Monday, 15th September 2008
The secular goose and the Episcopal gander
Last week’s blog – If God says so - was well received. It made it to the most commented list. (The Editor gives us a hug every time this happens. So please do comment.) Two or three weeks ago my blog titled: “This is not the way to debate divorce”, also made it to the top ten. The one about Kate and Michelle was not similarly welcomed. Their image managers should be fired immediately for not mounting a decent campaign to boost their image.
So what should I write about to-day? “Write about the militant speech that the Archbishop delivered on Victory Day,” a friend suggested. He was clearly disappointed. But since for him Cremona can make no wrong, he added: “It was not his fault miskin. It is the fault of those terrible monsinjuri konservattivi that surround him at that horrible Curia.”
The evil monsinjuri konservattivi
That’s a good subject, I said to myself.
I tried to image Archbishop Cremona tied to his throne in the dark dungeons of the Kurja. (Even they are fighting to survive the surcharge.) The evil monsinjuri konservattivi were shouting in his face, burning him with cigarettes, putting red hot coals on his chest and beating him with iron rods. Finally the good soul succumbed to their pressure and agreed to deliver the nefarious homily of Victory Day. Henceforth the day will commemorate the victory of the monsinjuri konservattivi over Mgr Cremona.
I tried to paint the scene in my imagination which I then could transcribe in my blog. To tell you the truth I found the enterprise a bit difficult. Was it Mgr Depasquale who handled the burning coals? Or was it Mgr Cordina who burnt him with cigarettes? He has a saintly face; but no one ever knows what the human heart harbours! Or was it Mgr Mifsud Bonnici who shouted the most obscene threats? Who could it be? Perhaps Mgr Tony Portelli was the one who used the iron rods?
Naaaay. None of this sounds credible.
In desperation I racked my brain. I got it! Eureka! (Fortunately I was not taking a bath at the time of the illumination.) It must have been Mgr Anton Gouder. His oversized stature (due to obesity) gives him the looks of an evil manigold. Alas, I got it wrong once more. He is not a monsignor. He had refused the red socks which were the final act of magnanimity of Archbishop Mercieca. Besides, the strict diet Fr Gouder is doing is diminishing his size considerably. Any bathroom scale will come to my help on this one.
Image wise I had a problem. What was I to do? I was distraught.
Militant? My foot!
Since I do not usually put up the white flag quickly, I resorted to Plan B. What about reading the homily to find examples of the Archbishop’s violent use of language, his militant battle cry and the attempt to rouse the troops into a attack on anything secular? I would then weave them together to show that behind Mgr Cremona welcoming smile evil lurks. (I would ignore the fact that he, miskin, did it under duress). I would surely find ample evidence to support the criticism levelled against the homily by so many wise and able commentators who undoubtedly researched very well their pieces.
It turned out that this was a very stupid way of proceeding since one should not feel obliged to read about what one is set to write about. Remember: I said so therefore it is so! No need for research and to hell (apologies for using a theological term during a secular debate) with facts!
My stupid strategy landed me in hot water. I could not find any militant spirit in that blessed (a fitting term, I guess) homily. While commentators criticized Archbishop Cremona for criticising the secular it turned out that he criticised secularism. These two terms refer to different realities. Mgr Cremona did not speak against the legitimate distinction between the religious and the secular. He did not in any way deny the legitimate autonomy of created reality. He advocated no Taliban state. He attacked secularism or the ideology which would rather have the church shut up in the sacristy emulating the behaviour of the three proverbial monkeys.
The whole debate about his speech – it is the fifth most commented item on timesofmalta.com – has am eerie tinge to it. If an environmental NGO, for example, says that silence is not an option for its members everyone would praise this stance as an effort to get people to shoulder their environmental responsibilities. If the Archbishop makes the same appeal to Church members he is accused of initiating a crusade. If a socially oriented NGO vehemently condemn one particular position and proposes a different one, people will say that they are engaging in advocacy. If the Archbishop timidly proposes an alternative to some position he is accused of militancy. If Greenpeace scale the façade of Castille they are admired for doing a well thought out media event. If the Archbishop raises a finger he would be accused of trying to impose the teaching of the Church on the rest of society.
It is very clear that in the estimation of many, what is good for the secular goose is not good for the Episcopal gander!
Sant’s admirable stand
In It-Torca of the last two Sundays – September 7 and 14 – Dr Alfred Sant wrote extensively describing his fight against cancer. The articles are very well written. This is to be expected from a writer of the calibre of Dr Sant.
But these articles have value on another level as well. Dr Sant bared his soul and shared with us this very difficult and at the same time intimate experience. These two articles show a side of Dr Sant which most did not know about. Besides, his courageous behaviour and its description in both articles give a boost to those passing through similar experiences.
Last Sunday’s article can be accessed on http://www.it-torca.com/news.asp?newsitemid=7440
RSS
Comments
Just simply acknowledging Christ as your saviour and denying His teachings is not way out. Christ is not simply taking sacraments that have no biblical basis, and thinking that this is the way. By loving God and simply obeying the first Commandament, by loving and obeying only God (and His Way) is the right approach.
You do not love God if one goes AGAINST HIS TEACHINGS and expect to be redeemed. This is why the bible is a holistic way forward. To quote my friend Bryan:
This is why the Bible is the 'Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth'; because without IT we would not be able to prepare ourselves for what is to come, or have any understanding of what it is when it does come.
This side of eternity Christ did not depart from his teaching that mankind should go beyond the doctrine of "an eye for an eye an a tooth for a tooth" and to "turn the other cheek". That is what He practised up to his sacrifice on the cross.
Beyond the grave, however, there will be no eyes or teeth to pull out nor any other cheek to turn. Christians believe that they will encounter a Christ who will reward those who did not deny him on earth and who will disown those who refused to accept him - just as He had promised.
In this topsy turvy world of ours, it is hard to acknowledge things as they truly are.
My mission is to uphold Christ as He intended.
For example He adopted the true sense of justice on earth: a jury of 12 men, and so God may help them. They decide then on the punishments as well and not man-made laws.
This is when politicians tremble ... at true justice. If the jury deems it fit that the actual law is not good, they could abolish it, common law principal which the Maltese politicians have taken from us.
Go into any tribunal court-room: it is full of people wanting "out" of this "judicial" system.
Finally the light is coming out!
Apologies for mistaken you for a Jehovah Witness. It is hard to reconcile the eminent reasonableness of your latest comment with the anticatholic vitriol of the website quoted by you.
It is perfectly possible to reconcile the merciful and forgiving nature of Christ's teaching with his sense of ultimate justice. Do not throw away the baby with the dirty bath water
To me "acknowledging Christ before men" is a very serious business indeed and not some idle "game" as you suggest. My comments are really directed at the intelligent readers of this blog and they would have realised that I had demolished, long ago, your irreverent aspersions about the true nature of Christ's mission on earth. I have also exposed your childish ploy of tampering with the true meaning of words by selectively censoring definitions in reputable dictionaries .
I decline your invitation to be diverted into an irrelevant and evasive discussion of passages from the Exodus completely unrelated to the subject under discussion. Go and play your silly games with someone who has the inclination and the time to spare for your unamusing flippancy.
Relapsed to "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", I see.
I am not a Jehovah witness. They do not take the bible literally either, and so it is only me so far in Malta, with this view of Christ.
MY FRIENDS QUOTE
If you were really guided by God to champion His Cause, you will say:
"Here is my record, I knew one day it would reach me".
You will see then that God's Cause is your own redemption.
Will you not see it now? If you don't fight, you only harm your own soul.
The enemies of God would like you to lose your soul, they dont want you to fight.
Who are the enemies of God? It is easy to tell, they said in their heart: "There is no God";
and God knowing that, they must die; they sell their souls for comfort, but human death is inevitable.
If they offer you comfort so that you don't fight, they want to buy your soul.
If you fight, Truth is more powerful than steel; choose the better weapon.
To choose between Life and death, recall the Covenants of Moses and Christ.
Love God and Love each other as brothers. Peace be upon you.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1273/Top-Ten-Signs-Youre-a-Fundamentalist-Christian
Ok...let's play another game. For each time you reply insisting that to say Christ is a non-violent revolutionary is offensive, I shall quote from the Bible an excerpt which atheists, agnostics and other moral persons find offensive.
Let me start with this:
Exodus:
21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Such violence! Such immorality!
I would prefer to be allowed to ignore your contributions but you persist in dragging me in! Call me a Christian fundamentalist (presumably another of your "huge compliments") if that makes you happy. However, I consider it my duty to stand up in defence of Christ in order to comply with His admonition in Matthew 10 26-30 and the corresponding passage in Luke 12 8-9
"So everyone who acknowledges me before men I will also acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven".
As to your insistence on annoying "fundamentalst Christians" by paying Him the "huge compliment" of calling Him a revolutionary this is how Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary defines that word:
"of, or pertaining to, a revolution in government; tending to or promoting revolution as revolutionary war ...."
As if you did not know all along that that is the ordinary meaning of the word!
Frankly, I'm getting bored at playing at your game.
If you want to feel offended, suit yourself.
Jesus was a revolutionary, and I don't care if this offends Christian fundamentalists.
Nowhere does Christ present himself as a killer revolutionary warrior. That is your own unsubstantiated personal opinion.
Nowhere does the Concise Oxford Dictionary state that Christ is a violent revolutionary.
Why should God take your advice and consign the Pope (which particular one?) to hellfire?
When will you learn that Revelation is a well known apocalyptic literary form and that its numbers and personalitied must not be taken literally?
Are you by any chance a Jehovah Witness?
It seems that Christ is only known from the love aspect and not on the warrior aspect of Christ. He will kill all of us, YES ALL OF US, that do NOT respect GOD and his WORD.
Everyone will sing a different tune on JUDGEMENT DAY when only 144000 will survive (see Revelation).
Would the church portray Christ as also a warrior? Of course not, especially if Christ would put first the POPE into the fire, for blasphamy, for corrupting most, if not all of Christ's teachings (if you want proof, ask me or visit http://jahtruth.net/darth.htm
Yes Dr. Saliba, the Oxford dictionary is right, Christ is revolutionary and does involve violence, should it be according to Gods wishes. This is of course a surprise to you and most readers.
There are some aspects within the Church as to why after the Holy Confirmation, people are called SOLDIERS of Christ.
Why a soldier one may ask. Think about it.
Amen.
Whether you like it or not the official religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion. Practitioners of all other religions, including atheists, are freely allowed to practice their religion and to express their opinion while respecting the feelings of others.
As an irreducible minimum Catholics in Malta expect to be allowed to express their own dissenting opinion whenever their religious sentiments are offended and they expect that they not to be hounded for presuming to exercise that basic right. No atheist has any right to impose that everyone else should adopt an atheistic standard of what is "offensive" from the religious point of view and what is "a huge compliment" and to pretend that his own personal atheistic standard should not be questioned.
Having been appraised of the fact that Catholics in Malta did find the term "revolutionary" offensive when applied to Christ and after pleading that surprisingly his intention was only to pay "a huge compliment" any self-respecting genteleman would have desisted from continuing to rub salt into the wound and to set up a false accusation that I was dishonestly tampering with dictionary definitions.
Finally, like the word "radical" could and could not have negative connotations, so would the other "bad word" that starts with "revol" and ends with "utionary". If you consider that Gandhi, whom no one could honestly claim was violent, is considered as a non-violent (insert the bad word), you'll have to agree with me. You don't have to say it or admit it publicly...just consider it.
It's not a question of playing with words. It's a question of having some words having more than one meaning, and people choosing the one they feel applies to a particular case.
The fact remains, however, that immediately after I used the "R" word, and you challenged me on it, I immediately qualified it to mean the non-violent type. I am willing to consider all this a case of a simple misunderstanding. However, if you wish to go on quarelling, despite my explanations, the choice is yours.
I hope you understand. It's not my intention to waste your time or mine. I also have nothing to gain from useless quarrels.
Since it is not (and never was) my intention to pick on you on what is becoming a senseless quarrel, I shall not say, like you did, that you are using silly tricks and playing with words.
I will take your word for it, and take it that my edition (which is a later edition) gives a different definition than yours.
I looked again, but still no sight of the word "radical". Maybe they dropped it from the later editions.
Regarding the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "reform", it does not agree with your definition since it says that reform is Action to improve social or economic conditions WITHOUT radical change. ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reform ).
I believe Christ brought RADICAL changes, so he was not a reformist.
Cont....
It is now about time to come clean and admit that I did not add "radical" to the Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of reform/ation. Even so I fail to understand your diversionary nit-picking obsession with this word "radical" (meaning "related to the Latin word radix for root") because it has no relevance at all to the violent aspect of revolutions and revolutionaries.
Much more pertinent would be your disclosure of any online discoveries about the warlike aspect of "revolutionaries" in their quest for bringing down governments as defined in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
I faithfully reproduced the definition of "reform" and its derivative "reformation" from The Concise Oxford Dictionary 5th Edition. Under "reformation" you will find the exact words "reforming ... esp. radical change for the better". As you can verify I did not add the word "radical" myself. I have no reason to believe that my edition is any different from your copy of a later edition but to avoid making silly allegations you would need to consult your dictionary thoroughly and calmly and not in such a turmoil that you address me twice wrongly as a Sammut.
The American Heritage Dictionary quoted by you defines "reform" precisely in such a way as to confirm my contention that (unlike your use of the word "revolutionary") it would not be an offensive description of Christ because it is devoid of ("without") radical or revolutionary overtones.
It is so easy to spot your usual silly trick of playing with words.
Actually, there is a dictionary that mentions "radical" in the meaning of reform, but it uses "radical" in the negative sense.
Here's what the American Heritage Dictionary says:
Reform: Action to improve social or economic conditions WITHOUT radical or revolutionary change. ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reform ).
I honestly hope Dr Saliba didn't add the word "radical" himself, just to score a cheap point.
My Conscise Oxford Dictionary Eight Edition edited by R. E. Ellen describes (page 1009) "reform" as:
"the removal of faults or abuses, esp. of a moral or political or social kind", "an improvement made or suggested".
No mention of "radical" at all.
Actually, I wonder how Dr Saliba actually used the word "radical". Kind of reminds me of Che Guevara ;)
Eureka! Problem solved! Mr Kenneth Cassar must be using some exclusive personal dictionary in which words have a unique meaning as imparted by him to suit his arguments!
After being informed that "revolutionary" as applied to Christ by an atheist is a "huge compliment" and after reading his quaint explanation of the meaning of the word "reform" given in his latest comment I conclude that he is using some dictionary other than the Concise Oxford. The one I use defines "reform" as "radical change for the better", "removal of abuse" both of which should satisfy any gentlemanly atheist when he refers to Jesus and when he has no intention to offend the sentiments of Christians like myself.
I already explained that I used non-violent revolutionary when referring to Christ. The definition you use, especially the mention of "USUALLY violent changes" clearly shows that a revolutionary does not have to be violent.
In any case, if you are displeased with the word "revolutionary", since I am not a small child, and just to please you, I'll take it back.
However, reformist would not do, since reform, by definition, is slow and not complete. I would not describe the change from "eye to eye, tooth for tooth" to "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbour as yourself" to be reformist at all. However, so as not to "offend" you, I will not say what I would call such a sudden and complete change and a teaching that compels one to do the exact opposite, (so not reformist) of what had been expected to be done previously.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "revolutionary" as "involving great and usually violent changes". By no stretch of the imagination could that definition be accepted as a "huge compliment" when a non-believer applies it to Christ.. A gentlemanly atheist wishing to show due respect for the feelings Christ's followers would describe Him as a reformist or an innovator but he would not refer to Him as a "revolutionary" a definition more befitting the likes of Robespierre, Stalin or a Che Guevara.
The element of violence is totally absent from Christ's reformist teaching. He was the victim of violence when Romans and Jews combined forces and had him crucified. He was not violent Himself in his opposition to the practices of the scribes and pharisees. He foresaw that his message would give rise to dissent but He never preached or practicesd violence.
Now if the word "revolutionary" conjures up images of the guilliottine in Dr Sammut's mind (although Dr Sammut should be reminded that Jesus WAS killed by the Romans on the cross), to me it only conjures images of great positive sudden changes that are sometimes violently opposed (hence the cross).
If the word "revolutionary" brings up images of violence to Dr Saliba, he should be reminded that I made it amply clear that this was not what I intended by my use of the word. This should have been sufficient for him to understand that I meant no offense, and it should have been the end of the story.
However, this seldom happens when one's intention is to shoot the messenger and not the message. In such cases, usually, the "messenger" is misrepresented just to score points.
Dr Saliba should then do us and himself a big favour, agree to disagree, and refrain from repeatedly exhuming this exhausted topic. Any gentleman would avoid being offended by other people's different beliefs and opinions, especially when it has been explained that the different beliefs of the other are not offensive at all.
Dr Saliba says that "Christians believe that (Jesus) is the "Messiah, the Holy One of God" and reducing Him to a status of a "revolutionary" would be pejorative".
Of course, what Dr Saliba says here is perfectly true. However, tolerant and understanding Christians would know that it is only Christians who believe that Jesus is God. Therefore, a reasonable Christian would not take the atheist's claim that "Jesus was a peaceful revolutionary who brought great positive changes in the world" to be an insult. He would not see it as offensive at all. And this is the whole point I have been trying to make.
Cont...
...The term is usually applied to political revolutionaries or social revolutionaries...
Usually, (the) goals are part of a certain ideology. (R)evolutionaries (are divided) in two broad groups: Those who advocate a violent revolution, and those who are pacifists. Amongst the best known examples of these two types of revolutionaries are Che Guevara and Mahatma Gandhi, respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary
Cont...
Calling Christ as revolutionary is not only true, but in more aspects than one. This is His exalted state and far from negative. He saw through the scribes (lawyers), the pharisees (politicians) and the rabbits (today's priests). He essentially wanted a social system without these three professions. Now is that revolutionary, .... you bet!
Never in the history of human-kind has the true value of Christ come upon us, and all bible keys are revealed unto us.
If you want to know more, all you have to do is to read the essential free booklot downloadable after searching for "The way home or Face the Fire". It is essential reading, should you believe in the soul, and really want to preserve it. Amen.
If you do not think that Christ is revolutionary, than what on earth did He come here for, to keep the status quo?
The word "revolutionary" conjures up the horrid image of the "sans culotte" below the guilliotine clamouring for the blood of aristocrats, priests, nuns and their own French revolutionary leaders. The term is associated with Bolsheviks destroying the Russian peasant class or a Kalashnikov-bearing Che Guevara exporting bloodshed throughout South America. For Christians these revolutionaries are the antithesis of our Christ and his message of love of God (excuse my language), of our neighbour and of our enemies.
He should do us and himself a big favour, agree to disagree, and refrain from repeatedly exhuming this exhausted topic. Any gentleman would avoid offending the religious sentiments of others, willingly or unconsciously.
Due to lack of funds we are closing down the LIMBO, children that will die un baptized will go straight to HELL, sorry for the inconvenience caused.
The management
LOL
Though shall not bow down to them nor serve them: for I the Lord the God am a jealous God........
Thousands of Christians claims to have lost the 2nd Commandment, from the 10 Commd. that was given to them by Moses at the Old Testament, rescue teams from all over the world day and night searching in each and every corner of the world, "we started looking in the Roman Catholic churches first claimed a Roman Catholic but still No Clue, but as leaving one of the churches i got stopped by man on the road holding the Holy Bible in his hands and he asked" " brother it seems that you have lost your soul ! what is wrong and can i help you" I replied "well we Lost the 2nd commandment and we searched for it all over" This guy very calmly opened the Holy Bible to Exodus chapter 20 verse 4-5 and replied with a Positive smile on his face "is this what you are looking for ? Exo 20:4-5 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth .Continue..
I would like to ask you to be the arbiter of this senseless dispute between me and Dr Saliba. Please note that I have not chosen you out of self-interest. You are, after all, a Catholic.
So my questions are these:
1. Do you see atheists' claim that they do not believe Jesus is God to be "jibes" or an honest expression of what they believe?
2. Do you consider atheists claiming that Jesus was a non-violent revolutionary who changed the world, to be offensive in any way?
3. Do you believe that atheists have the right to believe what they "want", but do not have the right to express their beliefs lest they "offend" any Christian simply by expressing their non-belief?
Please note that by posing the above questions, I am not saying that there are not any atheists who intentionally insult Christians and ridicule religion just to hurt other people.
"You are to be gang-raped along with your friends .... and the egoistic way out is to sacrifice your daughters, to aviod yourself being raped. Would many people do this in todays world? I am not justifying these actions. Would you fight to the death in spite of all odds and know in advance that they are to kill you?".
If I knew I was in the company of angels, I wouldn't sacrifice my daughters.
"1) Is this the appropriate mode to ask questions on Lot, when the scope of the story might not beon how Lot handled the situation;"
If it was just a "story" with a "scope", then I would agree with you. However, you claim that it actually happened.
"2) Why did you erroneausly assume that God does not see wrongdoing if Lot gives his daughters upto save face? Is this arrogance?"
I do not assume anything about God. Remember that I don't believe the story really happened. The onus is on you, if you believe it really happened, to explain why God did not rebuke Lot for offering his daughters for gang-rape.
Your latest comment proves once again that, since all non-Christians necessarily "reduce Christ to the status of, at best, an innovative revolutionary", and since this offends you, it logically follows that you find all non-Christians offensive.
The problem is not one of semantics. It is one of arrogance. It is arrogant to demand that all people believe Christ to be God when you yourself rely on faith alone, and can't support your belief with any evidence.
The difference between most atheists and a minority of Christians is that most atheists are not offended by people of different beliefs.
The problem seems to be one of semantics only because I am bending over backwards and "conceding" that I "downgrade" Christ, when in actual fact, until you prove otherwise, everyone is entitled to believe that Christ is not God. And if Christ is not God, to say so would not downgrade him. It would be to describe him as he actually was.
Of course, fundamentalists who believe they have the right to impose their beliefs without having any evidence to support their beliefs, would not understand.
On Levictus:
Continued
Your examples only work if there is a group of People who fear God and want to keep His Laws.
Apparently there are none of few of them. You are seeing the worst aspects of Gods Law.
The beauty of it is that since all people who wish to be in a Theocracy, would not be poor and there would not be need of any prisons either, as it is the poor who might want to steal to feed themselves.
Theocracy also provides true justice to all men, and not just playing the fools in our Courts. We have a history of judgments that shame all of us. A drug pusher flew back to Brazil, two judges facing charges, Il-Hafi was pardoned, and the list goes on.
On Levictus:
25:40 [But] as an hired servant, [and] as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, [and] shall serve thee unto The Year of Jubile:
25:41 And [then] shall he depart from thee, [both] he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
25:42 For they [are] My servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
25:43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
These were bondsmen or maids for hire. It happens today also you know!?
Do you know that employees are actually slaves from 9 to 5 earning thier keep? This is because we do not have land to support us and be free as it would be should we follow Gods law under a Theocracy. A Jubliee year (every 50 years) all possessions are then redistributed towards all people. Jubilee = isnot justa celebration.
On Exodus:
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
21:8 If she please not her master, who hath married her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Yes these things happened before.
Today in the UK there are child slaves onto evil people, and these are not upon Arabs but also upon politicians too.
Google David Icke and child prostitution and you would be amazed at what there is now. In the US there are people that kidnap 2 year old boys to sodomize and then kill them to some horrendous cluts, and you would be amazed who is behind them.
If you would reprimand all people in the bible, you would need the length of all the books of Congress in the US (the largest library in the world).
Back to Lot. As God knew in advance what is to happen, and that the angels knew that they had the power to smite the evil people, perhaps they wanted to see how Lot reacted perhaps?
It just shows much of human behaviour. Put the question to yourself: You are to be gang-raped along with your friends .... and the egoistic way out is to sacrifice your daughters, to aviod yourself being raped. Would many people do this in todays world? I am not justifying these actions. Would you fight to the death in spite of all odds and know in advance that they are to kill you?
Rather than answering your questions, I would answer you with more questions:
1) Is this the appropriate mode to ask questions on Lot, when the scope of the story might not beon how Lot handled the situation;
2) Why did you erroneausly assume that God does not see wrongdoing if Lot gives his daughters upto save face? Is this arrogance?
He justifies himself because, as far as non-Christians are concerned, downgrading Christ (whom Christians revere as the Messiah, the Holy One of God) to a mere revolutionary is actually "a huge compliment". No wonder that he fails to understand when and how he downgraded Christ!
His problem is one of semantics. What we Christians consider a jibe he, atheists and agnostics consider a "huge compliment!
1. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
2. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Gozitans, but not Italians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Italians?
3. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Ah, but you miss a very important point. How can one explain the fact that, repulsive though giving your own daughter for rape is (much worse than consensual homosexuality, even the worst gay-hater will admit), God (or the angels) did not find it important enough to rebuke Lot for it.
If the Bible is to be taken literally, there are two possible explanations:
1. God did not deem it (the rape of daughters) that important.
2. The giving of daughters for rape is not wrong at all.
In your interpretation (the literal one), God might have wanted to show to all men just how evil these Sodomites are, but apparently, showing that raping daughters is wrong was not that important. And lenght is no excuse. All it took was for one "angel" to say: "No, Lot, you should not give your daughter up for gang-rape!" See - it doesn't take much space.
However, if the Bible is not taken literally, the simple explanation is that one could not expect any better from a sexist writer in a very sexist age.
Why not take it literally? After all Lot is human as well, and in trying to save himself and the angels. He did wrong too, as he should have defended his daughters. If everything is to be explained the bible would be too long.
Nobody reads the bible these days (or very few) and with the correct interpretation.
It is just so that God wanted to show to all men just how evil these Sodomites are .
If it is true that I "radically watered down his original downgrading of Christ to the level of a plain and simple revolutionary", how did I originally downgrade Christ? Quotes and a reference link please.
You wrote: "This is similar to when angels came to Lot to bring his relatives out of Sodom (but they refused to do so), before it was destroyed. The people of Sodom wanted to go carnally with the angels, and for this they were struck blind. Imagine a society that goes on raping man and women, and this culture spreads the world over. Can this society be of human benefit?"
Oh, but you missed a part:
"Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof" - Genesis 19:8
I find it strange that Lot was not even rebuked for offering his daughters to be raped instead of the angels.
The story only makes sense if it is not taken literally, but is only seen as a product of its (sexist) age.
But of coarse i will not call him father for the exact reason that you mentioned brother ;)
I enjoyed your comments in connection with those ‘evil monsinjuri’ but it must be noted that a lot of people had high hopes when Archbishop Cremona was appointed and such hopes most probably now had vanished. Although I have full respect for the Archbishop, the Curia remained very conservative (Im sure more that the Vatican)
Archbishop Cremona did not mentioned earthquakes within the institution so he can be also excused to a certain extent, but please, let our church get more in touch with certain social problems while not mixing issues like divorce, abortion and euthanasia when there are large differences in each case.
The "love" aspect of Christ is much known, but not the "warrior" aspect. Christ came to bring a sword of truth between man and woman, and between man and children etc (infighting to know the real truth within). The main battle is to kill the ego mainly.
Now the warrior aspect is also that since Christ does exactly what God instructs him to do, this also implies executing people, should this be a need. This is similar to when angels came to Lot to bring his relatives out of Sodom (but they refused to do so), before it was destroyed. The people of Sodom wanted to go carnally with the angels, and for this they were struck blind. Imagine a society that goes on raping man and women, and this culture spreads the world over. Can this society be of human benefit?
Remember that good deeds vibrate throughout the Universe and on earth, and also bad deeds too. Christ was a true revolutionery, no question about that.
End of story.
Re: Star Trek - I meant Star Wars ;)
To be clear: My claim that I hold Christ to be a peaceful revolutionary who brought significant changes to the way of thinking of those around him (and all his later followers), is not a jibe at all. Coming from a non-Christian, it is actually a huge compliment. If you remove your prejudiced (about me) blinkers, you will understand.
Ok, so let me refresh your memory further:
On the 13th August I wrote:
"As for being offended if you mention Christ, I'm not at all offended. Irrespective of whether Christ is God or not, I admire him as a person who was quite revolutionary (in the positive sense) for his time".
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20080811/andrew-borg-cardona/religion-matters
Then, on the 14th August I wrote:
"I am honestly amazed that someone like you would be offended by an agnostic saying that he admires Jesus as having been a person who brought revolutionary positive changes that are still being felt today. If you want my opinion of Che Guevara, he was a deluded individual who believed that the ends justify the means. I do not admire him at all (much to your surprise, I presume) since he approved of violent means to achieve whatever ends".
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20080811/fr-joe-borg/this-is-not-the-way-to-debate-divorce
I have written earlier and elsewhere along these lines, but this would be sufficient.
So as you see, it is not only now that I have softened my "jibe" to "non violent" revolutionary".
These days anything goes, and priest Borg now tries to tone it down to the next blog on humour. Humour is needed, true in this world. Some matters of truth, is too hard on most people.
On the subject of secularization, what is the Vatican doing now? It is trying to put a halt to it, that is no more human rights within the EU which are actually Gods wrongs.
In Genesis, we have the words to man to woman: "Thou shalt rule over thee." Now with the woman liberation, not only the woman are trying to show themselves the same as men, but superior. The courts give custody to women over man, when by DIVINE right they are the fathers! Next it would be illegal to be a true man!
It`s Just as bad as denying that the Vatican and the Roman Catholic church is not mentioned in the Revelation ! as the Woman Riding The Beast !
My way, the way of Christ, is not obscure at all. Just read the bible. The best published one is the King James version, and the best one available is the unpublished King of Kings version.
You see the way of Christ is not a religion, it is a practised one. We can see that even the priests do not agree on the bible text and even think it is dangerous to think it literally as well. Only the prophecies are in bible code and purposely so it would carry its real meaning today, when the codes are cracked so that the church and politicians would not disband or even abolish the bible. In Canada, it is considered anti-semitic to quote the bible, this is where we are going to.
As for juries, the establishment fear true reason from normal men who can reason normally. Justice only can stem from freemen, and not by the myriad of laws by man. In Australia the banks slyly rip people off, skiming more interest even if not on contract and the judges rule in favour of thier corporate bosses. FAIR?
I am not promoting any religion, and neither am I religious. Am I spiritual, which is in contrast to religious, which is simply a sort of political way seen by rabbis/priests or imans. Star Trek? Never mentioned it!
I just seek the Way of Christ, the real Christ, that is all. The Way is hard, I know. Theocracy gives wealth and freedom to all people, and justice does not give power to the rich and downtrods the poor as our courts do today.
I am sure that most people do not want Theocracy and even the poor might not want it! The poor vote themselves into subject poverty, and the politicians sing the tune. The irony of it all, is that the church is playing the tune with the politicians. It is similar to Jesus Christ who was cruxified by the rabbis and in collaboration with the politicians (then the Roman governer Pilatus).
Should Christ be amongst us, he will surly be put to death once again, for showing again the truth to all. And who will do so? ... Hmmm, I have a good idea.
One question: Are you a Muslim? I ask because sometimes you give that impression, while other times, by promoting this "Jah" Star-Trek business, you give the impression of being a member of an obscure new religion.
What is the Church doing regarding the absence of the mention of God in the constitution? Ask the Church, not me. However, if the Church is doing nothing about this (and I'm not saying this is necessarily true), the reason might be that it has more important things to do, or perhaps because it knows in its heart that not all Europeans are religious.
Regarding your comment on juries, and your claim that all human laws are illegal to God's word - what can I say? May we be spared from such a theocracy you seem to promote!
The scheme of things: Buddists and Hindus.
These follow a different path than the Way (the bible PLUS Koran). I do not mean the Talmud or the Hadith, and these are the works of Satan, so beware. These reduce the Holy Scriptures to nothing. Example the Talmud speaks very badly of Christ. See http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html for more.
God intended that the people of Isreal (nothing to do with the state of Isreal, as the tribe of Jews is just one of 12 tribes of Isreal), would encourage the neighbouring countries to behave like them, if God would bless them and follow the "Way" - the bible and Christ's way.
Thus then non-believers would be interested in the Way and be metaphorically be grafted into Israel, in spirit, and be saved. For a fuller explanation of God's master plan for the whole of human-kind, not just for believers of the bible, kindly read http://jahtruth.net/mastplan.htm
Your life would thereafter gain new meaning, and I pray that you would open your spiritual eyes. Amen.
If you reject the bible as Gods word, than simply you do not follow Christ.
@ Kenneth Cassar
You are right in that their is no mention of either God or Christ in the CON-stitution. What is the church doing, and why is the Vatican so in favour of the EU being a whole institution? Judge a person/institution by its works and NOT by its words.
Why is the church not seriously fighting for placing God above all and over us, why? One has to declare to your spiritual self in favour of God or not, are we? If so, how do religious persons translate this in deeds towards a EU Constitution (now treaty)? Result, so far NOTHING.
On Juries. If you are innocent, and show the jury that all human laws are illegal to Gods word, ONLY then real justice works!
@Fr Borg.
Please view the prophecy through Ezekiel. This was fulfilled and the rabbis abolished, except for Jesus the Rabboni, two thousand years ago, by Jesus and he confirmed it in Matthew 23 when he told everyone, including the 12 Disciples, that they must not be a priest because Christ from then on is the only priest recognised by God.
Matthew 23:8 But be NOT ye called rabbi; priest; imam (etc.): for ONE is your Teacher, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
You need not have any science to interpret the bible (although it does confirm the holy scriptures) , but you need the power of the Holy Spirit upon you.
I am very weary of the blind (priests) leading the blind. The New Testamend is FULL of connotations that political and rabbi-priest classes should be abolished.
Now you stated that the bible is not to be taken literally!
Continued
Let me refresh your memory. You said elsewhere that you are personally offended when people like me "downgrade Christ". This was after I wrote that I consider Jesus to be a revolutionary, and also pointed out that I mean revolutionary in a non-violent and positive sense. I pointed out to you that anyone who is not a Christian necessarily "downgrades" Christ, and this would effectively mean that you would feel offended by anyone who is not Christian, be he Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, agnostic, atheist etc.
I did not twist your written comments.
That said, I appreciate that your comment below was not addressed to me. However, you still have not commented about how you came to the conclusion that there is an "anti-Christian consortium" here, or how anyone can monopololise blogs.
You are quite right in that I did not address to anyone in particular certainly not to Kenneth Cassar whom I have already informed that I will not reply to any of his comments addressed to me for a stated reason namely that he has a habit of twisting my written comment and then criticism his version of what I am supposed to have written.
I never said that I felt offended that anyone should chose to declare himself an agnostic, an atheist or an adherent of any religion. What I do not accept is that just because someone chooses to be an atheist or an agnostic that entitles him to be disrespectful towards the God of Christianity.
I think you have misunderstood me. All I wanted to know is whether, for instance, you believe that God truly ordered some of the killings mentioned in the old testament. I think its a fair and valid question. If the answer is no, then at least some of the stories in the old testament are really myths. We already know that they were written years after the "events".
Regarding Dr Saliba, I hope you're right since I do not hold personal grudges against anyone, and I would like to believe that neither does he. However, he does have a tendency to feel offended when someone simply says he is atheist or agnostic - he actually said this elsewhere.
Sorry if I was not clear. I was referring to the principle you were talking about and not to youself personally as an apologetic. I don't intend to go into a discussion on the bible either, its way beyond my competence, and interest also to be honest. I was just commenting on what you said and making some connections.
I do not think that Francis Saliba was referring to you.
First off, sorry about Liverpool :/
Secondly, I am not a Biblical scholar either, nor am I no apologetic. Further reading is necessary and argumentation is necessary but as I said to Kenneth, I am done with this topic, at least for now, And no, I am not shirking from a good tussle. But Biblical studies is so much more than writing a few posts. It's a whole field that should not be taken piecemeal. One approach of studying the Bible is called a 'canonical reading', meaning one passage, seeing where it fits in the chapter, then in the particular book, then in the particular section like for example the Pentateuch...then you see where it fits in the Old Testament and then where it resonates in the New Testament. I tried to give a very limited snapshot of what Kenneth asked... it was shot down, of course.
I can of course interpret your piece on courage, humility, intimate testimony and solidarity as an attempt at universality and inclusion at last within the Catholic sense. I am sure that you can entertain to an extent, Archbishop Cremona’s comment regarding recent political history and the role of the clergy within it. This may have been rather short on inclusive universality. You may contest this of course. Free will is what we all respect.
An interpretation is an interpretation, no matter what one calls it. Personally I am relieved that Fr Joe does not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, but at the most, inspired.
You will also notice that there is no "anti-Christian" consortium here, and the claim that anyone "monopolises" blogs is absurd when you realise that anyone can post.
You will also perhaps notice that Fr Joe's posts seem to suggest that the worst posts came from people who believe they hold a different version of Christianity, and not from agnostics or atheists. After all, it was Fr Joe himself who said (in my regards): "@ Kenneth Cassar. I do not think that what you write is an attack on Catholicism. I think you comments are very valid to facilitate debates" ( http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20080907/fr-joe-borg/if-god-said-so ).
Please do not put words in my mouth. Since you are a great reader, I suggest that you follow up what I've said with some further reading. I have suggested books for this purpose. There is more to say but at this stage, I will leave it up to you to discover. That's what friends do... encourage you to find out things for yourself. However, you must approach such a subject with an open mind, meaning try to leave your prejudices at the door and then what does not apply let it fly. I am done, for now, with my 'lessons'
That the Teleological Exegetical Principle as I understood it from your explanation is not without problems must be the understatement of the year!Now I am no bible scholar but it sounds to me like a very clever manipulation, talk about apologetics! So its like "let me slaughter women and smash infants against rocks to show that this is really not going to work...and to teach them a lesson?" Or am I missing something here?
An interesting parallel is with psychoanalysis..there is a theory that the idea of God is no more than a projection of a father figure. Combine this with the fact that child physical abuse is often done withe the ostensible aim of being good for the child...so that they learn...see where I'm heading?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have to make this clear to understand what you are saying. Would it be true (as I think) that the events in the old testament that you describe are nothing but myths then? If it is, then your explanation would make sense. If not, there still would be the problem of God victimising innocents to teach a lesson.
_______________________________
@ Fr Borg:
Though it would not be my definition of holy (by which I mean pure in thought and action), I understand that since you believe that it is the inspired word of God you would want to call it so.
Thanks for the explanation, although this still leaves the question of what makes you so sure it is inspired (by God) at all (faith would not be a satisfactory answer to me, since all believers of any religions have faith in different and sometimes opposite things). As for exegesis, I would not call it a science, since by defenition, it involves interpretation.
I hope that it will persuade the anti-Christian consortium that has a tendency to monopolise this (and other) blogs to indulge instead in some serious biblical exegesis before inflicting their often outrageous personal interpretations on the long-suffering readers of this blog.
I'm not pretending this explanation is without problems or is adequate in and of itself. We must not make a distinction between the God of the OT and the NT. The entire Bible from beginning to end never deviates from this standard of justice. Jesus is crystal clear about the punishment of evildoers: "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41). The God of the New Testament is the changeless God of the ages. Besides, we must keep in mind what I said in another post: Man’s perception of God changed across time. They wanted him to be the violent God out of nationalistic pride and depicted him as such to make their enemies quake in their boots (sandals). Remember, that Israel was sandwiched between to major superpowers and was very proud that he chose a small insignificant country and never lost an opportunity to rub it in,
Pardon me for the length of my post, but your question is very relevant and to give you a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer would not have sufficed.
If you're angered when you read about Yahweh commanding the slaughter of women and children or David celebrating infants being smashed against rocks, it's because being angered by this sort of barbarism is the point. Only if you see how grotesque and futile this nationalistic violence is will you be able to fully devote yourself to a non-nationalistic and anti-violent Kingdom. If Craigie is right, God was reluctantly condescending to violent mindset of the world and playing the part of a tribal warrior god in order to ultimately show us that he's not at all like this. Or, if you will, God entered our violence filled Matrix (recall the movie) and played along with its violent rules, but he did this in order to wake us up to our bondage to this ugly, illusory Matrix. Once freed, we were empowered to see who God really is and who we really are. Christ is the "reality" to which all Matrix "shadows" point. In Christ we see that God is a God who would rather give his life for enemies than kill them. And in Christ we see that all people, including enemies, are worth God giving his life for.
The God of the OT was proving to Israel that his Kingdom can never be brought about by nationalism and violence. This negative lesson laid the groundwork for the coming of the anti-nationalistic, anti-violent Kingdom, inaugurated through Jesus. And this leads to yet another application of the Teleological Exegetical Principle. Jesus’ death -- which was brought about because Jesus refused to choose nationalism or to resort to any violence -- initially looked like a failure but ended up in victory. Jesus' sacrificial death defeated the Powers, set captives free, reconciled us to God and established the Kingdom of God on earth. Given that Jesus’ death ended in victory, the Teleological Exegetical Principle would lead us to presume that this was the point of Jesus refusing nationalism and violence. He was proving to us that God's Kingdom can only be brought about by refusing nationalism and violence as we rather choose to love and sacrifice for our enemies, even to the point of death. So, if the God who sanctioned genocide in the Old Testament looks antithetical to the God who died for his enemies on Calvary, this is because it's supposed to!
@ Kenneth
There is a principle in Biblical studies called the Teleological Exegetical Principle. Basically, this principle stipulates that we should always read the beginning of any divine programme from its end (telos).
Let's first apply this principle to the law of the OT. Here the law initially looked like it was given to make us righteous before God, but it failed (as Paul frequently notes). Given that it ended in failure, the Teleological Exegetical Principle would lead us (along with Paul) to presume that this was the point of God giving the law all along. He was proving to us that we could never be made righteous before God by striving to obey the law alone.
In The Problem of War in the Old Testament Peter Craigie applies this principle to nationalism and violence (they are indivisible) in the Old Testament. Divinely sanctioned nationalistic violence initially looked like it could establish the Kingdom of God, but it failed. The nation of Israel tried to live by the sword. Given that nationalistic violence ended in failure, the Teleological Exegetical Principle would lead us to presume that this was the point of God ‘using’ nationalistic violence all along.
Would you agree that many or some parts of the Bible had a political agenda and their message would actually go contrary to the will of a just, loving, omnipotent and all-knowing God?
With all due respect, if the Bible is not the literal word of God (and I agree with you here), why do you call it holy? I think a definition of "holy" is necessary here.
Also, since we are all expected to base our morality on the Bible, is it not reasonable for one to "search for the hair in the pasta" (in some instances it is not just a hair but a whole toupee) to deduce whether the Bible should have as much authority over our lives as most Christians claim it does?
And if the Bible is not the literal word of God, and much of its text is the product of the literary genre of its time (and I agree with you here), does this not mean that we have to use an independent standard to judge the relevance of each text? And if so, does this not show that morality is independent of any claims of religious texts?
(For those who are interested about the literary genres in the Bible, I recommend again The Bible As Literature' by John Gabel and 'The Bible' by Karen Armstrong.
Most of the comments also reveal a lack of knowledge of the literary genres at that time. Without knowledge of such genres one cannot understand a text whether it is a holy book, an ordinary book, a TV programme, a film etc.
continued
"So far in Malta if you do a criminal act, you are tried by jury, but if you have a lessor offence, you are NOT allowed a jury. Ironic right?".
Here's something that might surprise you. If I am ever accused of a serious crime, if I'm guilty I would wish for a jury. If I'm innocent, I would not.
I don't trust juries.
how do Buddhists and Hindus fit into your scheme of things?
I was not referring to "God's treatment of Jews". I was speaking of several incidences where God supposedly ordered Jews to murder the people of neighbouring countries just to take their land, sparing no one, and killing men, women and children and sparing only virgin women to keep as slaves and prostitutes.
"It is still the same God, unless you completely reject the whole OT as the "word of God".
Indeed God did deal with the Jews the hard way for not accepting him, but they also saw miracles massive once too and still did not believe, even when He chose Moses to lead them out of the bondage they still did not believe. At the present all we have is Faith and the NT to lead us ;) .. I will not reject it as the word of God, that is why i said we look back at the OT so we learn from it, we were given His Son that brought along with Him The NT that is our future.
And i agree with you regarding "The EU does not want to remove God from the constitution. "He" was never there to begin with. indeed God does not want any part of it for sure! IN FACT the EU is mentioned in the Revelation...
"Yes you are right if you look at it that way but that is the OT when we were still under the LAW, back then it was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Now we live under the New Testament".
It is still the same God, unless you completely reject the whole OT as the "word of God".
Regarding the EU constitution, you got it backwards. God was never mentioned in the EU constitution, and it is the religious who insist that "He" should be included.
The EU does not want to remove God from the constitution. "He" was never there to begin with.
Is secularism good, bad or neutral? It always depends on one's definition of "secularism". By my definition, it would definitely be a very good thing. But if it includes coercion, it could be a very bad thing.
One example of a secularism gone horribly wrong is Stalinism. But it went horribly wrong only because it was totalitarian, and totalitarianism can be both secular and religious.
And since our country is an advanced democracy, there is no reason to believe that more secularism (in the non-coercive sense) would be harmful. In a pluralistic society, more secularism (which means the non-imposition of faith-based laws together with the freedom of worship or unbelief) would actually do good, particularly more so since many of the moral claims of the Catholic faith can be derived from secular non-faith based reason and philosophy.
Of course, this could also mean that some of the requirements of Catholic faith (like the opposition to divorce) would be left to the consciences and free-will of the individual, which is not to say that the Catholic authorities would not have the right to teach to the faithful that "divorce is an evil".
I don't think that anything in today's world is good or bad in itself. Organised religion for example has given comfort and solace to millions and caused unimaginable pain to just as many. Similarly secularism can be liberating or used as an excuse for all sorts of crazy behaviour.
I also don't think that the argument that a philosophy or religion can be right in principle but distorted by human agency holds true. How else are we to judge something if not in its actual manifestation?
We live in an age of moral ambiguity which is why we need to keep ourselves well informed of the various issues, especially in a time like this locally where the liberal voice is starting to be heard after decades if not centuries of conservatism and polarised ideas of right and wrong.
That said I think the Dalai Lama got it right when he said that he would rather live in a world of good Christians then bad Buddhists.
Should we abide by Gods laws or human ones? If we act on Gods laws, that is anti-secular right? So why does the archbishop promote this, if it is written in the bible, at LEAST this ALL important facet of society, true justice. Thus juries not only execute judgment, but also issues the level of punishment too! Such is the power of real free men!
Now the EU laws perverse these laws by more human laws, and lo and behold, less justice because soon even juries for criminal offences are to be abolished. Understand just how Machevellican these politicians are? If bishops do not promote freedoms to the people at least by the bible, which whom they are SUPPOSED to believe in, then they are PART of the PROBLEM!
So far in Malta if you do a criminal act, you are tried by jury, but if you have a lessor offence, you are NOT allowed a jury. Ironic right? For a bad offence you get a jury, and for a minor offense, the laws are stacked in favour of the corporations/businesses. Any comments?
What has happened to us? The Magna Carta then explains that to be freemen we should adopt trial by juries as our main judicial format. No exceptions. Do not let politicians/judges tell you that it is too expensive! Justice carries no price.
Men thinks he is better than Gods word. Deutronomy states: Thou shall not add upon the word of God and not detract from it.
How right He is. Some examples on the Times. i) A Gozitian woman taking a manufacturer of wood to tribunal court. The advocate is the lawyer of the defendant, therefore cannot be the arbitrator in this case, and case is stalled. ii) A couple had thier house severely damaged in Fgura due to a person working with fireworks in his garage.
What did the Maltese courts do? Nothing much. We have lots of laws and NO justice. When will we learn this important concept of true freedom? The jury has the ULTIMATE POWER TO ABOLISH Parliament laws! Continued...
Yes you are right if you look at it that way but that is the OT when we were still under the LAW, back then it was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Now we live under the New Testament which you will find nothing of the sort there, remember when Peter cut the ear of that soldier ? and Jesus fixed it back and said to Peter " He who shalt live by the sword shalt die by the sword" ... are you with me ? we shall only look to the past to learn from it of the O.T. Now if one wish to stay under the Law of the OT one will not be saved. So the light of salvation is coming from the New Testament. Jesus Christ ;) Amen GOD gave us a Massive Present His Son Jesus Christ with Grace that we must accept, all we have to do is accept it, accept Jesus Christ in your heart and believe in Him that he is God`s Son and that he died for us to save us by the shedding of His blood what a marvelous Gift
The Vatican is working FOR the EU, to harmonize political states and also religion too. That is why there are organizations for world churches etc.
So on one hand we have the religious state seperation and on the other religious harmonization (or rather manipulation).
Only Christ can truly get together the real Jews, Christians and Muslimes, because the Koran actually tells muslims to read the "books" meaning the OT and NT. These three religions all have the Old Testament, at least as thier base, but the other religions are simply not compatable with the above three Holy books.
So what shall our moral compass go? Is it the church, what politicians tell us, or the Holy Scriptures? I chose the Holy Scriptures for many reasons.
Now I will turn my attention to the matter of justice, because no true democracy is truly such an institution without it. Theocracy offers Gods Royal laws of freedom, and this I will explain later on. Continued...
Secularism is commonly defined as the idea that religion should not interfere with or be integrated into the public affairs of a society. It is often associated with the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, and plays a major role in Western society.
The archbishop stated that we should not let secularism grow, and presumably, this means the drift between the state and the church. To what aspects of our life should be governed, by the state, the church, or now the EU?
The so called EU CON-stitution, because it CONs the people into accepting a piece of paper to REDUCE your liberties, not enhance it. They want to remove God, and Christian heritage off the agenda. Our government, pseudo DEMON-christian (pun intended), gladly signed it. The French and Dutch smelled a rat, and referendumed out of it. Then the politicians pulled up by the big Corporate bosses by the New World Order, could not stand this, and tried to go the back-door by the treaty instead. The Irish, thank God, voted with the EU people who has NO voice. Continued.
(Kenneth & Maltcolm-yes, i agree with you again. When i wrote my comment yesterday I hesitated about including *fun* but i was dead tired, which is no good an excuse i know.
"Thats why i/we as Christians followers of Christ and not followers of religion or any popes never killed anyone, cause we do not listen to the wisdom of men BUT we rather listen to what God has to say through The Holy Bible ALONE".
But you have to be careful here. Some parts in the Bible do expressly justify murder (as well as slavery, genocide, and infanticide). You probably happen to be one of the majority who "listens to" the good parts of what "God has to say" in the Bible, and ignore, reject, or try hard to interpret away the expressly evil parts.
NO I Am Not Religious at ALL PERIOD !
BUT I am Spiritual in good relation with the Lord
The Lord is NOT a Religion BUT He is a SPIRIT !
You should try it sometime leave aside all Religions
and get SPIRITUAL ;)
Thats why i/we as Christians followers of Christ and not followers of religion or any popes never killed anyone, cause we do not listen to the wisdom of men BUT we rather listen to what God has to say through The Holy Bible ALONE listen to Jesus Christ alone and you are on the right path all the way through and live in the Joy of the Lord Hallelujah ;)
It took me 40 years to find the Truth and Happiness and there is nothing and i MEAN NOTHING that i did not do in my life to find happiness !
Read The Bible cause the TRUTH is in Jesus Christ not in MEN !
Amen
"(Promiscuity) is having sex for fun and without any responsibility. It is an aspect of a hedonistic lifestyle where values such as love, responsibility and respect for others are absent. I thought that's the only meaning of the word!"
Having sex just for fun need not be without any responsibility. Two consenting adults may decide to have sex just for fun and still respect each other, provided they are ready to face any consequences (like a possible pregnancy). I'm assuming that the "sex just for fun" you mention is "one-night-stands", and not sex between mutually committed individuals (not necessarily married) who choose to have sex with no intention of having children.
Of course, there are possibly lots of good arguments against serial sex just for fun (I'm not a fan of uncommitted serial sex myself - otherwise I wouldn't have married). The possibility of offspring without a stable family could be one.
Regarding whether I am a teacher, I am not (in the traditional sense of the word), although I am addicted to reading non-fiction (science, history, world religions, philosophy, current affairs, etc). And in a way, aren't we all teachers and students of each other?
And no I am not a teacher :-)
This sure is one kind of knowledge that should make us hopeful and reassured.
It is therefore a shame that literalist religions poison the minds of extremists, making them reject their true nature (and kill people) in the belief that "God wills them to do so".
I think the monsinjuri konservattivi got him.
You asked me what i understood by promiscuity and said "It seems to me its quite a value laden term dependent more on people's attitudes towards sex rather than any actual standard."
Standard? I don't know what you mean - that's why i took so long to answer
.
@Kenneth, i almost agree with you.
For me, promiscuity is when a person has casual sex with many others without allowing emotions or commitment to them. It's having sex for fun and without any responsibility. It is an aspect of a hedonistic lifestyle where values such as love, responsibility and respect for others are absent. I thought that's the only meaning of the word !
Promiscuity is seen as cool and fun but i see it as a void in a person's heart - eventually it becomes an addiction.
A ssmall question to you both: are you teachers? just asking.
Why would a universal priest, called upon to be an expert in humanity find it extraordinary that A. Sant has more than enough emotional literacy to share his trials and tribulations with those who care to read about them? What was more surprising, that functionalist pigeonholing proved scientifically unreliable in predicting his emotional behaviour this time round?.
I think that it was Bertrand Russelll who said that the point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. This said however, the pursuit of knowledge is always, for want of a better word, fun. Yes it is fun, wherever it can be found. Even in my fellow posters. And it is also a lot of fun to observe philosophers extricating themselves from the knots they've put themselves in.
@ Kenneth Cassar
Some banter never hurt anybody. It's the stridence of some that spoils it somewhat. Ah, never underestimate Fr Joe's vigilance on his blog...I betcha he is following what's happening with a beady eye....just like God...hehehehe
Actually Fr Borg hasn't commented about anything yet, not just about football. Maybe he's busy on other stuff, or maybe he's preparing something.
Just a small note: I am purposedly trying to limit any criticism of the Bible to only replies to other people's comments or questions. I feel that this is neither the proper forum to debate Atheism/Agnositicism vs Religion (or other religions vs Catholicism), nor would it be proper to change the topic of someone else's (Fr Joe's) blog except perhaps for some friendly chat (though we musn't overdo it).
@ Victoria: my point is that philosophy can never prove or disprove the existence of god. The last step in so called philosophical arguments for the existence of god is always a leap. Philosophers are in fact hard pressed to prove that even they exist :-) but they do come up with some interesting stuff on the way to intellectual meltdown!
with all this talk of football...I think we are taking custom away from Jes on sport.. Maybe that's why Fr Joe hasn't said anything about Utd....LOL
@ A Lombardi
You are welcome to your views. However, since I am not running for anything, like VP Sarah Palin, my kind of Christianity should not be an issue to you. Express your views regardless.
So you are a Liverpool supporter. As I said, Liverpool made my day when they beat Inter at Anfield last February. And if they do not have the best team, they definitely have the best support. I experienced it first-hand in the Kop in the Liverpool vs Inter game (2:0).
Regarding promiscuity, yes, a definition would be needed.
My definition of promiscuity is engaging in sex without concern for any consequences. Premarital sex, polygamy or serial sex (with different partners) is not necessarily promiscuous in my understanding of the term (although of course one could bring other valid arguments against the practices).
Of course, M Muscat's definition could be very different, so yes, yours is a very valid question.
Part Two
To these Islamic philosophers, God was not a mystery, he was reason itself. This is not to suggest even for a moment that the concept of a fully rational universe that dominated Greek thought was compatible with the thought of the Muslims. The Faylasufs simply considered that natural law was a manifestation of Allah. This interest towards Greek philosophy, however, did not mean that the Muslims had wholly embraced the Greek and western idea of a rational universe. Nor were the Faylasuf's attempting to tailor a natural theology. To them, the universe was created by Allah out of nothing. Thus Allah is beyond rationality. They were not searching for a reasoned explanation of the world. They were searching for a reasoned explanation of the truth of the Koran. This explains somewhat the short career of the Falsafah in the Muslim world. There is so much more to say about the Islamic philosophers but I do not want to saturate the blog with my posts.
Part One
Enjoy Liverpool’s resurgence =)
In a nutshell, when the Arabs discovered Greek science and philosophy in the 9th c, a new breed of Muslim was born dedicated to an ideal they called the Falsafah. The aim of the Fayllasufs (philosophers) was to live rationally according to the laws that governed the universe. Since they believed the god of the Greek philosophers to be identical with Allah, they focused their attention first to Greek science and then to Greek philosophy. Karen Armstrong (The History of God) says that they concluded that rationalism represented the most advanced form of religion, and that it had evolved a higher notion of God than what was revealed in the scriptures. However, they did not want to do away with religion but to purge it. This took guts to believe that the cosmos, where pain seemed more in evidence than a purposeful order, was really ruled by the principle of reason.
The R.C.C pretends that has the power to bring Jesus Christ that is sitting to the right of the Lord each time to sacrifice him in the Holy wafer for our sins over and over again. while Jesus Christ in the Bible tells us that the sacrifice was done once and for all by shedding of His blood and also states that without blood there is no sacrifice, the R.C.C REMOVED the 2nd commandment and replaced with the 3rd split the 9th Commandment into 2 so they become 10. The 2nd Comm. of the R.C.C. is "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name." The 2nd Comm.in the Bible is "Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..." Which is clearly that the RCC removed it simply cause her self is polluted with Idolatry !!!!! Exodus 20:4
So He tell us to check every teaching along with the scriptures so yea shalt not be deceived
Cont........
Well, from what I am reading speaks clearly that you are a Roman Catholic,, sorry no offense but i do not find any creditability in any of the doctrine that catholics had and thought onto them from an early age, mind you i was fed the same doctrine too, some which is from the Bible and some invented from the popes which is false prophecies, the Bible states clearly in Rev.22:18 19 not add or subtract any from the word in the same book. The R.C.C tell us that we should be baptised by birth, the Bible tells us that we should repent and accept Jesus Christ as our only savior, the R.C.C. tells us that Mary mother of Jesus is our mediator, The Bible tells us that the ONLY mediator between men and God is Jesus Christ ALONE, the R.C.C tells us that our salvation is through our good works and deeds and by attending Mass on Sunday, the bible tells us that our only salvation is true Jesus Christ ALONE .......
Cont........
Eastern philosophy often speaks of endless cycles of creation and destruction with no discernible first cause entering the picture. While these discussions are fascinating my own personal position is that I prefer to focus on where I am and where I am going.
@ Kenneth and Victoria:
Liverpool for me :-)
@ M. Muscat and Kenneth: you've both used the word "promiscuity". Would you be so kind as to define this word? Reason I am asking is that I have yet to hear two people giving it the same meaning so I am curious. It seems to me its quite a value laden term dependent more on people's attitudes towards sex rather than any actual standard.
I thank you for your post, and wish to make some comments on them. You write:
Anselm held that philosophy and theology do not contradict each other and can reach the same conclusions.
Philosphy is like saying politics, there is no definate stand on anything, except that politics is a power generated means of party-power and philosophy is just a Philo=line of thought.
Theology shoots one specific arrow, and shows us the WAY of how we have to be, the way of Christ. Philosophy shoots many arrows at random, and I cannot see how philosophy and theology can be reconciled. If by theology one means any religion, than that is more than one arrow, against other many arrows. Anselm simply shoots the arrows in the air.
2) JPII warns though, that the Church does not have an official philosophy.
If philosophy is therefore a way forward, one kind of mission, is one thing, but if not, it seems to shoot many arrows nowhere.
No wonder that the Church has lost its way, the Way of Christ, because it has no philosophy, does not believe in both the Old Testament and the New, and does not practice them!
The third State of Philosophy according to Fides et Ratio, is how philosophy functions within theology. Here JPII states that revelation goes beyond reason – it contains many truths that philosophy cannot discover unaided. There are strict mysteries that are not conundrums since revelation comes from the divine logos ‘creative reason’, it is inherently intelligible. With the help of philosophy, FR goes on to state, the theologian can achieve a limited but fruitful understanding of such mysteries. For example Speculative Theology makes use of philosophy in its reflection on, for example, guilt and atonement that are at the heart of moral theology. An important statement that FR makes is that Philosophy is not the Ancilla Theologiae (the handmaiden of theology) – that philosophy is not servile to theology but means that philosophy, while holding fast to its own principles, can be fruitfully used within theology.
Anselm held that philosophy and theology do not contradict each other and can reach the same conclusions. JP II echoes Anselm when he writes: The intellect must seek what he loves, the more it loves, the more it seeks to know. The Second State is Philosophy positively influenced by Faith… the main exponent of this state is Aquinas. He did not confuse the two disciplines but recognized important differences between them. He observed two distinct methods to come to humanity’s knowledge of God: 1) Phil begins with empirical evidence and reasons upwards to more general ideas, until as in Aristotle’s case, the mind fastens upon the First Cause of being 2) Theology starts with the Word of God given in history and accepted in faith. Faith throws new light on everything (Gaudium et Spes, 11) Christian revelation can make a valid contribution to philosophy (Locke, Leibniz and Malabranche for example, would be unintelligible without their Christian faith). JPII warns though, that the Church does not have an official philosophy, unlike Thomism a century ago.This interplay of faith and reason is also prominent in the three great Islamic philosophers Al Farabi, Avicenna and Averroes.
In a previous post I mentioned the John Paul II’s Encyclical Fides et Ratio (1998) that deals with the interplay of faith and reason. The debate is not new, by all means, for it has been active since the Pre-Socratics freed man from the tyranny of myth in the 6th century BC. It raged in the Middle Ages and in the beginning of the 20th century, especially in France (where else?) between Emile Brehier (a staunch secularist) and Etienne Gilson (a Christian philosopher). It has been reignited by the present Pope especially in his addresses at Regensburg and the scuppered visit at La Sapienza.
Fides et Ratio can be neatly divided in 3 sections which JPII calls the Three States of Philosophy. The First State is the state prior to faith. – there can be an authentic philosophy outside of faith by arguing rigorously from rational criteria to attain conclusion that are true and certain. The most celebrated Descartes and his Method of Doubt. Anselm of Canterbury spent most of his professional life absorbed in finding a rational support for his religious beliefs. In fact, his battlecry ‘Faith seeking understanding’ still reverberates through the centuries.
Of course, I didn't say you denigrate Liverpool. I just stretched your respect for your wife because she supports Liverpool to other more fundamental choices....LOL Liverpool were my heroes too when they came from behind to beat Milan in the Champions Final some years ago... Ah bliss...
The 'kind' of Christian I am is there for all to see. No further explanations necessary.
Ok, so to continue in the spirit of my newfound virtual friendship with Victoria Grech, and to use soccer as an analogy, your question to Ms Grech would not be different from the following question asked to a soccer player:
Are you a player who obeys authority from the coach, or a player who obeys authroity from the club owner?
You will at once realize that both authorities are not necessarily exclusive, and that the authority of the coach depends on the authority of the club owner, provided that the coach himself follows any orders from the club owner.
Of course, a non-Catholic would say that the Pope has no such authority, but that is a different question. It is not impossible to trust in the authority of one, while believing in a higher authority.
As for the "Holiness" of the Pope, yes, that title is a bit too bombastic considering that, first of all, several Popes in the past were anything but holy, and that if one believes in holiness (and God) at all, it is only God who would know who is holy or not.
Would you kindly state clearly what kind of Christian are you?
a Roman Catholic Christian who your Holy Father is the pope ?
, or a follower of Christ Christian who the Holy Father is the Lord above?
Thanks
Of course I don't denigrate Liverpool. Actually, they became my heroes when they beat Inter at Anfield last February. I was actually there, at the Kop end (of all places) with my wife!
And I can certainly relate to your last sentence. My life's motto is to live my life causing least harm (to both humans and other animals) and as much good as possible.
,@ Kenneth Cassar
Of course I enjoyed del Piero's goal! Mitico del Piero can be enjoyed on so many levels... his game tactics of course! *sigh* But I am sure Fr Joe is not relishing us contaminating his blog with this talk of Italian footie...If I recall correctly, somewhere else he wrote that he is a Utd supporter so we must respect him especially since Utd were held by Villareal yesterday :D Better luck next time, eh Fr Joe?
With regards to my comment that I am a Christian, I only wanted to point out to you that our approaches are different but I give value where value is due and respect any views that are not like mine (and follow them up when such views stretch my imagination)...just as you respect your wife's support of Liverpool =) I am sure you can never denigrate a good team like Liverpool just because you swear loyalty to another team (especially since they beat Utd 2-1 last Sunday...[sorry Father to rub it in. Forgive me…hehe]). Similarly, I cannot look down upon views that do not match mine completely...as long as they respect the universal fundamental dignity of man, of whatever persuasion.
So you're a Juve supporter as well! I guess you must have enjoyed Del Piero's magnificent goal as much as I did then.
My wife is actually a Liverpool supporter...which might give you some idea of how much I love her. If it weren't for genuine love, would a Juve supporter marry a Liverpool one? ;)
By successfully convincing me of all this, they unintentionally made it clear that morality, while possibly supported by religion, can be (and actually is) independent of it. In some cases, unfortunately, morality might be directly opposed to the practices of some religions.
So yes, let the religious campaign for moral action as they understand it, but, as Fr Borg explained in the previous blog article, let them do it in a rational and non-religious way if they expect to have any influence on a growing secularist society of which I form part.
Its good that religion deals on mundane matters such as drug abuse, drunkenness, promiscuity, and I would add the latest scourge - gambling - on which I believe not enough attention is being put. However, for religious opinion to be valid in such issues, it must conform to reason. To give one example, female genital mutilation is performed by thousands in the belief that it is demanded by God. It is only by the use of logical and reasoned argument that this practice can be opposed. The same applies to all the other matters mentioned (drug abuse, etc).
As if to support my above claim, I am very thankful to Savio College (the school I attended), since it educated me on the dangers of drug abuse, the wrongness of racism and all other prejudices, and other "Christian" values, not by simply claiming that God opposes the practices, but by explaining rationally why they are wrong in practice.
Cont...
You did get that I am Christian, right? :) So Revelation is sort of part of the equation for me. But I respect your views nonetheless.
As for Juve...that's where we agree 100%...so our friendship is sealed.
Anyway...off to go watch Juve now ;)
However, I think the Archbishop’s general understanding of the word secularism is the pushing away of religious values from public matters, education and behaviour. If so, the list of topics under the umbrella can include drug-taking, drunken stupor, promiscuity, teenage pregnancy and other “bad behaviour” that seems to be trendy. Let’s face it, he has a point. Religious values, in these cases, help. People would treat their own bodies and those of others with more respect. Sustainable development also would make sense because it means taking care of God’s creation for others who will live after us.
Seen from this point of view, religious values are not conservative at all. They are elevating. I think most of the Maltese reacted to the Archbishop’s homily with hostility because of the divorce and immigration issues.
3. Kant's dictum that "when knowledge is limited, ‘we must make room for faith’ is good advice for human conduct. After all, we do have to rely on other people's experience, and resting our faith on them and their knowledge of things we know little if anything about. However, faith must not be "blind faith", and it must be subject to revision as knowledge is accumulated. And here, I would also like to quote Carl Sagan - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
That said, while I find no problem in secularism "attacking" faith-based religion and vice-versa (provided the debates are conducted fairly), what I do see as a problem is when people attack individuals and not their beliefs. I can still respect a person as an individual, even if in the extreme, I find his/her beliefs repulsive. What I can never respect is people who purposedly harm others for the sake of ideology (including secularism) or religion.
Once again, although I would not agree with everything you say, I find your approach very encouraging. It gives a chance to compromise when complete agreement is impossible.
I feel I must indicate which are the points I disagree with, and elaborate or make my own comments (you may take what I do not mention as agreement).
1. Though interfaith conferences are a good thing, a common multi-religious front against secularism is not only undesirable, but impossible. This is because many different religions make claims that contradict or do not support claims made by other religions. This makes a common reply to atheist/agnostic pressing questions close to impossible.
2. I don't believe in revelation (and in any case, how can one prove which texts were revelations and which were human errors?), so in my view, not only is the secular rationalism adequate in itself, but its the only thing we have to help us formulate a moral code. This is the only way we can determine which parts of religious texts are good (the religious would say "inspired") and which are bad (or erroneous). Reason is all we've got.
Cont...
Religious people should unite with one another but NOT to view secular people as their enemy
it is not a Freudian slip, but an honest to God typo :)
Revelation does not replace secularized reason; it grafts itself, rather, onto a way of thinking and acting that we develop independently. After all revelation took place in the world, not an ethereal space,That doesn’t mean that the secular realm is wholly adequate in itself, or that divine teachings add nothing of significance to them. But as a Christian what I believe is missing in the secular world, what it cannot accomplish can be enhanced by faith. It was Kant who said in his Critique of Pure Reason, that when knowledge is limited, ‘we must make room for faith’.
I therefore never felt the call of the Graz speaker to unite against secularism. Rather, religion and secularism complement one another in a way that can enhance both. John Paul II said that ‘Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth’ (Fides et Ratio, Intro). We should therefore find the spark of God in secularism, not write it off.
- I want to learn about physics, chemistry and biology of our world, and about human history, from people who are not caught up in one’s religious passions. I deplore the Creationists and others who quote the Bible verbatim and out of context to find justification for their prejudices, erroneous perceptions etc
- Love of God should not lead us to lose our love of humanity. It is healthy to find most of my knowledge in the secular ways. As a consequence my religion gains clarity and power by standing in and against the light of our secular knowledge.
- A religious person’s moral code should also be developed in interaction with fellow human beings who are not necessarily religious. We cannot expect to build a community of trust and friendship unless we first have decent relationships with one another that were not predicated on a love for or belief in God. As a Christian I believe that God, who created us all and loves and respects us all, wants us to love and respect each other directly, not just as a consequence of our relations to him, out of fear or shame or blind obedience or inheritance.
Some years back I attended an interfaith conference in Graz and a speaker said that he thinks religious people of all faiths should unite against the threat posed to them by secularists. As a Christian, I welcome the call for unity, but lament this basis for unity. Religious people should unite with one another but to view secular people as their enemy. If we do this we will only harm ourselves: for I believe that the secular world is good for religion. How?
- It provides a ‘break’ from religion, a place in which one can, if only metaphorically, stop and catch one’s breath from one’s religious passions, and assess them coolly, especially when held up to the scrutiny of secularists.
- When faith and religion are confronted with secularism, this guarantees the freedom of my own religious beliefs - which makes them more truly religious, less a product of fear or ignorance or habit or inheritance.
Pity. You have wasted time writing 57 words, and you have still not explained what the superior ideology is. Not very good at making converts, are you?
Everyone who follows politics and cares about the situation, knows what I am talking about. When you see people banging on the table and pointing accusing fingers all over again, will you know that the new ideology is out. Just read it when it comes out in the near future. Enough said.
This is my last post.
I think you'll have to explain yourself better. What is this superior ideology you are referring to?
Go on, Peter Prictoe, tell us about the restrictions on Catholics in the UK. I'm interested to learn if this has anything to do with "secularism".
Mark my words.
@Francis Spiteri.
I believe we have clashed before but I can only say that in my advanced eighties my short term memory is poor. I apologise for the repetition but if a subject crops up twice is it a sin to make the same response in a light-hearted comment?
You may have read the comment by ABC regarding his blog from which I was hounded by Charles J Buttigieg and it looks as though I have found his counterpart with you.
As a reader and collector at our local Catholic church I would have liked to have made some comparisons between Malta and the UK (where there remain certain restrictions on Catholics) but it is obvious that an Englishman is not welcome in Maltese discussions group and I have tried many! I have to admit that I can be rather acerbic whilst Maltese prefer foreigners to be respectful and soothing.
Yes, I have known Malta all my life and love it warts and all but these personal attacks disturb me and this will be my last appearance here though I admire and recall Fr Borg who showed me around RTK many years back.
A large part of the hardship children go through when their parents separate/divorce is due to the fact that they would be too young to fully understand what their parents are experiencing, thus leaving them with a sense of insecurity. Therefore, I would not drag children into the debate. It is obvious that all children suffer to some degree when their parents separate, so adding more to their sad experience by asking them to discuss it with strangers would make matters worse for them.
What should be done, on the otherhand, is more education for adults planning to marry, on the best way to deal with the possibility of marriage breakup if they will have children.
Unfortunately, this type of education is conspicuous by its absence, resulting in some separated parents having no idea on how to speak to children (at their level) about what they are going through, or sometimes worse, actually using their children to get revenge on their spouses - and thus increasing the trauma the children would be already going through.
On a positive note, however, I do know of cases where children improved their relationship with each parent after they separated.
'blushing cheeks'? 'innocent young thing'? What am I ? Santa Maria Goretti? =)
Your description beats Botox anytime... (lanqas haqq kemm infaqt flus)...you'll be my fix next time I need a facelift...hehehehe
As Meredith Grey tells McDreamy in Grey's Anatomy.. 'You're my knight in shining whatever' (The omission of the word 'armour' is not a deliberate misquote not to provoke Priscilla Grech who has an obsession with Fr Joe's asking for an armour from you ABC...on another blog etc etc) but this is the exact quote).
Precisely, provided that the "opponent" is not deliberately or prejudicially painted as "evil", or his ideas misrepresented. And this applies to everyone, myself included.
I remember you using the same lame 'punchline' about brassy/tinny/whatever...on another Fr Joe's blog. Are you running of out of things to say? I thought that with your flaunting of your credentials about the right to comment about anything that happens in Malta, you would have contributed something substantial to the debate. At least Victoria carried on in the same vein as Fr Joe.
...to the rest...
Now let me contribute something - secularism has become the bete noir of the religious community, just as anything to do wth the expression of faith in the public arena has become so to the secularists. As long as both camps realise that each one has the right to an opinion and express it in the right fora, then we should all get along. What Fr Joe was driving at in his vignette, I think, is that people cling to any excuse, however preposterous, to blame anyone for the exercise of this right.
What the Church understands about politics is the following: Politics cannot be merely about ideological conflict, the search for partisan advantage or political contributions. It should be about fundamental moral choices. How do we protect human life and dignity? How do we fairly share the blessings and burdens of the challenges we face? What kind of nation do we want to be? What kind of world do we want to shape?
It can be accessed here:
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
Be careful not to confuse secularism with "spoilt-brat" consumerism, as exemplified in many modern teenagers, perhaps, at such an impressionable (therefore exploitable) age, being themselves victims of the power of media advertising and peer-pressure.
Secularism is partly about the promotion of a better life with the use of modern technology, modern medicine, and other goods, but its not at all about the plastic lifestyle promoted by series such as Sex and the City, a series which I personally, as a secularist, greatly dislike (and have only watched once out of curiosity), not so much for its promiscuity as for its subtle continuous advertisments of branded products in the plot.
Irony? What is that?
Irony is the same as tinny or brassy but made of iron
The only problem I find and as so many others also agrees with me is that of spreading the WRONG Gospel, how could Roman Catholics go out and spread the Gospel if they them selves don`t even know half the truth ?
Therese Vella, the archbishop spoke about secularization not about divorce specifically.
If I understood correctly from what Fr Borg wrote, the friend he mentioned is in favour of secularization. Most people are, especially young people. It's tough leading the church at times like these when the frenzied media are dishing out such materialism,hedonisim and superficiality. Sometimes i watch the series "Sex and the City" and wonder why all my friends think it's great. - they say that it reflects society and how modern women behave. The promiscuity is unbelievable. (To be fair, only one of the main characters is promiscuous). In Malta, the media could do much better too.
I think Fr Borg was purposedly dramatising his article, just to tease readers into participating in the debate. Maybe Fr Borg will confirm or deny this.
Irony? What is that? It’s totally lost on a large swathe of the population especially some Christians…it’s a pity…since they must miss the dollops of irony in the Gospel of John.
Lighten up people of God! Start the day with eggs sunny side up and a bowl of Cheerios…
No, not your comments! Yours are fair and ok
I was referring to Fr Joe's dungeon scene from his upcoming movie " The Evil Monsignors of Conservatism and the shrinking Mgr Gouder" i think he's watching too many children's films.
What melodrama? I already made my comments, with detailed explanations. If you wish, feel free to comment on what I wrote.
"If the Archbishop timidly proposes an alternative to some position he is accused of militancy." There already is an alternative - annulment, and many people know this and use it as a "solution". As for the secular geese, they will always make a din - i don't think the Archbishop is afraid of this.
The number of broken marriages seems to have caught momentum and I feel that now is a bit too late to protest against divorce laws. Couples who have been separated for a long time and are cohabiting will certainly welcome divorce laws. Personally, divorce laws do not sadden me, broken marriages do and you can find broken families even if the couple are still living in the same house.
Congratulations to the well received blog, Fr Joe, you trulydeserve it. It's always an interesting read and a constant source of healthy debate.
"Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good".
1. He says that the Church will speak about sustainable development, the environment, justice and other values (a good thing), but then goes on to say that "We would not be helping society if we accept secular ideology...", thus giving the wrong impression that secularism is opposed to those values.
2. He says that “The stronger (secularism) becomes, the more difficult it will be for one to live his personal values", when earlier he had said that secularism is an individualistic ideology. If secularism is individualistic (not necessarily true), then it would seem that it would actually be easier for one to live one's own personal values. This makes this part of the Archbishop's speech, at best contradictory.
3. He says that "It will become more difficult for parents to pass on the values they believe in to their children". This is not true at all, since secularism does not interfere in private beliefs, and does not interfere in public beliefs as long as these are not imposed.
4. He calls secularism as "value-free". This is false. George Holyoake's 1896 publication English Secularism, for instance, defines secularism as:
Cont....