian history were typified by an extreme diversity and pluralism of belief and practice --- exponentially moreso than anything we see in Christianity today. This was probably due to a number of factors --- the Hellenistic climate of religious tolerance (prior to Constantine) was probably a big influence. I would also attribute this to the rather "open-ended" doctrines of the Gnostics, who would freely formulate new Gospels in a fashion akin to the Jewish practice of midrash. There is little doubt that Gnosticism of various stripes was the most widespread and pervasive expression of Christianity --- which accounted for "the" religion's diversity.

This, of course, all changed with the inception of literalist Christianity as the state religion under Emperor Constantine. The literalist school in Rome, of course, seemed to always have had this as their goal --- apologetics like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian seem to support the notion of the local bishop having an almost totalitarian-like control over his "flock". This was, of course, juxtaposed to the typical Gnostic position.

I don't really think the current movements of modernization, liberalization, and open-mindedness in Christianity have much to do with "returning to our roots" (although they may certainly claim that, and they undoubtedly will) as opposed to trying to adapt their traditional religion with modern values and worldviews. Groups like the Catholic Church and the Unitarian-Universalists seem to be the major proponents of such thought.

If Christianity were actually returning to its "roots", then guys like Valentinus, Johannes Eckhart, and Origen would be made into saints. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

I'd agree that if we are "returning to our roots" that it would be more to fit in with the modern worldview, unfortunatily.

:asian:

 

[loki09789]

I'd agree that if we are "returning to our roots" that it would be more to fit in with the modern worldview, unfortunatily.

:asian:

I don't know if it would necessarily be unfortunate from my POV. If the spirit of the faith (plug in your own choice) is intact but the body changes because of environment, I can flow with that. I think the shift that Vatican II is attempting is within the 'spirit' of the early century churchs as a whole. R.Catholic authorities are running into the same problems as the Constantinian church - voluntary followers. Change is inevitable, partly because - even if they don't like to say it - PROCESS THEOLOGY does influence Christian belief.

Also, with the shift away from Church/State combinations in general, R.Catholic Papal authorities are also adjusting from Canon LAWS to control the masses and are attempting to be more of a facilitator of and a promotor/nurturer of personal and spiritual relationships for the people with God. It is a large, clunky body politic, but I think R.C. Church is finally recognizing that they are a religious leadership body for the purpose of spiritual development and not a political body of leadership (except possibly on the same level as any other steering committee/special interest group).

Some have even said that the Roman/Holy Roman Empire never really died, it just lost a geographical nation and lives on through the Roman Catholic Church... I can see that to a degree.

Heretic,

My point was not directed at any slight or implied prejudice. I was noticing that there was some generalization in general (groan;() that might create some misrepresentation/misunderstanding for any further discussion. Words and definitions/ideas need to be very clear in these types of discussions. It is really hard to understand someone when you are working from definition/idea X when the messenger is trying to communicate definition/idea Y.

One point of constant dispute is celibacy and clergy. For Christianity at least, somewhere there was in history some guy who started rejecting the earthly aspects of his life in order to touch the spiritual and that included isolation (monistary life), silence, celibacy, simple foods, constance prayer..... and so on. After a while he got some groupies who wanted to join him (ruins the whole isolation idea doesn't it) BUT this was not implied, ordered or even hinted at in the Bible or by New Testament sentiments. It is, to the best of my knowledge, something I like to call a 'christian folkism' or something that after time people inject into christianity but isn't originally part of the roots.

I am pretty sure Heretic could expound upon the number of Gnostic practices and customs that the R.Catholic church as assimilated - like the stations of the cross for example - because they were things that the masses found popular and the Roman based powers had to "go along to get along" by including or risk losing followers or having to charge a huge number of the people with heracy for still observing these customs.

One of the practical, functional and political benefits of celibacy is that the Church as politic doesn't have to worry about jilting families over inheritances of properties and gains that the priest gained over the course of his life. There is no survivor benefits to worry about. Most/all priests of power where noblemen as well, so by instituting a series of religious oaths that denounce the nobleman's felial ties, it also reduces (in theory, but definitely not in practice. Who were the Medici brothers and what jobs did they have in Rome?) the influence of political influence over religion.... okay so it didn't work very well that way.

There seems to be a small, but practical minded group, within the Catholic orders who are for allowing priests the right to be married. The alternative is to expand the powers and sacraments that Deacons can preside over within the rules of the Church.

Personally, I don't see any problem with a married priest. Cultures, at least generally, have moved away from the formal classism of aristocracy and such. Life insurace, probate laws and other practical financial structures would control some of the old practical issues since churches are registered as "not for profit organizations/business" and are subject to EEO laws that oversee such things.

Historically, I have my suspicions that it was a way of putting a very "GREEK" stamp on the Constantinian Christianity because it elevated the status of male friendship/relationships over male/female relationships. Greeks have a very love/hate relationship with the marriage/sex aspect of mixed gender relationship. Remember who opened Pandora's box? Cupid's arrows originally were seen as poisonous and a curse and painful NOT the Valentine/Disney-fied version that we think is so cute now. "Romantic" love was a curse and a disease that deprived folks of sanity and reason.

 

[heretic888]

In response to Loki/Paul:

If the spirit of the faith (plug in your own choice) is intact but the body changes because of environment, I can flow with that.

Hrmmmm.... personally, I don't feel this is really the "spirit of the faith" as opposed to the "spirit" of the likes of rationalism, humanism, and pluralism (the ecumenical movement is a good example of this). Not that any of that is a bad thing --- I think it is a positive change pretty much anyway you look at it.

However, I would also add that all these are changes in the exoteric forms of the religion, and not in the esoteric substance underlying it. I still feel that the esoteric core of most of Western religion is sorely lacking (most probably due to traditional historical attitudes regarding mysticism).

I think the shift that Vatican II is attempting is within the 'spirit' of the early century churchs as a whole.

I would disagree with this. I think the shift is toward modernization and pluralism.

A shift toward the "spirit" of the early churches as a whole would see the canonizing of, say, the Gospel of Thomas and see individuals like, say, Meister Eckhart, Valentinus, and Origen be made into saints. It would also see a more open attitude toward mysticism and contemplative practice as a whole (which, as it stands now, is generally relegated to monastic settings and traditions).

R.Catholic authorities are running into the same problems as the Constantinian church - voluntary followers.

I don't think so. The current Catholic church seems to be leaning toward pluralism --- the Constantinian church was the exact opposite. The major problem of the Constantinian church was that Christianity was not a set, monolithic tradition as they fervently wished to believe; the major threat to their perceived "monolism" was the pluralistic community of dissidents, heretics, gnostics, and so forth that made up "Christianity" at the time.

Also, with the shift away from Church/State combinations in general, R.Catholic Papal authorities are also adjusting from Canon LAWS to control the masses and are attempting to be more of a facilitator of and a promotor/nurturer of personal and spiritual relationships for the people with God. It is a large, clunky body politic, but I think R.C. Church is finally recognizing that they are a religious leadership body for the purpose of spiritual development and not a political body of leadership (except possibly on the same level as any other steering committee/special interest group).

Perhaps. But, I feel the major problem is that most leaders within the Catholic church (or any ecclesiastical organization, for that matter) don't really understand much of "spiritual development" to begin with (not outside the monastic settings, that is).

Real personal development, particularly of the spiritual flavor, is not simply a changing or adjusting of one's beliefs --- as has been traditionally thought. It is an actual evolution of the substance of one's thinking. Not simply the form. You may believe in Jesus as Lord, the Golden Rule is a good idea, and God loves all his children. But if the basis, substance, and reasoning behind those beliefs are something along the lines of "cuz the Bible tells me so" or "Christianity is right, everyone else is wrong", then you aren't a particularly highly developed or "spiritual" person.

My point was not directed at any slight or implied prejudice. I was noticing that there was some generalization in general (groan;() that might create some misrepresentation/misunderstanding for any further discussion. Words and definitions/ideas need to be very clear in these types of discussions. It is really hard to understand someone when you are working from definition/idea X when the messenger is trying to communicate definition/idea Y.

Meh, nothing to worry about.

One point of constant dispute is celibacy and clergy. For Christianity at least, somewhere there was in history some guy who started rejecting the earthly aspects of his life in order to touch the spiritual and that included isolation (monistary life), silence, celibacy, simple foods, constance prayer..... and so on. After a while he got some groupies who wanted to join him (ruins the whole isolation idea doesn't it) BUT this was not implied, ordered or even hinted at in the Bible or by New Testament sentiments. It is, to the best of my knowledge, something I like to call a 'christian folkism' or something that after time people inject into christianity but isn't originally part of the roots.

Errrrr.... sorta, but not really.

One of the distinctive differences between many Christian sects and the typical Jewish ones was the position of family, home, material possessions, marriage, and so forth. Judaism is, typically, a very ethnic and very familial religion --- honor thy father and mother, trace your lineage to David, marriage is good, you're born a Jew, there's no real problem with divorce, and so forth. Christianity, on the other hand, began to embrace a more Pythagorean and Cynic approach --- give up all one's possessions and family to follow 'The Way'. And, that's in the New Testament, any way you slice it. I seem to recall Paul even saying something about how great cellibacy is.

This was most definately an influence from the Hellenistic philosophies of the time --- Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Cynicism, and Stoicism all contain sentiments like this. Judaism, outside of Pagan-influenced "solar cults" like the Essenes and Therapeutae, did not traditionally contain these sentiments. Paul, who is especially influenced by Plato, talks about this stuff all the time in his genuine epistles.

There were exceptions, of course --- such as Gnostic sects like the Ebonites and Nazarenes, who were extremely pro-Jewish and pro-Torah in orientation. Groups like the Simonians and Marcionites seemed to be on the opposite end of the spectrum (very much disliking the Law).

In actual practice, however, most Gnostics and Christians had families, of course. I believe most of this was generally limited to monastic communities, following the example of Pythagoras (yup, he had the first real "monastery" in the West).

I am pretty sure Heretic could expound upon the number of Gnostic practices and customs that the R.Catholic church as assimilated - like the stations of the cross for example - because they were things that the masses found popular and the Roman based powers had to "go along to get along" by including or risk losing followers or having to charge a huge number of the people with heracy for still observing these customs.

Well, Gnostic in the sense of Pagan Gnosticism and not necessarily Christian Gnosticism.

The truth is a lot of those "Pagan" ideas were part of Christianity long before Constantine ever showed up. I mean, c'mon --- virgin birth, eat and drink the God to become immortal, death and resurrection, water into wine?? Sheer Mystery school stuff, through and through. The typical Protestant accusation of Catholicism is that the Church "added" a lot of Pagan ideas to Christianity (such as All Hallow's Eve), but this is but a half-truth --- Christianity had a lot of Pagan ideas to begin with. The very essence of the faith are essentially Mystery School forumulations.

Of course, "Pagan" elements continued to be incorporated throughout the centuries --- particularly whenever Christianity was brought to a foreign land (as any "Celtic Christian" can readily explain to you).

There seems to be a small, but practical minded group, within the Catholic orders who are for allowing priests the right to be married. The alternative is to expand the powers and sacraments that Deacons can preside over within the rules of the Church.

Well.... what needs to be understood is that most of this "matter is bad, the flesh is sinful" comes from exaggerations or misunderstandings. A lot of early Christians, particularly Gnostics, definately believed this stuff --- but, it was essentially an extreme pronouncement of formless mysticism, common to many traditions of the time (such as Theravada Buddhism).

You know: the world is evil, all life is suffering, we're in samsara, Satan is the "god of this world", the flesh does not inherit the Kingdom, the phenomenal world is an illusion (maya), yadda yadda yadda --- of course, there was a point to all that. If you focus only on the "world of matter", then you can't possibly transcend suffering (so to speak). These traditions tended, of course, to just go in the opposite direction.

A few centuries later, a balance began to show up: Nondualism. Y'know --- "Form is not other than Emptiness, Emptiness is not other than Form". Plotinus' embracing of the Ascending and Descending currents of the Godhead. Valentianinism would probably be the best Christian example. Basically, with formless mysticism, the world of Form was rejected for the world of Spirit (thus the strict dualism, or monism at times) ---- with nondual mysticism, it was realized that the world of Form was an expression of the world of Spirit, not just some illusory bupkis.

How does this translate to modern Catholic pratice?? Dunno, most priests aren't mystics and don't meditate --- so it really shouldn't matter to them much.

Historically, I have my suspicions that it was a way of putting a very "GREEK" stamp on the Constantinian Christianity because it elevated the status of male friendship/relationships over male/female relationships. Greeks have a very love/hate relationship with the marriage/sex aspect of mixed gender relationship. Remember who opened Pandora's box? Cupid's arrows originally were seen as poisonous and a curse and painful NOT the Valentine/Disney-fied version that we think is so cute now. "Romantic" love was a curse and a disease that deprived folks of sanity and reason.

Yeah, but this kind of stuff was in effect long before Constantine came on the scene. Just look at the bedrock layer of the "Gospel of Q" (Q1), or to the authentic letters of Paul. This kind of "anti-matter, anti-family" stuff is all over the place.

The simple truth is that Christianity of its various forms was based on Hellenistic philosophy and religion (despite the rather silly pronouncements of Diabolical Mimicry and Mythical Prefigurement) --- both in ethics and in myths. Which, really, doesn't come as any surprise --- groups like the Therapeutae, or Alexandrian Jews as a whole (we really have to reject the idea that Christianity was "born" of Palestine in favor of places like Syria, Antioch, and Alexandria), were definately going towards integrating such ideas with Judaism. Just read some Philo Judaeus and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Laterz.

 

[loki09789]

In response to Loki/Paul:

I think the shift that Vatican II is attempting is within the 'spirit' of the early century churchs as a whole.

I would disagree with this. I think the shift is toward modernization and pluralism.

A shift toward the "spirit" of the early churches as a whole would see the canonizing of, say, the Gospel of Thomas and see individuals like, say, Meister Eckhart, Valentinus, and Origen be made into saints. It would also see a more open attitude toward mysticism and contemplative practice as a whole (which, as it stands now, is generally relegated to monastic settings and traditions).

Also, with the shift away from Church/State combinations in general...
Perhaps. But, I feel the major problem is that most leaders within the Catholic church (or any ecclesiastical organization, for that matter) don't really understand much of "spiritual development" to begin with (not outside the monastic settings, that is).

Real personal development, particularly of the spiritual flavor, is not simply a changing or adjusting of one's beliefs --- as has been traditionally thought. It is an actual evolution of the substance of one's thinking. Not simply the form. You may believe in Jesus as Lord, the Golden Rule is a good idea, and God loves all his children. But if the basis, substance, and reasoning behind those beliefs are something along the lines of "cuz the Bible tells me so" or "Christianity is right, everyone else is wrong", then you aren't a particularly highly developed or "spiritual" person.

Good points Heretic.

The two above are the only ones I really had any comment about.

As far as Pluralism> I would love to see the Catholic Community 'allow' or accept the other gospel interpretations to be open for exploration. Heck, even now certain "Apocryphal" texts are used during Mass and Celebrations in limited ways and the "Apocrypha" is included in the Catholic version of the published bible - but more as an academic add on than for reall intellectual consumption. During my adult confirmation classes, there were more layman advice on spiritual matters than Clergy - which is not as helpful as far as I am concerned because of the lack of depth or sophistication in the training/education on the material that is necessary even WITHIN the faith let alone between interpretations and organizations.

I have only heard/read about the Gospels of Thomas (as in one of the original 12 or is it just a follower later in the history?) and Mary through Discovery Channel/Magazine and History channel specials so the commentary on it was general and interprative instead of specific... oh well. I remember that the movie STIGMATA was partially based on the uproar of the Gospel of Thomas in contrast to the traditional views that made the Church the Conduit of CHRIST so to speak. Thomas' gospel, from the interps that I have heard, seems to be more 'natural' almost 'eastern' Zen/Taoist in message. "Lift up a rock and I am there..." type of message. As if Jesus was a Self actualized/Buddha figure. Interesting and worth a look at as far as I am concerned. The Mary Gospels I have no exposure to and only know of the existence.

On the point of Church promoting spiritual development. Actually it has been my experience as an adult confirmationist (maybe the older mind is more ready to 'recieve' so to speak vs. the childhood/early teen mentallity when everything gets mixed together and the wisdom is ignored with the "eat your beans" messages) that the sacraments are really more thoroughly explained and practiced as tools of spiritual development. Also, within the view of Catholisism, service to others is an exercise and a way of putting yourself into spiritually fulfilling and challenging positions. So, I guess the idea for Catholics is really that spiritual realization is a combination of 'works' and 'knowledge'. Unfortunately, there is such a long tradition of 'pray, pay and obey' that many Catholics have been trained to be apathetic about their personal spiritual growth and have given up ownership. Time will tell if the shift during Vat. II will change that.

Good conversations Heretic. I miss my born again friend, Hadrian, who I spent many an evening at Basic NCO school catching movies and having these discussions with to and from the theater. He had attended a Bible college and was VERY knowledgeable on the Baptist/Born Again scholarly view of Christianity. Not to mention he was just a very decent man.

 

[heretic888]

Good points Heretic.

Thank ye kindly. :asian:

As far as Pluralism> I would love to see the Catholic Community 'allow' or accept the other gospel interpretations to be open for exploration. Heck, even now certain "Apocryphal" texts are used during Mass and Celebrations in limited ways and the "Apocrypha" is included in the Catholic version of the published bible - but more as an academic add on than for reall intellectual consumption.

Given the recent popularity of the Gospel of Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised to see it being the Apocrypha most frequently used. Still, I doubt many would actually comprehend the actual messages of the text.

During my adult confirmation classes, there were more layman advice on spiritual matters than Clergy - which is not as helpful as far as I am concerned because of the lack of depth or sophistication in the training/education on the material that is necessary even WITHIN the faith let alone between interpretations and organizations.

Yes, this was one of the points I was trying to make.

Really, though, if you aren't being instructed to at least consider taking up some form of meditative practice or contemplative prayer (and, oh yes, there are oodles of Christian examples of these to draw from --- meditation isn't just "a Buddhist thing" as opposed to "a human thing"), then I seriously question the validity of any "spiritual advice" being dished out. Beliefs are nice, and "good works" are important --- but they don't ultimately transform your consciousness.

I have only heard/read about the Gospels of Thomas (as in one of the original 12 or is it just a follower later in the history?) and Mary through Discovery Channel/Magazine and History channel specials so the commentary on it was general and interprative instead of specific... oh well. I remember that the movie STIGMATA was partially based on the uproar of the Gospel of Thomas in contrast to the traditional views that made the Church the Conduit of CHRIST so to speak. Thomas' gospel, from the interps that I have heard, seems to be more 'natural' almost 'eastern' Zen/Taoist in message. "Lift up a rock and I am there..." type of message. As if Jesus was a Self actualized/Buddha figure. Interesting and worth a look at as far as I am concerned. The Mary Gospels I have no exposure to and only know of the existence.

Okay.... the Gospel of Thomas is attributed to "Thomas Didymus" (Thomas the Twin), who we are left to assume is the disciple in the Gospel story. My personal opinion is, of course, there was no "Thomas from the Gospel story", but that's beside the point.

The Gospel of Thomas is, essentially, a list of sayings attributed to Jesus --- similar to what the "Gospel of Q" is hypthesized to be. It is devoid of any narrative content or "story". Just wisdom teachings and sayings. It should be noted that Thomas shares over a third of its sayings with Q, so they aren't all completely alien compared to the sayings found in the canonical Gospels.

The Gospel of Thomas is looked at differently by different scholars, but it is currently believed to be just as old if not older than the canonical Gospels --- and it is believed to have some sort of relationship with Q, as well. Some postulate that the Gospel of Thomas may actually be one of the sources of some of the Gospels --- this has been especially suspected of the Gospel of John, for example. In any event, many scholars are beginning to regard the Thomas gospel as being just as "authentic" as the accepted Canon.

If you are interested in the actual CONTENT of the sayings (there are 114 in all), here is a link:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

I don't know very much about the gospels attributed to Mary Magdalene, so I can't really comment on those.

On the point of Church promoting spiritual development. Actually it has been my experience as an adult confirmationist (maybe the older mind is more ready to 'recieve' so to speak vs. the childhood/early teen mentallity when everything gets mixed together and the wisdom is ignored with the "eat your beans" messages) that the sacraments are really more thoroughly explained and practiced as tools of spiritual development.

Oh, I definately feel the Sacraments can be a useful tool for spiritual development. I think Wilber sums up my position fairly well in on of his earlier works:

"Put it a different way: a given rite, ceremony, sacrament, or myth can function as a symbol, in which case it evokes higher levels of self and reality, or as a mere sign, in which case it simply confirms and strengthens the same mundane level of self and reality. That is, a given rite or sacrament can serve as a symbol of transformation or as a sign of translation. The first function is properly religious (esoteric), and works to undermine or dissolve the self in God's consciousness; whereas the second function is merely subsitutive, and serves to perpetuate and strengthen the self-sense by securing magical substitutes for God.

The same rite, the same myth, the same motifs can and do act in both capacities, depending largely on the pyschological state of the individual who confronts them and the understanding he brings to them. Thus, for example, the Christ figure is, to a mystic, a perfect embodiment and symbol of one's timeless and selfless Essence, whereas to the fortified Christian ego --- which, as is the nature of all egos, is in flight from death --- the Christ figure is a mere sign of the separate self's hoped-for immortality, a sign of the self's going on forever and forver. Prayer for the former is contemplative; for the latter, petitionary. In the same way, today the Catholic Mass --- its physical paraphernalia, its ceremonies, its rites, its dress, its symbols, and its wording --- is really meaningful, symbolic, and transformative for only a few individuals. The rest go through the motions as an insurance policy --- to cover their bets on immortality."

(Ken Wilber, Up From Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution, p. 134 -135)

He continues:

"Take, as the supreme Western example, the great exoteric themes of Christianity: the three-day-dead-and-resurrected god, born of a virgin who is the mother as well as the bride of god, the sacrificial lamb who had to die in order to ensure new life, whose body we eat and whose blood we drink, whose sacrifice ensures the future...

All of those are exoteric, pagan, Great Mother holdovers --- all you have to do to arrive at a perfect Great Mother ritual, as it was actually practiced, is to really kill someone. And, right at the point in the Catholic Communion, where the wafer and wine are served, simply roast and eat the victim instead (an example of which we quoted earlier). But those same sacraments, without murder, and carried out in a self-sacrificial frame, are perfectly legitimate symbols of transformation and aids to transcendence. Such, exactly, is the esoteric impact of the true Catholic Mass, and such, exactly, is the esoteric meaning of its symbols. Christ is sacrificed (the lamb), he dies to his separate-self (the Crucifixion), is reborn to Ascend to Heaven (Actual Transcendence); the eating of the his body (bread and wine) is a comm-union that initiates one into that higher Mystical Body or Ultimate Union, which likewise demands the death of one's own separate self so that 'not I, but Christ' may reign.*

*[Endnote: 'I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me' (Galatians 2:20). 'Christ died for your sins' means 'Christ died to his separate self so as to relieve you of yours'. This, surely, is what Christ meant by 'No man can be my disciple who hateth not his own soul' (Luke 14:26). As Blake put it, 'I will go down to self-annihilation and Eternal Death; Lest the Last Judgment come and find me unannihilate; And I be seiz'd and giv'n into the hands of my own selfhood.']

All of those symbols, and the rites and ceremonies associated with those symbols, are esoterically meant to function as supporters of contemplation or symbolic transformers. In that capacity, they are outward and visible formsof inward and spiritual truths. They address a Transcendent Divinity --- Great God, Great Goddess --- and not a biological, naturic, magic-mythic Great Mother.

Unfortunately, of course, the esoteric underside of Christianity has all but vanished in the West. Thus, most Christians today are exoteric worshippers; that is, most Christians actually practice, in large measure, nothing more than holdovers from pagan Great Mother rituals. The 'fundamentalists', especially, are committed to literal interpretations of the Bible; i.e., they recognize only signs, not symbols. No wonder that fundamentalist Christianity (along with fundamentalist Islam) has historically been the religion most willing to actually consummate their pagan Great Mother rituals and go ahead and murder, in blood sacrifice, any who disagreed with them. Holy war is nothing but thinly rationalized Great Mother worship, and the exoteric Christians and Muslims, without any doubt whatsoever, have killed more in the name of a "divinity" than any other peoples in history. The only thing bloodier than a Christian holy war or a Muslim holy war is a Christian holy war on Muslims (or vice versa). And don't say this is a necessary result of religion per se; in Buddhism's 2,500-year history, it has fought not one single religious war."

(Ken Wilber, Up From Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution, p. 136-137)

Sorry for the space there, but I think that sums up my views on the issue perfectly. :asian:

Also, within the view of Catholisism, service to others is an exercise and a way of putting yourself into spiritually fulfilling and challenging positions. So, I guess the idea for Catholics is really that spiritual realization is a combination of 'works' and 'knowledge'.

Oh, I think moral practice is important --- and it is definately emphasized in religions like Buddhism (I refer you to the Eightfold Path), too. But, ultimately, these are seen as preparations or stages to meditative awareness --- and not a substitute for it.

Unfortunately, there is such a long tradition of 'pray, pay and obey' that many Catholics have been trained to be apathetic about their personal spiritual growth and have given up ownership. Time will tell if the shift during Vat. II will change that.

I guess we'll see.

Laterz.

 

[Tgace]

I talked to God and god said "Hey!
I've got a lot of things to say
write it down this very day
and spread the word in every way."
I talked to God and here¹s the deal:
He said to floss between each meal
Drive with both hands on the wheel
and on the first date dont cop a feel
I talked to God and God said...nothing special
I talked to God and God said...nothing special
I talked to God and God said nothing
that we shouldn't already know
shouldnt already know
And talked to God and here's what he said:
"wear a helmet on your head
when you ride a bike instead
or you'll crash and end up dead."
I asked God for the Holy Word
ageless wisdom never heard
He just said to feed the birds
love your pets, clean up their turds
I talked to God and God said...nothing special
I talked to God and God said...nothing special
I talked to God and God said nothing
that we shouldn't already know
shouldnt already know
I talked to God and God said "John,
I let them kill my only son
and my creation's so undone
that I can't help out everyone
But if you¹re looking for advice
you don't need to ask me twice
start with the basics: just be nice
and see if that makes things all right."

-Uninvited