M Magdalena...

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The rise of pluralism, often masking itself as benificent ecumenism, and egalitarianism, with its reduction of everything to a relativism, combined with man's overwheening sense of his own importance (a reaction to a culture that strips it away at every turn), is a trait of western civilisation.

Hi Thomas, while I agree with your take on man's sense of self-importance (and I think Christ's Way, the narrow gate if you will, is to lead us away from that), I think that one can be a pluralist without being a relativist, and this would be by love without judgment of others. I can be a Christian, I can love others, I can spread the Gospel by my actions and words which assure others that God loves each one of us, and not worry about another's path being more or less righteous than my own.

I'm not saying that Christianity and pluralism are easy bedfellows; I struggle with it constantly. I do not try to make a synthesis religion or somehow explain all other religions in Christian terms and metaphors. But, there is Mystery and there is Grace and in these I see a Love that does not leave anyone out in the cold, whether I understand it or not.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

seems to be a technical glitch...bump

[Thomas]

Hi Lunamoth -

I think that one can be a pluralist without being a relativist, and this would be by love without judgment of others.

I agree absolutely (I owe my return to Catholicism to a Tibetan Buddhist) but to be pluralist without relativism is to recognise and acknowledge difference, and its implications:

Some are on a path, and they know it.
Some are on a path, and they know it not.
Some are not on a path, and they know it.
Some are not on a path, and they know it not.

My point always is that it is an error of reason, logic, philosophy and metaphysics, to assume that every path is valid. If such is not the case, then everything that Christ and the Buddha said, is wrong.

Love does not always mean staying quiet.

I can be a Christian, I can love others, I can spread the Gospel by my actions and words which assure others that God loves each one of us, and not worry about another's path being more or less righteous than my own.

If any man or woman embraces religion, then I support them and love them for it, we can wave to each other from path to path.

But if all paths are equal, as some hold, then the whole idea is rendered invalid - everybody is doing exactly as they should be. As Voltaire said, "all's for the best in the best of all possible worlds," (as best as I can remember).

I'm not saying that Christianity and pluralism are easy bedfellows; I struggle with it constantly.
As do I. If a religion is comfortable, something is wrong.

I do not try to make a synthesis religion
But there are many voices here doing just that, and this is what I argue against. That is relativistic pluralism, and that is invariably what my posts are aimed at.

or somehow explain all other religions in Christian terms and metaphors.
And by the same token I will speak out when 'uncomfortable' aspects of Christianity are 'explained away'.

But, there is Mystery and there is Grace and in these I see a Love that does not leave anyone out in the cold, whether I understand it or not.

Do I come across as belligerant? I never try to push anyone out into the cold - quite the reverse, I would rather they were 'in here' - but when God asks 'where is thy brother' I hope I can say "I tried..."

Thomas

[Thomas]

the discussion of M. Magdalene has been of particular interest because she may have been an Essene,

That would shed a different light on things. The Essenes were quite a hardcore militant sect and very strict on rites of purification. I can't recall if they practiced gender segregation at Qmran or not ... but they would not have endorsed Christ's teachings or his actions, and the higher echelons were fully celibate, in which case the whole notion of marriage etc would be out of the question.

Thomas

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I agree absolutely (I owe my return to Catholicism to a Tibetan Buddhist) but to be pluralist without relativism is to recognise and acknowledge difference, and its implications:

Some are on a path, and they know it.
Some are on a path, and they know it not.
Some are not on a path, and they know it.
Some are not on a path, and they know it not.

My point always is that it is an error of reason, logic, philosophy and metaphysics, to assume that every path is valid. If such is not the case, then everything that Christ and the Buddha said, is wrong.

Love does not always mean staying quiet.

I can be a Christian, I can love others, I can spread the Gospel by my actions and words which assure others that God loves each one of us, and not worry about another's path being more or less righteous than my own.

If any man or woman embraces religion, then I support them and love them for it, we can wave to each other from path to path.

But if all paths are equal, as some hold, then the whole idea is rendered invalid - everybody is doing exactly as they should be. As Voltaire said, "all's for the best in the best of all possible worlds," (as best as I can remember).

I'm not saying that Christianity and pluralism are easy bedfellows; I struggle with it constantly.
As do I. If a religion is comfortable, something is wrong.

I do not try to make a synthesis religion
But there are many voices here doing just that, and this is what I argue against. That is relativistic pluralism, and that is invariably what my posts are aimed at.

or somehow explain all other religions in Christian terms and metaphors.
And by the same token I will speak out when 'uncomfortable' aspects of Christianity are 'explained away'.

But, there is Mystery and there is Grace and in these I see a Love that does not leave anyone out in the cold, whether I understand it or not.

Do I come across as belligerant? I never try to push anyone out into the cold - quite the reverse, I would rather they were 'in here' - but when God asks 'where is thy brother' I hope I can say "I tried..."

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

It seems that we are very much on the same page. I was just responding to the idea that pluralism equals relativism and while I see myself as a pluralist I am not a relativist, for the very reasons you give.

No, I do not find you belligerant at all! Wow, my own posting diplomacy mechanisms must be on the fritz as this is the second misunderstanding like this I've had in as many days. Sorry! I think it comes from me making a pointed remark in a reply, when in fact it should not be directed toward anyone.

Thomas, I am quite a fan of your posts.

peace,
lunamoth

[Thomas]

Lunamoth, God bless!

It is in the nature of the medium, I believe, to 'miss' as much as we read.

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
(Burns)

Sometimes, I must admit, I wonder at myself. I try and adopt a certain 'scholastic' tone only to prevent myself running away at the mouth or blithering into sentimentality, a tendency to which I am indebted to my Gaelic genes.

Sometimes I think I am just a boor. (I do have a secret wish to grow into a curmudgeonly old man, but my long-suffering partner has threatened to smother me in my sleep if I do, and she is not to be trifled with).

Then again, I am in awe of the Patristic Fathers, who managed to merge the rigours of metaphysical speculation with the Mystery of Faith in a way that we have rarely managed since.

And I deligh that a Spiritual Director of no little repute spoke to me for 5 minutes and exclaimed with delight, "Oh! You are a Christian Neoplatonist! Excellent!" so I treat that as something of a vocation to be practiced.

Hence doing a Degree in Divinity at the age of 50!

Lord! If we Catholics can do anything well, it's write a book! Never mind the quality, my shelf is creaking under the weight.

The thing I do enjoy is most non-Catholics regard me as hardcore, whilst many Catholics look at me somewhat askance. I am a supporter of all the 'bad boys' - Origen, Dionysius, Eriugena, Eckhart ... all of whom, since Vatican II, I am delighted to see, are coming back into favour...

When we finally work out the residue of the 60's liberalism that sought to derail the Council, the Church will emerge a completely different and a bright, shining creature. Trouble is, when she does anything, she does it slowly, but pray God I shall be looking down from a reasonable height!!

Your brother in Him,

Thomas

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

My point always is that it is an error of reason, logic, philosophy and metaphysics, to assume that every path is valid. If such is not the case, then everything that Christ and the Buddha said, is wrong.

Love does not always mean staying quiet.

Speaking for myself, I don't consider "every path valid," per se. But what is "valid," anyway!?! Maybe we ought to think about what this means, since the answer isn't likely the same for each of us. This is a keg of nails which might best be addressed as a separate topic, in another forum (being truly comparative, or cross-religious) ...

... but from a Christian perspective, let's not forget - There are over 25,000 registered sects (or denominations) of Christianity ... and while there is agreement on many points, there are also some widely varying views on the very same Biblical passages and key ideas. Oh, say, gee - the idea of the Trinity! Or ... Mary Magdalene's relationship to Christ! lol

So, sometimes I probably get a little gung ho about trying to find points of similarity, while at other times I enjoy tossing in my extremely non-conventional viewpoints regarding the most essential of Christian ideas & teachings. But I do not challenge the historicity of Christ, or the importance of his Teachings, and certainly not the basic message (we agree that he taught - and demonstrated - Love). Everything else, in my book, is fair game - in the right Spirit. And thus, as you suggest, Thomas, we should not remain silent ... if we are sure that our words are kind, helpful, and true. Perhaps a yardstick which I will pay a bit more attention to ...

I'm not saying that Christianity and pluralism are easy bedfellows; I struggle with it constantly.

Originally Posted by Thomas

As do I. If a religion is comfortable, something is wrong.

My struggle, is that people (and theologies, and psychologies), seem to get their notions of inherent worth all tied up into the illusion that one person is better than another. And though we're looking at religious/spiritual beliefs largely, on this forum, I think we might benefit by recalling the following words of Section 2.1 of the Preamble of the US Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Now, quibble as we may over the precise wording of this idea, and prefer as some may to look at this more humanistically (and if so, fine) ... does anyone really have a problem with this statement in & of itself? Self-evident, it says. What did they mean by that? Why not, "very likely," or ... "It really, really just seems like," .... or "Surely it is thus:"?

Because it should be self-evident. What does that mean? (rhetorical)

Didn't mean to jump so quickly up on that soapbox ... but it does seem to me like - it can be difficult to discuss religious beliefs and preferences - if our stance is that some are better than others, and if in proposing such a thing ... we don't distinguish between one's self, or essential being (whatever that might be) .... and one's feelings, thoughts, ideas on a subject ... and the extent to which these may be caught up with/in, heavily laden by, religious notions/teachings/trappings.

Now, if anyone can wade through that, then - so much for my valiant effort - I think you may still see why we are often advised that in mixed company, we should not discuss - > yes indeed, religion & politics.

As an esotericist, I can tell you from my experience (and from NO OTHER perspective) ... that one fella over here might radiate like the sun (!) ... but only intellectually - and thus, emotionally speaking, he might not be the warmest person you've ever met. Meanwhile, she "wasn't the brightest bulb in the pack," as a dear friend of mind sometime says ... but, who might respond more to the Love of the Christ, or the lessons of Christian charity? Hmmm. I am reminded of I Corinthians 13, but, to go further:

For example, between a whole classroom of college students, all taking a world religions class (which may not be far from CR - and I hope I don't get swatted by the mods for going so far out on a limb here) ... there may be men & women of ages from 18 to 81. They may be Muslim, Christian, Wiccan, agnostic, militant moderates (as my philosophy professor used to say), and just plain drunk or absent-minded. For some folks, alas, the class is just a credit .... but for anyone that visits CR even twice - we've probably ruled out the dolts, otherwise, why bother?

So what's that leave? It's all about common ground. And the irony is, the harder we try to yank it out from someone else, the more of our own, we lose. Common means shared. And that's what Christ taught.

The "Establishment" (forgive, I know not what else to say) of Christ's day didn't want what he had to offer, for various reasons. But the common people - did! They were hungry for it, and so he "fed them." And he did so using the language of the masses, and with ordinary, everyday examples. I'm channelling common wisdom here, folks - and my ears are ringing like mad, so I must go.

But we ought to think about it for a sec. If, & when, once any discussion has moved outside of the "realm of the Christian spirit," then I think we can all recognize it - to a greater or lesser extent, but I also think we must also all - do our best to help bring it back. Perhaps this goes without saying, but what if not?

I'm the first to own up that the ideas I bring to this - and other - forums are not likely to immediately fit ... perhaps never. But, if even one person resonates, then - even if it but helps them to help define their own faith, by knowing what they don't believe - then have I not rendered a service? Yes, that's a dangerous argument. Our effort should not be simply to stir folk up (at least, not always). But if it isn't done from time to time, just think what the result would be.

That says a lot about energies, and I look at it from my own perspective, while I know we each have one. I love that. And it is also a struggle. Israel = struggle .... Immanuel = peace ... Hmmm, Rejoice, Rejoice, Immanuel shall come to Thee, O Israel. Neat.

I do not try to make a synthesis religion

Originally Posted by Thomas

But there are many voices here doing just that, and this is what I argue against. That is relativistic pluralism, and that is invariably what my posts are aimed at.

Many voices. Sounds like pluralism. Brings to mind a choir. Many voices. Out of harmony, just noise. In concert, and we often use words like "angelic," and beautiful!

Originally Posted by Thomas

Do I come across as belligerant? I never try to push anyone out into the cold - quite the reverse, I would rather they were 'in here' - but when God asks 'where is thy brother' I hope I can say "I tried..."

I don't think I've yet seen belligerent on CR. Something that warms me inside, as a matter of fact. Even if the world were headed for One Religion (some believe this, some do not), do we really think it's gonna happen tomorrow? Or that it should? I don't. But God forbid another single soul should see things the way I do. I wouldn't wish that madness on anyone! Beauty, wonders, bliss, perhaps - but that's not a 24/7 thing ... yet.

How about some words of wisdom from good ol' Immanuel ...



... Kant, that is ( ) ....

... really though:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.

Who said it before Kant, and how did he say it? And why is it punny?

Ooops, Mary M. Oh yeah ... that's what this was about!

Andrew

[Ghaniel]

About Dawkins...

Originally Posted by Thomas

I hope he will have me for breakfast as a guest
Believe me, you really do not want to meet him. He's had a TV programme here in the UK in which he posits that God and religion are all a fantasy and the source of all the evil in the world. He is highly intelligent and extremely aggressive.

I don't doubt you one minute. If he had his way he would implement new laws to annihilate all religious/spiritual people. Bizarrely, I feel sorry for him. Possessed with his 'selfish gene theory'. Perhaps he's only trying to scientifically justify his own narcissism.

An academic, corporate psychopath? Apologies for off-topicness. Just had to!!

To Q, no problem. Wasn't my intention to touch your 'Catholic nerve'.
Be a good boy now, Q! *pat pat*

*still following the discussion*