Can Christian politicians navigate between Scylla and Charybdis?
Sometimes I feel as if we are living in a world of extremes. It is a world in black and white. No greys are allowed. People in the middle are in the danger of being edged out. The media are partly to blame, I think. Extremist views make better TV than moderate views. This selective media coverage gives people the wrong impression that only extremists exist. A number of studies bear me out.
TV news about religion and politics emphasise the antics of the religious fundamentalists. Some media outlets do go out of their way to present even level headed Catholic politicians as if they were fanatics.
Buttiglione was unjustly presented as such during his "grilling" by the EU parliamentarians which lost him the chance of becoming an EU commissioner. However, secularist dogmatists are many times presented as the incarnation of tolerance and a yearning for liberty. In this kind of scenario is it possible for Christian politicians to navigate between these two great perils represented by the Scylla of religious fundamentalism and the Charybdis of secularist dogmatism?
The Episcopal affirmative
Bishop Mario Grech said yes during a lecture given to the participants of a course organised by the "Fortunato Mizzi" school on October 31, 2009. This is the political school of the PN in Gozo.
Bishop Grech has his own particular way of creatively connecting different subjects. He regularly does this during his homilies in Gozo parishes and his regular visits to Malta. He starts from one topic and reaches something seemingly completely different. However, he does it in such a way that the connection between both subjects becomes obvious as he seamlessly weaves the path from topic A to topic B.
The speech referred to above was of a different kind. It clearly set the subject from the very start - Christian in politics - and moved forward to discuss it within the context of the post-modern mentality that surrounds us. Mgr Grech buttressed his arguments with sixteen different references varying from Nietzsche to Pope Benedict, from Alexis de Tocqueville to John Paul II.
The Bishop of Gozo outlines two dangers for the furthering of a healthy political culture: the intertwining of democracy with ethical relativism, and the instrumentalisation of the political class by those who have political, financial or religious power. Had the bishop left out reference to the possible abuse by those having religious power, his position would have been less credible. It is true that there were, and still are, instances where those yielding religious power abuse the political class. Instances of such abuses can also be found in our history. On the other hand, the ethically relativistic approach tends to denude democracy from an ethically sound foundation and can thus facilitate totalitarianism.
A call for positive laïcité
Bishop Grech proposes that a correct definition of "laïcité" can provide us with the middle way between religious fundamentalism and secularist dogmatism. He refers at some length to the encounter between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Pope Benedict on September 2008. Mgr Grech says that Maltese "secularists" can learn a lot from that encounter. I add that even Catholics can find it equally beneficial.
Sarkozy told the Pope that: "the dialogue with religions is legitimate for democracy and respects the principle of laïcité. Religions - and in particular Christianity, with which we share a long history - are legacies, living legacies of debate and reflection, not only about God, but also about mankind, society, and even that key concern today: nature and environmental protection. It would be madness to deprive ourselves of it, quite simply an offence against culture and against thought.
This is why I call for positive laïcité, a laïcité which respects, an inclusive laïcité, one which debates, not one which excludes or condemns. Nowadays when doubt and their absorption with their own problems challenge our democracies to address the problems of our time, positive laïcité offers our consciences the possibility of comparing ideas - going beyond beliefs and rituals - about the meaning we want to give our existence; the quest for meaning".
Bishop Grech then refers to the reaction of the Pope. "I am firmly convinced that a new reflection on the true meaning and importance of laïcité is now necessary. In fact, it is fundamental, on the one hand, to insist on the distinction between the political realm and that of religion in order to preserve both the religious freedom of citizens and the responsibility of the State towards them; and, on the other hand, to become more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring to - among other things - the creation of a basic ethical consensus in society."
The only way forward is for people with different value systems and opinions respect each other and dialogue tirelessly to create this basic ethical consensus on which to fashion the society we live in. Unfortunately respect and dialogue are not as common as spiteful and uncompromising attitudes. Consequently, incoherent noise more than meaningful sound emerges from many a debate on the subject. I hope that the same thing will not happen here.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
67 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb
Dec 15th 2009, 13:15
We are sexual beings and that dictates much, if not all, of our behaviour. Hence the demons I talk about and religions' obsession with the matter. . Primitives, historical and actual, are perfectly formed but lack the knowledge we have. I do not know how they deal with their 'deadly sins'. But I do know that, beyond their evolved brain and ours, we are at an advantage because of our sophisticated garnering of information. The primitives looked towards the sky for sugar for their bitter pills, their antidotes. So-called civilised man has gone beyond that and found a greater truth, not beyond the fantasy but this side of it. Many of course still persist in looking at the sky for answers.
Man is indeed a survivor for the short duration of his life-span. Some take the majority path - safety in numbers and all that. Some take the road less travelled. Quite simple really. We always have a choice.
Intellectualization of issue is all very well. I would recommend a more lowly approach, keeping one's ear to the ground (like the primitives), garnering info. at street-level, learning not to shy away from the patently obvious. Truth in streets not tomes.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 15th 2009, 12:33
@ Joe Xuereb: “…..Responsible only for his survival, and instinctively loved and showed compassion, and respected himself and others, he would have survived somehow and never witnessed blood-letting, blood-shedding. All because of a sun that has not the properties he imposed on it. Because it is only a sun. A star in the skies.”
Joe you make it sound so simple and perfect but don’t you think you are making a sweeping statement? Take the primitives, you are alluding to, they still feel the need for a superior being to watch over them. It is instinctive almost as instinctive as the quest for survival. They still fight their battles with rival tribes for it is in man’s nature to be aggressive and it has nothing to do with the gods they invoke.
Believing or not won’t change man’s nature and human traits, such as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony (the cardinal sins) are ingrained in all of us. How we control these base instincts is up to us. But then, of course, there is the good side of man who can “instinctively love and show compassion, and respect himself and others.”
Joe Xuereb
Dec 15th 2009, 11:41
'Joe, do atheists "sin" all over the place?'
I thought I made my position on this one amply clear a zillion times. A daft question. But seeing that it is the season of goodwill, I will recoup some of my early indoctrination, and not bin it.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 15th 2009, 09:39
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"Joe, do atheists "sin" all over the place?".
I hope you don't mind me answering your question myself.
Atheists don't sin. They either live good, decent lives, or they don't. There is a difference.
While Christians include many things atheists consider to be wrong as sin, sin includes much more. Sin, for instance, includes harmless (from an atheist perspective) things such as watching movies the church prohibits, denying the existance of God, having "impure thoughts" (as if we control our thoughts...but let that pass), and much more.
And how does one go about preventing what I call "harmless sins" without some sort of afterlife retribution or punishment?
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 15th 2009, 09:30
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"Kenneth, I do not think that the idea was just the lecturer’s opinion. For a lecturer to put forward a personal idea for discussion would be unethical".
Unethical? The day when a lecturer is discouraged from putting forward a personal idea for discussion in a philosophy class, will be the day philosophy dies.
"That theory must have been proposed by some eminent philosopher - probably one of the ancient philosophers but I am not sure which".
No problem. Names do not matter that much. It is the reasoning behind a philosophical idea (your version of heaven, in this case) that interests me. Although to be honest, I can't see how such an idea can be supported by philosophical reasoning. I would think supernatural ideas are at best beyond the remit of philosophy. But I might be surprised.
Joe Xuereb
Dec 14th 2009, 21:06
Some freely (as in innocently) admit to feeling the need to believe. Feeling being the operative word.
Man's consciousness evolved and he looked around and felt pain and despair and ultimately saw death, first of those around him and near home, ultimately his own. Consciousness - peculiar to humans but not animals, apparently (although it's said elephants never forget) - is wonderful but very much a double-edged sword. Or something like that. So, the feeling was there, a very ancient feeling that needed sorting out. Man looked at the Sun and was inspired. And it took off from there. The perfect antidote.
If only Man had not seen meaning where there was none. He would have learned how to live without an antidote to his demons. Responsible only for his survival, and instinctively loved and showed compassion, and respected himself and others, he would have survived somehow and never witnessed blood-letting, blood-shedding. All because of a sun that has not the properties he imposed on it. Because it is only a sun. A star in the skies.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 14th 2009, 18:49
@ Kenneth Cassar: “I would assume that the idea was just the lecturer's opinion. I mean, there is not the slightest hint anywhere that it is actually the case that hell is the way you describe it.”
Kenneth, I do not think that the idea was just the lecturer’s opinion. For a lecturer to put forward a personal idea for discussion would be unethical. That theory must have been proposed by some eminent philosopher - probably one of the ancient philosophers but I am not sure which.
@ Joe Xuereb: “The bad news is that I cannot see hell being eliminated. It's the church's last card. Hell passe` would mean people sinning all over the place, with no fear, with impunity”
Joe, do atheists "sin" all over the place?
Arthur Soler
Dec 14th 2009, 16:45
@JessicaDeBattista
Quote “So, there is no evidence! But why do we persist in wanting tangible signs to justify our belief?”…. to which Kenneth noted appropriately, “Because without tangible signs, our beliefs might well be illusions.”
But there are other implications. Indeed, you do not have to justify your own beliefs to anyone other than yourself. However, surely you do need evidence if you are “preaching” these same beliefs to the masses, and expecting these same masses to “convert” to your way of thinking and living? Which is precisely what all religions do when they send missionaries to “convert” the non-believers…or better put, to impose their will and beliefs, despite no evidence.
We especially indoctrinate our own children with our religious beliefs even though there is no evidence. We tell them about the joys of Heaven but terrify them with the horrors of Hell. And if we are Christian, we tell them about the Trinity, and Christ being the Son of God…and all this, with no evidence. I find this to be the worst form of brainwashing, especially because these fertile developing minds are most vulnerable.
The world is a mess partly because of all these fanatical religious beliefs….all without evidence.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 14th 2009, 12:02
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"I assume that a person whose base passions are not controlled can reach a point where he becomes so self-involved that all he cares about is self-gratification. He becomes, so to speak, a god unto himself . His pride will be his downfall for he will cease to live by Christian morals and consequently rejects God.
Now Kenneth, would you consider such a man “crazy” for rejecting God?".
Not necessarily. It would be either that, or he would not have a sufficiently good knowledge of what it means to be God (I am of course assuming that God would exist). In essence, either way, he would not know God, or at least not sufficiently.
Either way, he is not consciously rejecting God, assuming that by consciously one means "to know all the relevant and pertinent facts and/or to understand them".
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 14th 2009, 11:28
Kenneth, I shall be out most of the day, but I will reflect on what you say, and I'll come back to you later.:-)
Joe Xuereb
Dec 14th 2009, 10:22
Is there a god or isn't there? The jury is out.
What makes perfectly normal, sensible, seemingly intelligent people believe in something so implausible? There has to be an incentive for this heavy investment. Is it the promise of being forever in the presence of the Source, one that has created nothing but havoc and upheavals, literally, see earthquakes? Or is it the fear of fire and brimstone? Some, having seen Limbo demoted to nothing, live and hope that hell will follow suit. So they live for the presence, the Source. For eternity. For eternity? Not boring? The bad news is that I cannot see hell being eliminated. It's the church's last card. Hell passe` would mean people sinning all over the place, with no fear, with impunity (so believers believe. But then, they believe anything that suits their cause). So hell stays. For it concerns adults. Whereas Limbo was fine to let go, release. It involved newborns, largely. Therefore, quite harmless.
PS Something tells me that it is the fear of fire and brimstone that impels the pious (but not always so pious) to believe. Maybe they don't think so much about being in the presence of the Source.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 14th 2009, 07:04
@ Jessica DeBattista:
So you got the idea that hell is a state where people who consciously reject God will never meet him, from a philosophy lecture. Fair enough, no further details necessary.
I would assume that the idea was just the lecturer's opinion. I mean, there is not the slightest hint anywhere that it is actually the case that hell is the way you describe it. I suppose the "logic" is that people who reject God will never meet him just as people who do not want any material thing will not buy it.
But it seems to me that people do change their minds, and so, for instance, might later buy the things they previously would not have wanted.
I give the analogy (although no analogy is perfect), because you give the impression that hell is freely chosen, and not a punishment. So again, why would a benevolent God not give people a second chance after death? Or would you say, perhaps, that hell is not necessarily everlasting, but temporary, if it exists at all?
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 13th 2009, 23:38
@ Kenneth: “....you have not addressed my points, particularly the main point that one has to be crazy to know God and reject him.”
To know God and reject Him, one does have to be crazy. But our behaviour is quite complex when it comes to living according to our religion. We do not keep God continuously present in our lives.Very often we go through days without even a thought about God, let alone a prayer. We believe in God - but very passively. This is an omission, but not of the grave kind.
Now, couple this lethargy with the duality of good vs bad in our nature. There is a dark side in each and every one of us and it is a constant battle to rise above our base instincts. I assume that a person whose base passions are not controlled can reach a point where he becomes so self-involved that all he cares about is self-gratification. He becomes, so to speak, a god unto himself . His pride will be his downfall for he will cease to live by Christian morals and consequently rejects God.
Now Kenneth, would you consider such a man “crazy” for rejecting God?
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 13th 2009, 21:00
@ Kenneth Cassar: “Just a curiosity: Where did you get the information that hell is a state where people who consciously reject God will never meet him?”
From philosophy lectures at university. But I cannot tell you from which source for it’s been quite some time now and, unfortunately, I have forgotten.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 19:40
@ Jessica DeBattista:
Just a curiosity: Where did you get the information that hell is a state where people who consciously reject God will never meet him?
Is it because you hope it is so?, because someone said so?, or is it because you just have a gut feeling that it is so?
You seem so sure, but have not even tried to justify your extraordinary claim.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 19:29
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"Kenneth, are you trying to counter my argument by saying that belief is not a sensate function but a rational function because it is, as you say, “the brain that creates belief”?".
Not at all. Everything we experience is sensate. But the brain does not only randomly take information. It categorises information, discards what it "sees" as not important, and matches contradictory information to dispel the information that does not follow with a sequence of other information. For instance, if the brain gathers the following information - a freezer produces ice and ice cools objects - then if someone tells you that a food item left in the freezer for a week becomes hot, your brain will tell you that this is false, since it goes contrary to the other information it knows to be true. For it to be true, the other information must be shown (to the brain) to be false.
"I have not stripped hell of most of its ugly features. If anything it is just as fearsome".
Fair enough, but still, you have not addressed my points, particularly the main point that one has to be crazy to know God and reject him.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 13th 2009, 18:38
@ Kenneth Cassar:
“I mention this only because you seem to have stripped hell of most of its ugly features, but I sense that you feel reluctant to abandon the idea of hell altogether.”
Oh no Kenneth! I have not stripped hell of most of its ugly features. If anything it is just as fearsome. The soul is hankering to be re-united with its source.
To simplify it -have you ever felt the pain of an unrealized love - the gnawing tightening in your chest? Now think of that despair and anguish, and amplify it for I don’t know how many times. And that is how I try to understand what hell is. And this torment goes on unabated for eternity.
That to me is a soul that is not resting in peace and I truly cannot think which one I would prefer - this or the fiery furnace. (Obviously neither).
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 13th 2009, 17:25
@ Kenneth Cassar: “It is the brain that creates beliefs. Physically meddle with the brain, and the beliefs change.”
Kenneth, are you trying to counter my argument by saying that belief is not a sensate function but a rational function because it is, as you say, “the brain that creates belief”?
Now I ask you – Isn’t everything triggered off by the brain - the entity that performs such functions as sensing, perceiving, remembering, imagining, conceiving, feeling, emoting, willing, reasoning……? (So both the sensate and the rational reside in the brain.)
Belief may stem from an immediate, nonreasoned acceptance of an idea (a feeling, a hunch, a want (sensate) or from a deliberately thought-out argument (rational). (The Harper Collins Dictionary – Philosophy)
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 16:25
@ Jessica DeBattista:
I'm no official theologist (although in its general sense, everyone who studies theological matters might be called a theologist), but I can tell you one thing:
You said that the Bible uses fire and brimstone to describe hell, only because it is the only language people in biblical times would understand. Could it not be that hell itself does not really exist, but is used because people in biblical times would only do good if they feared something like hell?
I mention this only because you seem to have stripped hell of most of its ugly features, but I sense that you feel reluctant to abandon the idea of hell altogether.
I have this feeling because from your other posts you do not seem to believe in hell as a means of punishment, but as something that is somehow freely chosen (through consciously rejecting God even though believing in his existance - even though I have already shown the impossibility of this).
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 16:00
@ Jessica DeBattista:
“If you are insane, you are not in your right mind so you are not responsible for your actions. It follows that GOD WOULD NOT PUNISH the insane.”
No, I had not missed that. But I think you might have missed my reply to that. So let me rephrase it, trying to put it as simply as possible.
1. I think I have already established that belief is not something you consciously choose (please note the distinction between belief and what one could term as "having a hunch".
2. It so follows that if one is convinced that there is a God, one cannot disbelieve in God.
3. From that, it must follow that to believe in a benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient God (and to have a general idea of what it is to be God) and still want to have nothing to do with him, is to be insane.
4. You claim that hell is for people who know there is God, but still want to have nothing to do with him, but say that hell is only for sane people who consciously reject God.
5. So because of point 3 and 4, hell remains empty.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 13th 2009, 15:24
@ Kenneth Cassar: “Your claim must mean that the mentally ill who will have nothing to do with God through insanity, will never be forgiven by God.”
Kenneth I do not understand why you keep coming back to the same issue when I had given you a very clear answer the first time you put the question to me.
Let me just quote it verbatim: “If you are insane, you are not in your right mind so you are not responsible for your actions. It follows that GOD WOULD NOT PUNISH the insane.” (Pardon the caps. I am not screaming at you. I am just drawing your attention to my answer for apparently you had missed it in the original comment.)
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 14:41
@ Jessica DeBattista (b):
"What makes me exclaim at the beauty of a sunset? Is there a particular representation of a sunset that makes it beautiful?".
The beauty of a sunset is subjective. We love it because it is agreeable to our sensations regarding what we perceive as beautiful. But we recognize it to be subjective, and cannot claim, for instance, that whoever doesn't love sunsets is wrong. Not so belief in God. Either God exists or he/she/it doesn't.
"What makes me believe in God? – no evidence? Maybe - but I feel a need for Him…"
Feeling a need for God does not justify the belief that whoever rejects the concept of God through lack of evidence faces eternal punishment (in whatever form). But like I said, at your present state of mind, you cannot help believing it is so.
However, since beliefs can be changed through persuasion, I can only hope that your belief (in everlasting punishment) is not fixed enough that it will not allow me to persuade you otherwise. If I fail, well, I would have tried, and we'd have to move on. It's not the end of the world ;)
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 14:39
@ Jessica DeBattista (a):
"But why do we persist in wanting tangible signs to justify our belief?"
Because without tangible signs, our beliefs might well be illusions.
"Through the rational function of the soul we try to find evidences to give veracity to certain beliefs (science)".
I wouldn't call it soul (I would call it gut feeling), but I understand what you mean, and I would agree. However, I would add that if we find no evidence that backs up our gut feelings, a sensible person would have to revise them or admit that his beliefs are just a gut feeling guess, and nothing more.
"What makes me fear a cockroach? It is irrational to fear it, but nevertheless I do".
But at least you realise that it is an irrational fear, although quite real.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 09:28
@ Jessica DeBattista (part 4):
By the way, you'll not find the answers to how the mind works in theology. You'll find those in science.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 09:20
@ Arthur Soler:
"I would love to believe that after I die I will live again, possibly in eternal happiness in Heaven. But surely, is this not wishful thinking? I suppose it all comes down to faith doesn’t it?"
Thanks for posting this. Wouldn't we all love eternal bliss! However, you have perhaps clarified the mistake Jessica is making when she (the way I see it) confuses faith (which to a certain extent - though debatable) we can choose, and belief which we do not choose.
An interesting thing that comes from all this is that one can have faith without what can be properly termed belief, just as there are different degrees of faith and belief.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 09:11
@ Jessica DeBattista (part 3):
" Kenneth, I did not say that eternal damnation is reserved for the unbeliever but to the person who through his own free will, is saying - I will not have anything to do with You".
I don't know about you, but I think that a person who knows that God exists, and understands to a certain extent what it means to be the God you believe in (Omnipotent, Benevolent, Omniscient), and yet declares he will have nothing to do with God, must be mentally ill. So we're back to square one. Your claim must mean that the mentally ill who will have nothing to do with God through insanity, will never be forgiven by God.
"Obviously, I am only putting forth my thoughts as a layman since I have no background, whatsoever, in theology".
I know, and I appreciate the effort. I have yet to meet a theologian who convincingly treats the questions I raise.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 09:04
@ Jessica DeBattista (part 2):
"I do not believe (suicide bombers) were doing the will of God. They were doing the will of their leaders who had brainwashed them into believing they were doing it for God".
Exactly. They were brainwashed so they couldn't believe other than what they believed. Belief is not something you consciously choose.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 13th 2009, 09:00
@ Jessica DeBattista (part 1):
"Well as a matter of fact, I choose to believe that Hell is not a fiery furnace and I also
choose to believe that I am better than a leaf..." - That's what you think, and I don't blame you. However, try believing that you are not better than a leaf, and you'll see that its impossible. However, if a scientist meddles physically with your brain, you will see that your beliefs will change. That's why damage to the brain causes mental illness (including loss of memory, change of perception, and loss of beliefs). It is the brain that creates beliefs. Physically meddle with the brain, and the beliefs change.
That said, beliefs can change by other means than directly meddling physically with the brain. We call that influence, for instance through learning, persuasion etc. However, the new information gathered by the brain is always tested and matched to other information already present in the brain. I won't be too technical on this, but you will find several books on the topic.
To put it simply...once we're convinced by what we perceive to be a truth, we cannot do otherwise than accept it as fact.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 13th 2009, 00:32
@ Arthur Soler:
So, there is no evidence! But why do we persist in wanting tangible signs to justify our belief? The function of the soul is vegetative, sensate, volitional and rational.
We seem to put so much importance on the rational function of the soul but disregard the sensate function.
Through the rational function of the soul we try to find evidences to give veracity to certain beliefs (science).
The sensate (sensitive, perceptive) function has to do with receiving and reacting to
sensations and feeling.
What makes me fear a cockroach? It is irrational to fear it, but nevertheless I do.
What makes me exclaim at the beauty of a sunset? Is there a particular representation of a sunset that makes it beautiful? Hardly! It is a personal reaction to it.
What makes me fall in love? Is it because he is dark, tall and handsome? I doubt it!
What makes me believe in God? – no evidence? Maybe - but I feel a need for Him….
Joe Xuereb
Dec 12th 2009, 21:46
2) Now, anyone who does all this when they needn't, and creates creatures who are promised membership to a worshiping club if they behave, and refused such if they don't when they are relegated to a 'place' it matters not where, or how because they stood up to him. Him being not a little arrogant, not a little vain - in my own image - and certainly proud. And vindictive. We didn't ask for any of this. There are so many contradictions along this disturbing/risible line of thought. But human creatures have always got a choice. And what's this nonsense about modern ideology? Is it not fairer to speak of commonsense so the man-in-the-street can keep up with you?
PS It takes a leap of, no, not faith, but of humility for us to compare ourselves to a mere leaf, a blade of grass. A tad difficult I admit when christianity's main tenet, apart from charity I believe, is humility. And if you want to gain eternal life, not dying, - just be humble. Yes, that's exactly what I've just said.
Joe Xuereb
Dec 12th 2009, 21:39
1) Once upon a time there was a hirstue man who came from nowhere. One day he decided to create a universe(s), millions of bits of rock floating and gyrating in space. He ear-marked one and put creatures there to his likeness. He did not have to do any of this but he did. He was powerful and wanted to prove it to himself. He loved his creatures, called people and wanted them to worship him forever. Worship. Pivotal work. See below.
He created a choir of angels with a leader so beautiful he competed with dazzling light. He was proud and conceited. So the old man demoted him beyond recognition. For being proud and arrogant.
continued
Arthur Soler
Dec 12th 2009, 21:26
@Jessica DeBattista
Quote, “No evidence maybe….(of a spiritual soul).”
But isn’t that precisely the problem with all religious beliefs?
Existence of Heaven and Hell…No evidence
The Resurrection of Christ…No evidence
The Virgin Birth….No evidence
The Holy Trinity….No evidence
Existence of Satan….No evidence
Existence of Angels…No evidence
Existence of life after death…. No evidence
Existence of the “Supernatural”…No evidence
Existence of Adam and Eve…. No evidence
Existence of God…..No evidence…or at best, highly inadequate evidence.
I can add more to the list, and one could tailor it to other religions too. But, I think I made my point. As Carl Sagan appropriately noted “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Religious claims/beliefs are extraordinary indeed, but the evidence is essentially non-existent.
I would love to believe that after I die I will live again, possibly in eternal happiness in Heaven. But surely, is this not wishful thinking? I suppose it all comes down to faith doesn’t it? But is religious faith even sensible or logical given no evidence?
I used to be a fervent Catholic and a believer given my Maltese upbringing. Today however, I am profoundly sceptical about religious beliefs in general and about God’s existence in particular....given No Evidence.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 12th 2009, 21:02
@ Kenneth Cassar:
Part 2.
“In any case, it is you who put forward your belief that eternal damnation (or eternal separation from God) is only reserved for unbelievers, or did I get that wrong?”
Kenneth, I did not say that eternal damnation is reserved for the unbeliever but to the person who through his own free will, is saying - I will not have anything to do with You.
I also said “Hell is just a state where the soul, which is the divine part in each and every one of us including, Agnostics and Atheists, is denied the re-union with its Source – God.”
As you can see, I only mentioned agnostics and atheists to stress that EVERYBODY has a soul but I certainly did not single out agnostics and atheists as the only ones to be damned. (I hope you see the difference.)
Obviously, I am only putting forth my thoughts as a layman since I have no background, whatsoever, in theology.
After all, what God sees fit is only up to Him. I am only reasoning as a human being conditioned by the world around me - most certainly, not the way God would reason.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 12th 2009, 20:56
@Kenneth Cassar:
Part 1.
“True, but they might still believe in him. The people who flew into the twin towers believed strongly in God and actually thought they were doing his will.”
I do not believe they were doing the will of God. They were doing the will of their leaders who had brainwashed them into believing they were doing it for God.
Continued…
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 12th 2009, 20:13
@ Kenneth Cassar: “Do you honestly think that we choose what to believe?”
Well as a matter of fact, I choose to believe that Hell is not a fiery furnace and I also
choose to believe that I am better than a leaf, for my soul is not only vegetative, but also sensate, volitional and rational. So I suppose we do choose what to believe in. But there might be other factors that come into play.
We might be conditioned by life experiences or influenced by teachings that go against our faith and we turn our backs on our religion.
We might find it convenient not to belief because certain rules rub us the wrong way.
Our religion is based on faith but at times we question our religion and doubts are inevitable. It is very easy to lose faith unless we nurture it. But it is getting increasingly difficult to sustain it especially since modern ideology seems to be working against it.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 12th 2009, 14:38
@ Arthur Soler:
Part 2.
“Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."”
Christianity is strongly based towards the right hand. It is the right hand that gives the blessing and makes the sign of the cross. So when the cursed are referred to as being on the left side it only means that they are the ones who do not acknowledge God and not because the left side has anything bad about it.
“….His creation of a place where the non-believers are condemned to eternal torture?”
“Eternal torture” does not have to be an everlasting fiery furnace. The soul being denied the re-union with its source IS eternal torture.
“Can you outline what evidence is there for the existence of a spiritual soul ?”
No evidence maybe, but according to Plato the soul is a disembodied spiritual being that can exist independently of matter and all things (except God).
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 12th 2009, 14:37
@ Arthur Soler:
Part 1.
I am exercising my right of self expression and about to say whatever comes to my mind without worrying unduly whether I am verging on the heretical. This is only a discussion after all.
“Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."”
It is true that there are various instances where hell has been specifically described as a fiery furnace but can we assume that whatever had been written or said in the days of yore, when people were simple folk, had to be catered to their limitations.
To pass on a message one has to make it understandable to the people it is being addressed to. A lot of parables for instance, take the way of life of people of the time as an example because only in this way could they relate to what the preacher is saying.
So the fiery furnace was something they understood very well; baking bread being a daily chore.
Continued…
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 12th 2009, 12:45
@ Jessica DeBattista (Part 3):
"If you are insane, you are not in your right mind so you are not responsible for your actions.It follows that God would not punish the insane" - Exactly. And one would have to be insane to deny God exists when one would know he actually exists. So if hell is reserved for people who deny the existance of God and are sane, hell would be empty. So what's the point?
"I do not believe in (created) hell (fire and brimstone). Hell is the choice that man makes when he wants nothing to do with God. Ultimately, it is man who is denying his soul to reach its aim". - I never mentioned fire and brimstone. But still, someone who makes a choice that he wants nothing to do with God even in the knowledge that God exists, would have to be crazy. So do you believe that people who, through insanity, want nothing to do with God, will not be given a second chance?
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 12th 2009, 12:44
@ Jessica DeBattista (Part 2):
"I would think that genocidal maniacs would have long cut themselves away from any christian values, and consequently from God".
True, but they might still believe in him. The people who flew into the twin towers believed strongly in God and actually thought they were doing his will. In any case, it is you who put forward your belief that eternal damnation (or eternal separation from God) is only reserved for unbelievers, or did I get that wrong?
"If one believes, one cannot deny. It is a contradiction" - Not really. I can believe in something and yet deny it. It's called lying (to oneself of to others). Yet, like I said, it would be crazy to believe in God and yet deny him.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 12th 2009, 12:32
@ Jessica DeBattista (Part 1):
I'm not bothered at all about hell. I'm only bothered about people who believe in hell. Belief in hell effects human behaviour - sometimes drastically. That's what interests me.
Now for your replies:
It is true that, as you say, the person himself would be denying God. That is because he would actually believe there is no God. Now transport yourself (mentally) to the end of the world...where if God exists, the unbeliever would ultimately know. Yet, do you suggest that God would punish him for eternity for not believing while he was on this earth? Do you honestly think that we choose what to believe? Someone once said that if when he dies, he meets God and God asks him why he was an unbeliever, he would reply: "Not enough evidence". Yet you believe God would punish such a man for eternity?
For one to have the evidence, understand it and reject it, one would have to be crazy. Like I said, the courts give more lenient sencences to crazy people (or sometimes acquit them). And God punishes them for eternity? Doesn't make sense.
Joe Xuereb
Dec 12th 2009, 11:16
I think that commentators who change tack, suddenly admitting to being transgressors - they are reaching out. Maybe mildly provocative but they are reaching out. They even claim to be spicing up the discussion thereby aggrandising their input? Methinks. I think they are playing with fire - pun intended of course - methinks.
As Larsson, Patrik says, there is not much reference to hell and hell-fire these days. It never ceases to amaze, reading the ever-popular obituatries, that the dead invariably all end up in heaven. It seems that the fortunate dead, as long as they have contacts rich and committed enough to spend time and money eulogising them, regardless of what went on in their head, soul, heart, whatever - this effort guarantees them a chair in the presence of god's grace. Nice! Money talks even in heaven. These deceased, they never go to hell? They are never damned. Just because we will them not to be? I think this is apt material for a YouTube clip. Would go down the shoot like an inextinguishable ball of fire.
Joe Xuereb
Dec 12th 2009, 11:08
Time was when commentators used to respond to my comments. Not any more. They prefer the more intellectual slant of the bent debate. Maybe they find my take too earthy, commonplace, graphic to a fault, too frightening.
Time was when the fevered minds of the fishermen Grimm, embroidered their divine - just love that word, he/she was a gi-normous homo drag queen in the 70s/80s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_(actor) - embroidered their divine drivel for fevered minds. The fevered minds of old are now like clarified butter, they demand clarity. They are a force to be reckoned with. Very frightening to the hell-fearful. Who are denying its existence inspite of what the good book says. Thanks Soler, Arthur.
Arthur Soler
Dec 11th 2009, 23:53
@ JessicaDeBattista
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but I just don’t understand why you believe that Hell is different from the horror that is clearly outlined in the Holy Scriptures. As you probably know, there are over 162 references in the New Testament which warn of Hell. Over 70 of these references are attributed to Jesus himself. Here are just two examples;
Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Matt 25:41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."
The description of Hell in the Bible is quite specific is it not? It’s a furnace which is everlasting. In any case, it certainly is a place of eternal torture.
So the question is simply “How can we reconcile God’s infinite love for all mankind with His creation of a place where the non-believers are condemned to eternal torture?”
One other point. You state that “Souls that are lost are in anguish and despair.” Can you outline what evidence is there for the existence of a spiritual soul ?
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 11th 2009, 18:17
@ Kenneth Cassar:
“So God would forgive genocidal maniacs…” I would think that genocidal maniacs would have long cut themselves away from any christian values, and consequently from God.
“And do you think that anyone in his right mind, would deny the existance of God if he actually believed (conscious choice) God did exist?” If one believes, one cannot deny. It is a contradiction.
“No one who knows God exists would deny his existance unless he's insane. And a just one wouldn't punish insane people for eternity.” If you are insane, you are not in your right mind so you are not responsible for your actions.It follows that God would not punish the insane.
”You are left with only two choices: Hell is for all atheists, or for nobody. And if it is for nobody, why bother create it?” As I said in the previoius comment, I do not believe in (created) hell (fire and brimstone). Hell is the choice that man makes when he wants nothing to do with God. Ultimately, it is man who is denying his soul to reach its aim.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 11th 2009, 18:14
@ Kenneth Cassar:
Part 1.
First of all Kenneth, I do not see why you should be bothered about hell since you do not believe in God. I would think that not believing in God means not believing that hell exists either. Or am I misinformed?
Kenneth, as you probably know, I have great respect for you and that is why I often opt to answer your comments, in favour of anybody else’s. I hope you take the following in the spirit that it is meant. I mean no disrespect to anyone.
“You still suggest that if God exists, he would not forgive.”
But Kenneth, it is not God who is denying the person heaven . It is the person himself, who is denying God. Through his own free will, he is saying - I will not have anything to do with You. So it is the person who is cutting himself away. If the person accepts Him. He will receive him.
Continued....
Joe Xuereb
Dec 11th 2009, 18:05
The English, always the pragmatists, coined the phrase: 'Life's a bitch and then you die'. One can dress up both 'states of mind'(?) whichever way one wants. My belief, which as valid as any belief going, such being the nature of belief, is that when we die, we die. We're convceived, we 're born, we grow, we produce (or not), we get ill, we get very ill, and finally, die. Not at all different to a leaf on a tree, budding and green and small in Spring and after a few months, gtows grows limp, falls to the ground, dries and shrivels up and is dispersed underfoot. Is the ground, or more likely, in UK, the sludge where it ended it's 'normal-span-of-a-life-for-a-sycamore-leaf', is it to be consecrated? Because where humans are buried, certainly in Malta, such patches of soil are declared sacred. We're momentarily on a level with the Sioux of N.America and their spiritual burial grounds. My contention's that leaf and corpse aren't sacred. 'the soul, which is the divine part in ALL of us.....Agnostics/Atheists, is denied re-union with God, its source – God'. Thereis nothing divine about people or tree-leaves. We're just passengers on a train going nowhere.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 11th 2009, 15:08
@ Jessica DeBattista:
You still suggest that if God exists, he would not forgive. In your own words, "Hell is just a state where the soul...including (that of) Agnostics and Atheists, is denied the re-union with its Source – God", and "The only souls that are denied the re-union with God are the souls that have made a conscious choice of cutting themselves away from the source – who deny that the source is God".
So in other words, eternal hell is reserved for atheists. So God would forgive genocidal maniacs, but not a harmless atheist. Interesting.
And do you think that anyone in his right mind, would deny the existance of God if he actually believed (conscious choice) God did exist? He would be insane to do that. Secular judges would give lighter sentences (or actually declare no blame) to such people. God, apparently, would give the insane eternal punishment.
No one who knows God exists would deny his existance unless he's insane. And a just one wouldn't punish insane people for eternity.
You are left with only two choices: Hell is for all atheists, or for nobody. And if it is for nobody, why bother create it?
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 11th 2009, 14:18
@ Kenneth and all:
Part 2.
We are all “wanted in Heaven” and that is such a consolation! Now if we are all wanted in Heaven, it follows that all mankind is meant to be saved, no matter how many times we sin.
The only souls that are denied the re-union with God are the souls that have made a conscious choice of cutting themselves away from the source – who deny that the source is God. So it is really their choice and not God who is denying them the re-union.
Souls that are lost are in anguish and despair, for they can never find peace and that to me is Hell. But it is a conscious choice of the individual for God wants everyone in Heaven.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 11th 2009, 14:16
@ Kenneth and all: “"Jesus came to tell us everyone is wanted in paradise, and that hell, about which little gets said today, exists and is eternal for those who shut their hearts to his love"” Pope Benedict XVI”
Part 1.
Hell has a diabolical fascination as a topic. It keeps resurfacing, for no clear-cut answer has ever been provided and we tend to either believe what the church teaches or else we form our own idea of it.
I am here going to give my slant on it. (I’m sure you all have yours.)
I do not believe in an eternal fire for that, to me, is just an old fashioned way of scaring the faithful, in the hope of holding them in check.
As I have said in other instances, Hell is just a state where the soul, which is the divine part in each and every one of us including, Agnostics and Atheists, is denied the re-union with its Source – God.
Continued....
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 11th 2009, 14:13
@ Kenneth Cassar: “Finally, I trust that although you knew your comment would spice up the argument, that was not the reason you posted it. I'm not interested in playing games.
Kenneth, I was not playing games in a serious discussion such as this. Spicing up an argument actually means giving an argument a slant that would raise a (mild form) controversy. And to be sure, it seems to have worked judging by the comments directed at me (8 out of 12 to be exact.) So far…
Joe Xuereb
Dec 11th 2009, 13:00
I think that commentators who change tack, suddenly admitting to being transgressors - they are reaching out. Maybe mildly provocative but they are reaching out. They even claim to be spicing up the discussion thereby aggrandising their input? Methinks. I think they are playing with fire - pun intended of course - methinks.
As Larsson, Patrik says, there is not much reference to hell and hell-fire these days. It never ceases to amaze, reading the ever-popular obituatries, that the dead invariably all end up in heaven. It seems that the fortunate dead, as long as they have contacts rich and committed enough to spend time and money eulogising them, regardless of what went on in their head, soul, heart, whatever - this effort guarantees them a chair in the presence of god's grace. Nice! Money talks even in heaven. These deceased, they never go to hell? They are never damned. Just because we will them not to be? I think this is apt material for a YouTube clip. Would go down the shoot like an inextinguishable ball of fire.
Patrik Larsson
Dec 11th 2009, 11:17
Jessica and Kenneth:
I find it quite peculiar that the question of hell is one of those questions which you never get a straight answer about. What is hell to a modern day Catholic? Is it eternal or is it not? Is it a place of torment (as the Pope seems to portray it as) or simply not being able to enter into God's grace (as many more liberal Catholics seems to portray it as)? Very few provides a straight and honest answer, yet not many claim they don't know.
I would love to know, as in the eyes of many Catholics that could be my here-after. Not that I share their view, but it's always nice to know what people think of you.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 11th 2009, 10:30
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"Jesus came to tell us everyone is wanted in paradise, and that hell, about which little gets said today, exists and is eternal for those who shut their hearts to his love"
Pope Benedict XVI
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 11th 2009, 10:00
@ Jessica DeBattista:
Thanks for the clarification. However, I must correct a basic misconception. I don't believe that many atheists (and certainly not me) really claim that a Christian upbringing does not inculcate moral values in its adherents. What we claim is that moral values can be obtained through other means (humanism, for instance). Furthermore, I think its evident that atheists and Christians share some common values, while disagreeing (sometimes strongly) on others.
Regarding everlasting punishment, it is not "the Middle Ages concept of God that (I) still retain". It's actually the concept held by the overwhelming majority of Christians, including the Pope.
You may not hold that view, but you must know that your view is an unorthodox minority view. In any case, like I said, I only brought up hell as a "mild" example of religious dogma and theology which many atheists find repulsive. I could give a list, and elaborate, but I don't believe that the space provided here would be sufficient to provide the reasons for our objections.
Finally, I trust that although you knew your comment would spice up the argument, that was not the reason you posted it. I'm not interested in playing games.
Joe Xuereb
Dec 11th 2009, 01:21
Life has been a constant struggle trying to get through the treacherous straits between Messina and Calabria, only to be dragged back every time. And so it went on. The values inculcated in one stick like glutinous fish, forever indelible, unlike fishy symbols in the dirt. Eventually, one sees the light without having to venture around Damascus. Now I wouldn't murder, or steal or tell lies because I understand the damage these acts do to me and those around me. Inculcation is all very well. But infinitely more important is understanding of the self and the humbling journey that is delving, truly delving, into the consequences of sin. That way one sins no more. None of this nonsense, confessing, penance, sinning again, and again, and again. Still, I guess it keeps the confessor in 'bread' and cheap entertainment. The last time I confessed I was still in short trousers. Blue-eyed and skinny. The confessor had his sickly entertainment, not with my permission, but my innocence and lack of assertion. Still, I never went back. But my values are as strong as ever.
And wonder of wonders, I bear no grudge. It was just a wrong career move.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 10th 2009, 13:46
@ Kenneth Cassar:
I knew I would spice up the argument with my comment for at face value it appears rather fundamentalist, something which I am not. Actually I see myself more of a moderate if not “tepid” Christian. But I acknowledge, even if you and others don’t, that my Christian upbringing has inculcated in me moral values, which while I tend to rebel against them and even at times, go against them, but they are nevertheless etched in my heart. Christian moral values are a gauge by which I can assess my proper conduct as a unit in society.
And Kenneth, regarding your quote: “…the theology that says mere mortals must forgive, but an omnipotent and benevolent God will punish for eternity): As I have mentioned above, I have assimilated my religion and reached my own perception of it. I do not believe that God is a God of wrath since we are made in His image - if we are expected to forgive, we, mere mortals with all our limitations and base instincts, how much more is God ready to forgive? It is the Middle Ages concept of God that you still retain.
Sciortino M
Dec 10th 2009, 08:27
I think these words from the first and only Catholic US president John F. Kennedy who had to defend his faith two months before he was elected in 1960.
“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches of any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general population or the public actions of its officials.”
I think these words are still relevant fifty years later.
This article is relevant to this discussion.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/catholics-vs-kennedys/?hp
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 10th 2009, 08:24
@ Jessica DeBattista:
To elaborate on my previous post:
First off, the common definition of antagonism is: "openly expressed and usually mutual opposition". I write this to avoid any misunderstanding.
Secondly, I hope you will realise that antagonism towards religion can (and I believe mostly does) stem from an honest and learned repulsion towards theology and religious dogma and their perceived harmful effects (to name just a mild one, the theology that says mere mortals must forgive, but an omnipotent and benevolent God will punish for eternity).
It is only religious fundamentalists who believe that antagonism against religion can only stem from ignorance (of theology) or personal grudges, and not through informed opinion and perhaps knowing religion only too well. I don't believe you are a fundamentalist, and so this leaves me a little puzzled with your simplistic claims.
I honestly hope that it is either that you have not expressed yourself clearly, or else were too hasty to refer (or reply) to some who you believe to be the way you describe, to realise that you cannot generalise that way without yourself appearing to bear a personal grudge.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 10th 2009, 07:48
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"Antagonism against the Church is spreading its tentacles. It targets the young and susceptible, or the older with a grudge against the clergy".
Don't you honestly think your claim is rather unfair, apart from not being backed by a shred of evidence? I hope that by the young, you don't mean children who are indoctrinated into religion from birth at least until they leave their parental home. I also hope that you don't honestly believe that most sceptics, agnostics and atheists are so because they have a grudge against the clergy. I certainly don't.
Don't you realise that your suggestions are verging on the extremist end?
Joe Xuereb
Dec 10th 2009, 00:51
'The ONLY way forward is for people with different value systems and opinions respect each other and dialogue tirelessly to create this basic ethical consensus'. I had to laugh. Classic Freudian slip there Joe. We haven't even started and you are already dictating - we'll agree to do 'it' as long as we do it my way. The only way forward indeed. Nothing to do with Cilla and Carrie. Unless I twist them out of all recognition. But better leave that to the twisters. I'm too straight - so to speak. That's my trouble.
What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine. Very aggressive. And won't ever get anywhere. Any more than chalk and cheese will ever be equally palatable.
Joe Xuereb
Dec 10th 2009, 00:25
'Bishop Grech has his own particular way of creatively connecting different subjects'. And so does Joe Borg it seems. How fatal, how Odysseyan to use that monster Scylla and her sister-in-crime Charybdis as metaphors for religious fundamentalism and secularist godmatism. I just can not see the connection between S. and C. and religion (extreme) and secularism (equally so). S. and C. being one and the same thing. So much so that their reason for being is their canny closeness. These days more commonly expressed as being 'between a rock and a hard place'. Of course it still would not apply to what Joe Borg is trying to say.
Arthur Soler
Dec 9th 2009, 23:54
@ Jessica DeBattista
Quote, “Secularization has elbowed out time-tested rules and restrictions which had once invested man with self-discipline and dignity.”
Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but can you please explain how you arrived at this conclusion? The “time-tested rules” that exist today in much of the Islamic world are hardly the rules that I would want to live with….and I presume, you would not want to live by them either (unless of course you, as a female, would prefer to live as a second class citizen). As for the “time-tested rules” in the Christian world, you may want to explain them to the thousands of children who were abused by Catholic priests all over the world. To note one other example, the reason the Spanish and Italian Inquisitions no longer exist today is because those “time-tested rules” resulted in horrific crimes committed in the name of God. Thankfully, they were squashed by the emergence of Western secular states and the formal recognition and charter of basic human rights.
We clearly face countless problems in society today…but blaming secularization for these problems is way too simplistic. What we need is less religious bigotry, intolerance, fanaticism and “time-tested rules”.
Jessica DeBattista
Dec 9th 2009, 17:15
Antagonism against the Church is spreading its tentacles. It targets the young and susceptible, or the older with a grudge against the clergy.
In the 2000 years of its existence, Church history has had its negative phases traceable to the Cardinal sins, not least to lust, vanity and avarice, but the Church remains to be the guardian of our religion and in these matters She does conform to Christian teachings to lead the faithful.
The world has changed but not necessarily improved. The decline of religion and a tendency towards rationalization (science) has gradually desacralized the world. Secularization has elbowed out time- tested rules and restrictions which had once invested man with self-discipline and dignity.
Lack of respect towards authority is rampant, leaving in its wake a lot of disorder - parental control weakened - teachers intimidated and incapable of exercising discipline – Church teachings ignored and ridiculed….
Can we truthfully say that we are better off now? The day we lose all our Christian values would probably be the day that we regret having lost them, and then maybe the pendulum of man’s existence will start its backward swing in search of a renewal.
CJohn Zammit
Dec 9th 2009, 01:06
Unlike the previous topic, this blog leaves me wondering about what Fr. Borg has in mind. Depicting secularists as Charybdis and then call for tireless dialogue between those with different value systems, sounds oxymoronic to me.
As far as I can tell, "secularist dogmatism" is a diabolical tactic concocted by the fertile imagination of the religious fundamentalist scoundrels who stop at nothing to drag down, to their sewer-level, all those who do not share their views. Frankly, I find it distasteful to be pressed onto the flip side of the same coin which holds the lunatic fringe.
It isn't likely that I will ever be accorded the privilege of an audience with either His Excellency the Bishop of Gozo, or His Holiness the Pope, therefore, I pose the following simple questions to Fr. Borg:
i) Just exactly what is the "correct definition" of "laïcité"?
ii) Which code of Ethics does His Excellency use to shield pedophile priests?
iii) What is the Ethical basis by which the Vatican can justify its obscenely lavish lifestyle while a huge chunk of its flock lives in abject poverty?
These and other issues concerning human rights are fair debate. The hereafter I leave to the gods and theologians.
Kenneth Cassar
Dec 8th 2009, 10:43
"Extremist" is such a plastic and subjective term.
For instance, an innocent sounding (to Catholics) statement such as "to become more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences" (which in effect means that the formation of consciences requires religion - therefore no religion = no conscience) would be perceived as very extremist to an agnostic or an atheist.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Dec 8th 2009, 05:58
I imagine views are extremist depending on where one stands. From my perspective, the waffle coming out of Benedict XVI is truly extremist. And Bishop Grech having his own particular way of connecting subjects!!! That's a rather nice way of putting it. Need I say more? Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
S.Azzopardi
Dec 7th 2009, 19:28
Although secularists want to relegate all religions from public life, they seem to forget that the main contribution to the societies in which they exist is to promote an ethical & meaningful way of living to all sectors of society (not just the elite). This ethics has proved to be the bedrock & the cornerstone on which national laws rest and derive their principle from. Thus, instead of trying to re-invent the wheel by eliminating religion & trying to invent some new dogma to fill up the vacuum created, secularists should try to sail away from Charybdis by discerning the best from the pure ethics embedded in religious principles. Religious fundamentalists, on the other hand, would sail from Scylla by discovering how can the pure reason found in humanism be made the good soil in which the seed of faith will grow.