The way I would put it is that [i]someprogressives may be too quick to toss out someessentials and someconservatives hold too fast and too long to someaccidentals.[/i]

Well put!

I'm not really happy about the way the terms liberal, progressive, and conservative are tossed around, if the truth really be told, here. Too often, it does seem a wqy to label people, or dismiss their views. In fact, I'm not even really sure how to define those terms. We all kind of know what they imply, but what, really, do they mean? Perhaps we could embark on a glossary project about these and other similar kinds of terms in another thread--in both a serious and humorous mode (you know: a Liberal is someone who . . . Brad fills in the rest ).

Yesterday's progressives become the icons of tommorrow's conservatives, like the mendicants and reformers who are Doctors of the Church: Juan de la Cruz and Teresa of Avila, like those who told the pope where he oughta live like Catherine of Sienna, like the little one from Assisi, etc

Oh so true! Or poor Thomas Aquinas, who is probably considered now a bulwark of conservatism, but whose writings were banned during one part of his life for seeming too extremist.

. . . Truly, the irony has not escaped me when you occassionally getting lumped in as an alter ego of the hierarchy.

Absolutely baffling indeed!

----------------

Re. the earlier discussion about the role of traditions, let's note that without religious traditions, we wouldn't receive the messages of the Founders. Without the Church and its care for the Gospel, the teachings of Jesus and the invitation to faith in Him would have faded away. Same for Buddhism, Islam, and the rest. There might be some aspects of these traditions that need reforming, but where would we be without them?

----------------

Glad you liked my silly remark about chasing animals and sewage, Brad.

Phil

Additional Thoughts:

I recently listened to an audiotape, "Blossoms of Silence" by Jim Grob that mentioned the dilemma of a teacher without or within. Grob also confronted this very difficult question. The answer came to him in a very direct way. As he dealt with the question, he says he heard a voice saying, 'Why do you need a teacher when you have me?' (my paraphrasing) The 'me' he was referring to was, of course, the Christ within and without him. He talks a great deal about his personal relationship with Christ and his experiences with meditation.

This, in turn, is bringing up many more questions for me.....I am also reading Pagels, "The Gnostic Gospels." I am thinking about whether the fullness of an evolved exoteric religion may actually bring one to a sort of gnosticism.....How can one submit to another human being when the demands of a Christ within might call for other action?

As I sit with all this, I would appreciate any comments any of you might have......

Thanks.

Tee

I'm going to jump in here, even thought I suspect I'm out of my league. I'm a 'feeler' and you 'thinkers' tend to leave me in the dust. But feelers perhaps have something to say about the 'teacher within or teacher without'. The trick with dealing with the teacher within is that it is very hard to tell if the message is coming simply from one's own subconscious or is truly from the Truth. Someone else ( the teacher without or spiritual director) is valuable in understandign this dilemma. The subconscious can be very helpful in discerning, but it is not to be taken as absolute. Interplay between the teacher within and the teacher without would seem to be healthy.

Hi...still in the desert but it is hot here - so decided to drop in.

QT -"I am thinking about whether the fullness of an evolved exoteric religion may actually bring one to a sort of gnosticism.....How can one submit to another human being when the demands of a Christ within might call for other action?"

I may be way off base here but I thought gnosticism was the belief that a select few possess knowledge/understanding that is not available to others. If this is so then an evolved exoteric religion should bring one away from rather than towards gnosticism. For me at least the closer I get to Christ the more I understand that this realationship is available to anyone who seeks/welcomes Him in. It is not the province of only a few select people, but is there for all who wish it.
As to submission I can only speak for myself here. I cannot really submit to another unless/until I recognize/feel that I am submitting not to the person/title/position but to the Christ within the other. Submission to a title or position simply comes very very hard for me.

Anna:I agree completely - it is very hard to discern the truth. For me at least.
"The subconscious can be very helpful in discerning, but it is not to be taken as absolute. Interplay between the teacher within and the teacher without would seem to be healthy."

Prudence requires the use of both heart (feelings) and head (reason)to learn truth so I do think we need to pay attention to both that which comes from within and that which comes from without... when they are in agreement - Yippee! When they aren't then I usually think I need to do a bit more pondering... that I am missing something somewhere and need to listen before I leap so to speak.

Well.. am off again. Catch you all later.
Peace,
Wanda

Hi Ana and Wanda,

Thanks for taking an interest in this thread.

Ana, thanks for jumping in....You and Wanda are bringing up great points....I'll go a bit further with my thoughts in direct response to portions of Wanda's post. These are simply my opinions so
don't hesistate to jump in often and give me more to think about......

Originally posted by Wanda:

I may be way off base here but I thought gnosticism was the belief that a select few possess knowledge/understanding that is not available to others. If this is so then an evolved exoteric religion should bring one away from rather than towards gnosticism. For me at least the closer I get to Christ the more I understand that this realationship is available to anyone who seeks/welcomes Him in. It is not the province of only a few select people, but is there for all who wish it.

Wanda, the characterization of gnosticism I am using would be, "a movement whose writings derived from mystical experience." (Intro, p. 33, Pagels, "The Gnostic Gospels") This characterization was developed by the British scholar E.R. Dodds.

"What interested these gnostics far more than past events attributed to the "historical Jesus" was the possibility of encountering the risen Christ in the present." (Pagels, p. 12) So, the gnostics presumably wouldn't give a hoot as to whether or not the historical Jesus was a vegetarian.

According to my understanding there are two ways to hear the Gospels.....We can hear them or We can HEAR them. There is a vast difference in these two types of hearing. The first is a sort of parrot like hearing. People repeat the passages but have no in depth understanding of what they are reading...a superificial reading. The other reading is one where people actually HEAR what the Gospel says in great depth, actually HEAR it with both head and heart.

In Mark's Gospel, Jesus says to his disciples,

"...To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven."


Matthew also "relates that when Jesus spoke in public, he spoke only in parables; when his disciples asked the reason, he replied, "To you it has been given to know the secrets (mysteria;literally,"mysteries") of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."
(Pagels, p. 14)

So, yes, Wanda, I agree we can all have a relationship with Christ but there are many sorts of different relationships...and here is where much conflict begins.....

To those who hear in one way, a relationship with the historical Jesus is of paramount importance.
To those who hear in another way, a relationship with the risen Christ within that then leads to the realization of their own true self as another Christ, or to say it in another way, as a brother or sister of the Risen Christ is of the utmost importance.

"Through his spiritual communication with Christ, Paul says he discovered 'hidden mysteries' and "secret wisdom," which, he explains, he shares only with those Christians he considers 'mature' but not with everyone. (Pagels, p. 15)

Anyway, do you see how these varying ideas change the locus of authority from exoteric religion to within?

As to submission I can only speak for myself here. I cannot really submit to another unless/until I recognize/feel that I am submitting not to the person/title/position but to the Christ within the other. Submission to a title or position simply comes very very hard for me.


And, Wanda, I don't think any of us should have to submit to someone just because they have letters, etc., after their name. Forcing people to go against their own good jugment is know as 'authoritarianISM." This is not the kind of authority Jesus is speaking about. Jesus speaks of an authority which empowers, not disempowers.

Jesus says, "Woe to you experts in religion! For you hide the truth from the people. You won't accept it for yourselves, and you prevent others from having a chance to believe it." Luke 11: 52

Anna:I agree completely - it is very hard to discern the truth. For me at least.
"The subconscious can be very helpful in discerning, but it is not to be taken as absolute. Interplay between the teacher within and the teacher without would seem to be healthy."

Prudence requires the use of both heart (feelings) and head (reason)to learn truth so I do think we need to pay attention to both that which comes from within and that which comes from without...

Amen! However, let's take that a step further.
If you already know how to swim, are you going to go for swimming lessons?.....Perhaps, the instructor can't swim as well as you can!!!!...and will only mislead you, at best, or drown you, at worst!!!!

Grob does a great job explaining this in his tape.
He says, (my paraphrasing) 'Do we need to send out an invitation once someone is already there?'
If our relationship with Christ is so palpable, is
it necessary to keep asking him to come?....or to have someone else give us direction to him?

Sorry for going on so long....This is a very important topic to me at the moment.

Thanks so much for your comments. I'm looking forward to more.

Sincerely,

Tee

. . . it is very hard to tell if the message is coming simply from one's own subconscious or is truly from the Truth. Someone else ( the teacher without or spiritual director) is valuable in understandign this dilemma. The subconscious can be very helpful in discerning, but it is not to be taken as absolute. Interplay between the teacher within and the teacher without would seem to be healthy.

Ana, I totally concur. And we could expand it a bit to say that the teacher without can be any kind of external resource--even a book, dogma, or faith tradition. Without an outside resource to engage, we can indeed be left believing any of our inner impulses are the movement of the Spirit. And on the other extreme, those who rely only on the external guidance just end up in their heads, dominated by a Superego Parent consciousness.

------------

Wanda, yes, the gnostics did believe they possessed a secret knowledge which others lacked. Of course, that's a gross oversimplification, as there were all kinds of gnostics, and some made real contributions to the Church's mystical tradition. But those elements which stressed a special gnosis as essential for salvation, and/or who denied the physical reality of Jesus, were condemned as heretics.

Enjoy the desert. What are you doing there, btw?

------------

And, Wanda, I don't think any of us should have to submit to someone just because they have letters, etc., after their name. Forcing people to go against their own good jugment is know as 'authoritarianISM." This is not the kind of authority Jesus is speaking about. Jesus speaks of an authority which empowers, not disempowers

This is a theme running through many of your posts, and it's certainly true that there is an authoritarianISM that can hurt our growth more than help. However, one faces just as great a danger when neglecting the wisdom of an exoteric tradition--a danger we might call narcissISM or individualISM. As usual, the true path moves between the extremes. Jesus' teachings are a good example of this, as he encourages Jews to be faithful to their tradition even while stressing that the Spirit would teach them all things. Both/and thinking on this topic is what is called for, I believe.

Phil

Hello Tee, Anna, Phil and all:
Phil, to answer your question... my daughter is a Dr. in the Air Force stationed at Edwards and I am visiting her. Since she works rather long hours, I have had lots of time to experience the desert and do a bit of reading and writing as well. A good preparation for Lent.
Anna - You are so right when you say it is hard to determine where things come from and I agree completely that it is most beneficial if you have something/someone to test these things against. Isn't that a bit of what we do here?
Tee: Thanks for the explanation of where you're coming from... changes things a bit maybe....
"What interested these gnostics far more than past events attributed to the "historical Jesus" was the possibility of encountering the risen Christ in the present." (Pagels, p. 12)
The problem I have with this attitude is the separation of Christ's humanity(historical) from his divinity(risen). I tend to think that "concentrating" on either gives one only a partial knowledge of Christ. If we believe he is/was both completely human and completely divine then to know only the human or only the divine would not give us a complete picture. The same with reading the Gospels... if we hear only the words spoken historically, and not the words spoken eternally we miss a large part of what they are saying. At the same time to hear only eternally without placing them historically we also can miss the totality of the message. "The other reading is one where people actually HEAR what the Gospel says in great depth, actually HEAR it with both head and heart. " I love this - Hear it with both head and heart." Hear the totality! As with Christ - we must SEE with both head and heart.
"...To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven."
This passage gives me a great deal of trouble. It almost sounds like Christ is excluding and that is not the message I get from the rest of his life. Then too there seems to be many instances where the disciples did not seem to "get it".
It also pulls me back to the end of John when Christ tells Peter not to worry about what John is to do and to the writings on the gifts of the Spirit. Each is not given all but is given that which is needed to fulfill God's will. Could this also have some bearing on the type of relationship we have - that our relationship is the type best suited to fulfill our ministry? And could not the conflict be generated by the ordering of gifts? And couldn't the ordering of relationships and gifts be another way of saying that I am holier than you - of self-elevation?
As to Paul and his sharing only with mature Christians - to me that makes a lot of sense. I often liken my journey to climbing a mountain.... for a lot of reasons which I won't go into here. If however, you take a rookie - an out-of-shape and inexperienced person and put him towards the top of the mountain where skills with actual climbing are needed you are pretty much dooming him to failure. It is far wiser to allow them to work their way up from the bottom gradually and at their own pace gaining knowledge and skills as they go. Now when you meet others at the top your conversation will be vastly different.
Is faith more important than works or works more important than faith? Exoteric vs within. Boy am I turning into a fence sitter here but again - one without the other just doesn't seem to wash well with me. Works will not create faith but faith will necessitate works.... they flow from who we are - what we believe.
"If you already know how to swim, are you going to go for swimming lessons?" Watching the Olympics gave me the answer to this for you..... of course you are - even the best need occasional advice and coaching. The "lessons" will probably be over but the instruction and learning will still go on. We all need someone to push against occasionally.
I have no idea if any of this makes any sense.... just thoughts as I wrestle with the questions you have awakened in me. I'm not even sure I am making sense to myself here - but I'll send it off and see if you all can figure it out.
Peace,
Wanda

Originally posted by Phil:

Ana, I totally concur. And we could expand it a bit to say that the teacher without can be any kind of external resource--even a book, dogma, or faith tradition......

Good point, Phil.

------------

Wanda, yes, the gnostics did believe they possessed a secret knowledge which others lacked. Of course, that's a gross oversimplification, as there were all kinds of gnostics, and some made real contributions to the Church's mystical tradition.....

Who are some of the saints who could be considered gnostics?

.............

Jesus speaks of an authority which empowers, not disempowers.

This is a theme running through many of your posts, and it's certainly true that there is an authoritarianISM that can hurt our growth more than help. However, one faces just as great a danger when neglecting the wisdom of an exoteric tradition--a danger we might call narcissISM or individualISM. As usual, the true path moves between the extremes. Jesus' teachings are a good example of this, as he encourages Jews to be faithful to their tradition even while stressing that the Spirit would teach them all things. Both/and thinking on this topic is what is called for, I believe.


Phil, in the book "Sex, Priests, and Power" by
Richard Sipe, an ordained Roman Catholic Priest,
begins by saying, "The man sitting across from me was a member of the American hierarchy, but the only hint of his office was the modest episcopal ring on his right hand." Sipe goes on to quote this man as saying, "The thing that pains me about the organization to which I belong is that it is rotten from the top down." (p. 3) Sipe continues, "He (the man wearing the episcopal ring) rejected the rottenness of secrecy, the misuse of power, the cover-ups, the duplicities to salvage image, and any refusals of the celibate/sexual system to assume responsibility for its behaviors and its deficiencies-for itself-for what it truly is." (p. 4)

"When asked why the American bishops were having such a difficult time dealing with priest sexual abusers, another bishop responded, "Undoubtedly part of the problems is that some of the bishops themselves are abusers." (p. 4)

I think it takes a great deal of maturity to be able to stand up to the power brokers in the organization and refuse to give them blind obedience which enables them to continue abusing
the laity. It takes a healthy individualism and
an ability to say that, 'No. You are wrong.
You will not dominate us with your threats and
authoritarianism.'


Tee

Wanda wrote:
Tee: Thanks for the explanation of where you're coming from... changes things a bit maybe....
"What interested these gnostics far more than past events attributed to the "historical Jesus" was the possibility of encountering the risen Christ in the present." (Pagels, p. 12)
The problem I have with this attitude is the separation of Christ's humanity(historical) from his divinity(risen). I tend to think that "concentrating" on either gives one only a partial knowledge of Christ. If we believe he is/was both completely human and completely divine then to know only the human or only the divine would not give us a complete picture.

Wanda, I like this....Thanks!


The same with reading the Gospels... if we hear only the words spoken historically, and not the words spoken eternally we miss a large part of what they are saying. At the same time to hear only eternally without placing them historically we also can miss the totality of the message. "The other reading is one where people actually HEAR what the Gospel says in great depth, actually HEAR it with both head and heart. " I love this - Hear it with both head and heart." Hear the totality! ...

Thanks.

"...To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven."
This passage gives me a great deal of trouble. It almost sounds like Christ is excluding and that is not the message I get from the rest of his life. Then too there seems to be many instances where the disciples did not seem to "get it".
It also pulls me back to the end of John when Christ tells Peter not to worry about what John is to do and to the writings on the gifts of the Spirit. Each is not given all but is given that which is needed to fulfill God's will. Could this also have some bearing on the type of relationship we have - that our relationship is the type best suited to fulfill our ministry?

Good point, Wanda.

And could not the conflict be generated by the ordering of gifts? And couldn't the ordering of relationships and gifts be another way of saying that I am holier than you - of self-elevation?

Yes, by a predominantely male ordering of the gifts, which goes on to imply.....thinking types are more important than other types because they determine what will be written and read by the Church at large. The Magisterium is holier than the laity.....so, of course, since the Magisterium is primarily men...men are holier than women and, therefore, can boss them around, abuse them, silence them, and treat them like dirt....all in the name of Jesus, of course......and, no sex makes for the holiest of all! (Sheesh!)


As to Paul and his sharing only with mature Christians - to me that makes a lot of sense. I often liken my journey to climbing a mountain.... for a lot of reasons which I won't go into here. If however, you take a rookie - an out-of-shape and inexperienced person and put him towards the top of the mountain where skills with actual climbing are needed you are pretty much dooming him to failure. It is far wiser to allow them to work their way up from the bottom gradually and at their own pace gaining knowledge and skills as they go. Now when you meet others at the top your conversation will be vastly different.


Amen!



"If you already know how to swim, are you going to go for swimming lessons?" Watching the Olympics gave me the answer to this for you..... of course you are - even the best need occasional advice and coaching. The "lessons" will probably be over but the instruction and learning will still go on. We all need someone to push against occasionally.

Wanda, this is great!

It makes so much sense! I just hadn't thought about it in this way. Thanks for reminding me.

Love,

Tee

Wanda wrote:
Boy am I turning into a fence sitter here but again - one without the other just doesn't seem to wash well with me.

Not at all, Wanda. I think this is very much to the heart of the matter. Balance and moderation in all things. The truth is too large to be contained completely in one 'side', 'ideology', 'aspect', ect. OPenness, discussion, dialogue stretches us, adds to our bit of understanding of the truth and then we can add to someone else's bit. Once we close our mind and say 'this is it', or 'Jesus meant this' then we've cut ourselves off from growth and the Truth. You are so right, Tee, this forum helps the growth process.
(P.S. I beleive some things can be defined definitively, but it takes the full intent of the Church speaking ifallibly. And that doesn't happen very often. )

One thing we might keep in mind, is that the Church has always taught that our knowledge of God through dogmas, doctrines, and other authoritative teaching, is REAL knowledge of God. It's not mystical knowledge, but it is a kind of knowledge which feeds the mind and that's very important. This is the kind of knowledge that we get from a faith tradition, and it's knowledge that we can't really get on our own, because it represents the cumulative understanding and reflection of the larger community. It also forms ou faith and receptivity, and so it plays a role in shaping the mystical life.

While it's true that the mind cannot fully comprehend the mystery of God, it can know what it knows, and that includes the fact of its limitations. At the level of the will, we can love God and attain perfect union with God, but it's doubtful that this union will progressed very far if the mind is not cooperating. Therefore, I would again stress the importance of both experience and interaction with a faith tradition. Without this interaction, there is the risk of falling into delusions, of not discerning the differences between selfish impulses and the leading of the Spirit.

Phil

Phil...
"One thing we might keep in mind, is that the Church has always taught that our knowledge of God through dogmas, doctrines, and other authoritative teaching, is REAL knowledge of God."

The problem I have with this is that the dogmas and doctrines and other authoritative teachings are different in the different traditions. Which tradition offers REAL knowledge of God? Does/can any one tradition hold all truth?

To say that this is so seems to imply that any single tradition holds/owns God and that is simply not a place I am comfortable going. I believe that God is beyond and above all traditions. dogmas, doctrines and yes, authoritative teachings of any one tradition...more than all.

This is not to say that these are not important and do not contribute to knowledge but in and of themselves they cannot give/hold all knowledge - they do not hold the totality of truth - of God. I think it is important that we remember who we worship - God or the church.

A friend of mine, called to the priesthood, said that he would listen to and obey whoever paid his salary. I reminded him that God calls us through the church - the church does not call us - God does and it is him who we must obey - it is him whom we serve.

Sorry if this sounds a bit anti-church. It really isn't meant to.
Peace,
Wanda

This is not to say that these are not important and do not contribute to knowledge but in and of themselves they cannot give/hold all knowledge - they do not hold the totality of truth - of God. I think it is important that we remember who we worship - God or the church.

It's not really a question of worshiping God or the Church; the Church doesn't ask for worship, but points toward God if it is truly Church. And the knowledge about God that it offers in its doctrines isn't in any way meant to exclude the development of an interior relationship, which, at any rate, does not hold "the totality of truth" either. And, as I mentioned above, the doctrines and dogmas do not propose to give exhaustive or total knowledge of God, but what they give is invaluable and is thought to be a gift flowing from God's own desire to communicate and be known.

Most Christian traditions are in agreement over the basic doctrines about who God is, salvation, the nature of Christ, etc. As there was really only one such tradition for the first thousand years, and only the Roman tradition in the West for 16 centuries, it shouldn't surprise us that there is the strong core of teachings. Nevertheless, there are differences in some of the doctrines taught by the various traditions, and so one must search for the denomination in which one finds the truth best represented. This is a far better attitude, I believe, than assuming that the fact of different denominations indicates that none of them really have the truth, or that no one of them has more than others.

All good and relevant points to the discussion, Wanda, and not at all anti-Church unless one thinks that Church teaching is irrelevant to living a Christian life--which would be an absurdity, imho.

Phil

The problem I have with this is that the dogmas and doctrines and other authoritative teachings are different in the different traditions. Which tradition offers REAL knowledge of God? Does/can any one tradition hold all truth?

To say that this is so seems to imply that any single tradition holds/owns God and that is simply not a place I am comfortable going. I believe that God is beyond and above all traditions. dogmas, doctrines and yes, authoritative teachings of any one tradition...more than all.

Wanda,

This is an issue I've also struggled with and I
find myself agreeing with you. I don't think it's possible for any one faith tradition to have a corner, so to speak, on God. I also think it is an insult to the other, equally viable faith traditions, to proclaim it so.

This is not to say that these are not important and do not contribute to knowledge but in and of themselves they cannot give/hold all knowledge - they do not hold the totality of truth - of God. I think it is important that we remember who we worship - God or the church.

Wanda, I don't think what you are saying sounds anti-Church at all. I think we are often asked to make decisions that require us to choose between our personal relationship with Christ and our
relationship with Church. That is where so much of the trouble begins, because institutional traditions require conformity to maintain the status quo. When one questions, one rocks the boat.

Ideally, we should not have to choose and Church should direct us towards God. Both/and. However, realistically, this is often not the case.....Church (institutional Church) often directs us towards itself and the perpetuation of a particular style of organization.

Tee

PS...If you want to see a place where people had to choose, check out the priest pedophile statistics on http://www.thelinkup.com/stats.html
It's a website sponsored by survivors of clerical abuse. It shows a much different side of the organization we call Church.

This is an issue I've also struggled with and I
find myself agreeing with you. I don't think it's possible for any one faith tradition to have a corner, so to speak, on God. I also think it is an insult to the other, equally viable faith traditions, to proclaim it so.


That's a very PC attitude, Uraqt! But it's also non-issue, because no faith tradition really claims to have a "corner on God." They all say something about God, and it is entirely possible that some are more correct than others in this regard. Why should that not be the case?

It's my belief that the Roman Catholic Tradition has the fullest understanding of Revelation, and I'll be happy to explain why I believe this. I don't happen to think that I'm insulting others because I believe this; it's what I believe, and if they believe they have a fuller understanding, I don't in the least feel insulted. If the idea is not to insult others, no one faith tradition would ever say anything about anything, because those who disagreed might "feel insulted." Not-giving-insult is a very poor reason for one to not affirm what one believes, and why. If another is insulted, then perhaps they are the one with the problem, not the one making the statement. See what I mean?

You go on to post links about pedophilic priests, which is a topic you were eager to talk about in another thread. This is a sad situation, to be sure, and you've peppered it in a post above with some disparaging remarks about an all-male clergy and thinking types.. None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the degree of truth found in the Catholic Church. Might as well tell of divorces among Protestant clergy, or other sad situations. I don't see the relevance at all. We kind find poor examples from every religion, which only tells us that there are imperfect people there. The institutions might be doing something to cover-up and even to create the environment where such abuses happen, but that doesn't necessarily have any relevance to the dogmatic truths proclaimed by that tradition. See what I mean? If we take your point too seriously, we end up making the childish conclusion that Catholicism doesn't know squat about God because there are pedophile priests. That's a fallacy, and I hope you can see it.

Chris

"It's my belief that the Roman Catholic Tradition has the fullest understanding of Revelation, and I'll be happy to explain why I believe this. I don't happen to think that I'm insulting others because I believe this; it's what I believe, and if they believe they have a fuller understanding, I don't in the least feel insulted. If the idea is not to insult others, no one faith tradition would ever say anything about anything, because those who disagreed might "feel insulted." Not-giving-insult is a very poor reason for one to not affirm what one believes, and why. If another is insulted, then perhaps they are the one with the problem, not the one making the statement. See what I mean?"

Ok...please don't get angry and offended and I am not trying to correct or anything like that here but this highlights my problem.... I hear you proclaiming the church not God...not the Church but the denomination. Like Paul's question to the Corinthians - Who do you proclaim?
(1 Corinthians 1:12-17)
When I said that this is not meant as a condemnation I really mean that because I see each denomination and each member of each denomination doing this same thing to one extent or another...me included.
Just something to think about.
Peace,
Wanda

If we take your point too seriously, we end up making the childish conclusion....

Chris,

I have asked you numerous times to not interact with me. This is the last time. I am considering any further posts from you harassment and will proceed accordingly.

Tee

I have asked you numerous times to not interact with me. This is the last time. I am considering any further posts from you harassment and will proceed accordingly.

Whoa there, Uraqt. I addressed this on another thread, and stated that it's OK for anyone to interact with anyone else on this forum. Chris has only epxressed disagreement with some of your points--rather assertively, I'll admit--but nothing that comes close to a personal attack. I don't know what you mean by "proceed accordingly," as I am the judge and jury here .

If you don't want to discuss anything with Chris, then the way to gois just to ignore his posts--even to just say: --Ignoring Chris . . . and use to show your distaste.

If you want to discuss this more with me, please contact me via private message or email.

Phil

Ok...please don't get angry and offended and I am not trying to correct or anything like that here but this highlights my problem.... I hear you proclaiming the church not God...not the Church but the denomination. Like Paul's question to the Corinthians - Who do you proclaim?

Hi Wanda. I'm not Chris, but I think what he meant is that one can believe that one's faith tradition expresses, in its doctrines, a fuller understanding of God than others. I know this sounds kind of arrogant, but that's pretty much what every tradition is doing, Catholic and Protestant alike. I really don't see how this is believing in church instead of God, however, so maybe you can say some more about that.

------------

Now, for some different news. At the end of this month, I will be upgrading the software that runs this forum and I think it will run a little faster. It will also be possible to post polls, which will enable people to express an opinion by voting on an option without actually posting the opinion to with the thread. So for example, in that thread that I just opened about the shroud of Turin, I could set up a poll where people could vote on whether they think it's the burial cloth of Christ or something else, and they could do so without having to actually post a message. This new software will also return one to the end of the thread instead of going back to the beginning. That's not such a bad problem if the thread is only one page long, but threads that get to three pages long, well, it becomes cumbersome when you have to constantly go back to the beginning and to the page where the last post was made, etc..

By the way, I'm using IBM ViaVoice to dictate this message. I hope it helps me to keep up better with my correspondence and work on this and other forums. Typing might not seem to be much work, but after a while and it does take its toll.

Phil

Phil,

"I really don't see how this is believing in church instead of God, however, so maybe you can say some more about that."

Phil, I agree that we all do this but is this not what Paul was addressing with the church at Corinth? The way I read this is that there were several factions within the church there that were arguing the teaching of several people - each holding that the teachings of their "person/people" was the best - more valid and all of that. Isn't that what the many denominations are doing today both within and without? When I speak of believing in church (small letters) I am referring to denominations and I include my own in this category. I do believe that God lives within his churches because they are all a part of his Church(the one holy apostolic and catholic Church). I am Anglican and I love my tradition deeply but more than my tradition I love the Church - the body - and I have found much that I believe to be true in places outside of my own tradition as well as within my tradition. I have also found things that I am not so sure of both in places without and also within my tradition. Clearer?
Peace,
Wanda

What you say makes a lot of sense, Wanda. And, fwiw, I do believe there really ARE people who are dogmatic in the sense that it's something of an idolatry. Only, that's not what the Church or dogma are about; it's only an excess that some fall to. And, some fall into the other extreme of a kind of gnostic individualism, which is to be avoided as well. I was trying, in a post above, to emphasisze the importance of the middle road. My sense is that you're trying to say something similar.

Thanks for clarifying!

Phil

WandaI think I must have given offense with my posts to you. That was not my intent. I just do believe it's possible to state one's beliefs about one's faith tradition without implying that everyone else is wrong in an arrogant sense.

Uraqt, there was no intent to give offense to you either. I just come on strong sometimes, and will try to make my questions a little less personal and more directed to your ideas. It's pretty hard to not interact with you on this forum since you often seem to be very involved in some of the threads, and even if I don't address you directly, I'd be addressing ideas and points you raised. But I've reassured Phil that I will tone things down in my remarks to you.

Chris

Chris,
Thank you. You really did not give offense once I thought about what you wrote though. It's just that sometimes when I hear people proclaim their own traditions so strongly, I hear the implication that mine is somehow less. I know that was not what you intended so really - no need to apologize.

Happy Valentine's Day

Peace,
Wanda

Originally posted by Concerned Catholic:
Uraqt, there was no intent to give offense to you either. I just come on strong sometimes, and will try to make my questions a little less personal and more directed to your ideas. It's pretty hard to not interact with you on this forum since you often seem to be very involved in some of the threads, and even if I don't address you directly, I'd be addressing ideas and points you raised. But I've reassured Phil that I will tone things down in my remarks to you.

Thank you Chris. Phil called your post to my attention.

Due to a change in personal circumstances,
I won't be checking in at shalomplace or posting much anymore. Other areas are requiring my full attention.

Tee