Scientology

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

7)The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not referred to as Daddy, Junior and the spook.

AHAHAHA! That's going to end up in my vocabulary, I know it. Why is spook lower case, blasphemer! LOL

Most likely Mus, because my "ahem" little quip had little to do with spiritual inspiration and more to do with the precosiousness of a "child" playing a trick on the UNCLE. But you smiled at it, so it's all good.

v/r

Q

p.s. glad you liked it Brian ;-)


...cry for yourself, and you cry alone.

[Mus Zibii]

But there's a reason, of course, why it's repeated--because even if he never did actually say it, he might as well have!

Yeah, exactly. I doubt he ever said such a thing, but like you said...

Actually, if I was going to invent a religion it'd be far less far-fetched. And yet, Heaven's Gate, Raelians, etc seem to catch more flies with BS than honey, while the Ayn Rand gang has virtually gone extinct. Not to compare COS to Heaven's Gate.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

SIPPING VODKA

A new priest at his first mass was so nervous he could hardly speak.



After mass he asked the monsignor how he had done.



The monsignor replied, " When I am worried about getting nervous On the pulpit, I put a glass of vodka next to the water glass. If I start to get nervous, I take a sip."

So next Sunday he took the monsignor's advice.

At the beginning of the sermon, he got nervous and took a drink.

He proceeded to talk up a storm.

Upon his return to his office after the mass, he found the following note on the door:

1)Sip the vodka, don't gulp.

etc.

Dear Quahom1, I guess I have been away from Catholic practice for quite some time. I attend worship now in a free Evangelical church.

What I knew was that Catholics including priests must abstain from foods and drinks from midnight in order to receive Communion. Maybe there is a new discipline now or a relaxation of an old one.

Of course one priest could be delivering the sermon and another one celebrating the Mass.

Best regards.

Pachomius2000

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Dear Quahom1, I guess I have been away from Catholic practice for quite some time. I attend worship now in a free Evangelical church.

What I knew was that Catholics including priests must abstain from foods and drinks from midnight in order to receive Communion. Maybe there is a new discipline now or a relaxation of an old one.

Of course one priest could be delivering the sermon and another one celebrating the Mass.

Best regards.

Pachomius2000

True, I was taught the same thing (from midnight to when we go to church), which subconsiously I guess I still do. Technically, the priest did not imbibe until he got to church...I guess. ;-)

But besides that Sus, did it get you to chuckle?

Have a great day!

v/r

Q

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

True, I was taught the same thing (from midnight to when we go to church), which subconsiously I guess I still do. Technically, the priest did not imbibe until he got to church...I guess. ;-)

But besides that Sus, did it get you to chuckle?

Have a great day!

v/r

Q

Yes, indeed, I had very good laugh!

I did check on the latest discipline and this is what I found:

(c) Paul VI further reduced the fasting requirement after the Second Vatican Council, requiring only a one hour fast from all food and drink (excluding water). This may be reduced to 15 minutes for those who are sick or for other important reasons. This is the practice currently in force.

So, you are also a 'postgraduate' or lapsed Vatican Roman Catholic? Glad to meet someone with presumably the same history.

There are so much more people with our background that a 'liberated' Christian is more likely to be from the Vatican Roman Catholic church.

I am going to my thread on a or the true religion, to find out what people think about a true religion or the true religion.

Pachomius2000

[Susma Rio Sep]

Josetu tells me:

I'm not Bananabrain, and my knowledge (from what I've seen of his posts in my brief time here) is far more limited. But from what I do know of Judaism your observation is completely wrong. Judaism has absolutely no "prosperity gospel" of any kind.

How do we show that to be a fact with Jews generally insofar as the Old Testament is concerned?

Pachomius2000

[joseftu]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Josetu tells me:

I'm not Bananabrain, and my knowledge (from what I've seen of his posts in my brief time here) is far more limited. But from what I do know of Judaism your observation is completely wrong. Judaism has absolutely no "prosperity gospel" of any kind.

How do we show that to be a fact with Jews generally insofar as the Old Testament is concerned?

Pachomius2000

I guess you have a point that we can never be sure of the personal philosophies of individual Jews at any period in history--except as they report them themselves.

But you claim that Judaism <b>as a religion</b> held the belief that "the more money you make or of earthly worth the more you are favored by Jahweh."

That's not a Jewish "gospel," not a Jewish belief, not supported by the "Old Testament," and it's not a belief that Jews generally, in the "Old Testament" or anywhere else, have reported or advocated.

In Judaism, wealth, material success, and prosperity are certainly seen as blessings, but not at all as signs of special favor. Judaism is about living a life in adherence to the commandments--and quite prominent among those commandments are those dealing with giving charity (which is a responsibility, a duty, not an option) and supporting the poor.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? Can you clarify?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by joseftu

I guess you have a point that we can never be sure of the personal philosophies of individual Jews at any period in history--except as they report them themselves.

But you claim that Judaism <b>as a religion</b> held the belief that "the more money you make or of earthly worth the more you are favored by Jahweh."

That's not a Jewish "gospel," not a Jewish belief, not supported by the "Old Testament," and it's not a belief that Jews generally, in the "Old Testament" or anywhere else, have reported or advocated.

In Judaism, wealth, material success, and prosperity are certainly seen as blessings, but not at all as signs of special favor. Judaism is about living a life in adherence to the commandments--and quite prominent among those commandments are those dealing with giving charity (which is a responsibility, a duty, not an option) and supporting the poor.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point? Can you clarify?

My inclination to think that Old Testament characters were into worldly treasures in their adherence to Jahweh is due to the shall we call it bargain that Jahweh and His choice servants are always dealing on, namely, "If you take Me to be your only God and serve Me faithfully, I will reward you with innumerable posterity as the sands of the oceans and livestocks and servants and lands and all tribes around you will be subject to you" -- something like that.

Pachomius2000

[joseftu]

I would argue that the "bargain" you're describing is not really one that is "always" seen in the Old Testament. The overwhelming message is that the commandments should be followed because they're commandments, because God has said that he wants them to be followed, not because they will "pay off" in wealth or prosperity.

In any case, I took your original description of a "prosperity gospel" to mean something that works in the opposite direction, too--a belief that wealth is a sign or indicator of divine favor, that the wealthy are more holy, by definition, than those who are poor. This is not a Jewish belief, never has been, and is actually antithetical to Jewish beliefs.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by joseftu

I would argue that the "bargain" you're describing is not really one that is "always" seen in the Old Testament. The overwhelming message is that the commandments should be followed because they're commandments, because God has said that he wants them to be followed, not because they will "pay off" in wealth or prosperity.

In any case, I took your original description of a "prosperity gospel" to mean something that works in the opposite direction, too--a belief that wealth is a sign or indicator of divine favor, that the wealthy are more holy, by definition, than those who are poor. This is not a Jewish belief, never has been, and is actually antithetical to Jewish beliefs.

Yes, I think I did express the view that Old Testament Jews have this idea that material prosperity is an assurance of being on good terms with Jahweh; because Jahweh did make that promise several times to the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.

You don't think that Jews of the Old Testament generally have that mentality, or namely: "No, Jews of the Old Testament generally do not have that kind of a mentality".

I respect your view.

Let us go into another direction which has a good bearing on our different views about OT Jews and materials prosperity as indication of Jahweh's satisfaction with them.

Time and again we have critics saying that anyone can find any support from the Bible for any doctrine and any practice.

Perhaps you will ask me to produce citations to back up my statement; in which case I think I will have to be excused because I would sense that you might without knowing it engaging in unproductive dodging -- forgive the word, though.

Suppose we get some really very good language experts to read the Bible who are impartial, to make a list of the propositions and precepts that can be garnered from the Bible, and rank them accrodingly on the basis of how much each is endowed with certainty and how strong the coercive force? What do you think?

Pachomius2000

[joseftu]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Perhaps you will ask me to produce citations to back up my statement;

Yes, I will.

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

in which case I think I will have to be excused because I would sense that you might without knowing it engaging in unproductive dodging -- forgive the word, though.

I don't object to the word--but why not give it a try? I might, instead, engage in some very productive discussion, with no dodging at all.

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Suppose we get some really very good language experts to read the Bible who are impartial, to make a list of the propositions and precepts that can be garnered from the Bible, and rank them accrodingly on the basis of how much each is endowed with certainty and how strong the coercive force? What do you think?

I really don't understand what you're asking here. Are you saying (here and above) that there is no way to read the Bible as historical, factual certainty? I don't have any problem with that position. But you seem to want to claim that the Bible says things which it (objectively, empirically) does not say. If you will read God's promises to Abraham (and Isaac and Jacob), you won't see any promise of wealth or prosperity--posterity, yes, and future generations which will be numerous and exist as a nation, but that's not the same thing at all.

That's why I would ask you for citations--not to dodge, but to see if there's some basis for your comments which I'm not seeing. And I would hope that others, more knowledgable than myself, would also be able to point out any errors.

But I do realize that this discussion is off the topic of this thread.

Happy New Year!

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by joseftu

Yes, I will.

I don't object to the word--but why not give it a try? I might, instead, engage in some very productive discussion, with no dodging at all.

I really don't understand what you're asking here. Are you saying (here and above) that there is no way to read the Bible as historical, factual certainty? I don't have any problem with that position. But you seem to want to claim that the Bible says things which it (objectively, empirically) does not say. If you will read God's promises to Abraham (and Isaac and Jacob), you won't see any promise of wealth or prosperity--posterity, yes, and future generations which will be numerous and exist as a nation, but that's not the same thing at all.

That's why I would ask you for citations--not to dodge, but to see if there's some basis for your comments which I'm not seeing. And I would hope that others, more knowledgable than myself, would also be able to point out any errors.

But I do realize that this discussion is off the topic of this thread.

Happy New Year!

Yes, you are right, this is not the thread to talk about OT Jews and their bargain with Jahweh for material wealth and power. That is one proposition.

The other proposition is whether the Bible can have supporting text for, to exaggerate, any kind of doctrine or practice in the name of religion approved by the OT God.

About the first proposition, we can discuss endlessly; but are you cognizant of the fact that maybe even erroneously intelligent people do derive that kind of an impression that OT Jews are into material wealth and power in their acceptance and worship of Jahweh; which statement will also be debated endlessly -- I mean whether intelligent people do draw that kind of an impression and whether that impression is genuinely justified from writings in the OT.

So, let us just leave that first proposition alone.

Yet just to be honest I myself don't mind obtaining a lot of material wealth and power with my worship of Jahweh, and I promise Jahweh to continue to be holy and to make very good use of the wealth and power if they do come by.

Which remains to be seen when Jahweh does bestow on me wealth and power, whether I don’t lose my head; however I do know from observation of history past and present even among people in my immediate circle that wealth and power make people lose their heads –- there are exceptions though, and I aspire to be among the exceptions when Jahweh does bestow wealth and power on me.

(Paging Jahweh, please try me with wealth and power and good long years of health and physical strength, and see whether I would lose my head.)

About the second proposition, that the Bible can be used to support any kind of doctrine and practice as at least approved by the OT God, I think it might be satisfying to our curiosity to make a list of doctrinal propositions, like "There is only one God", and precepts like "Thou shall not cook the kid in its mother's milk" (not a very innocuous example, I am sure); and then as I was trying to describe to you in the previous post, assign to them each a score on how strong they are each propounded in the Bible, maybe on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the strongest.

What is the use of such a finding redacted into a tabulation? Why, it will be a good practical basis for telling people who claim a doctrine or a precept to be revealed or commanded by the Old Testament God, that the said doctrine or precept has only a rating of 3 or 4 or yes it has a rating of 10.

Shall we start a thread on that idea?

Pachomius2000

PS I have asked some people to look into such a tabulation.

[Mus Zibii]

If wealth WERE a valid reward for one religion, how is that support for subsequent religions? Even among the wealthy you'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd opening praise wealth as equal to enlightenment.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

If wealth WERE a valid reward for one religion, how is that support for subsequent religions? Even among the wealthy you'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd opening praise wealth as equal to enlightenment.

Self-interests in my own book of life seem to be the motivation in the last analysis of human thinking and doing.

It leads to sorrow or as Buddha puts it, suffering. So Buddha preaches the conquest of or the escape from desires.

Society has long come to the conclusion to exhalt the opposite of excess self-interests, like in place of ambition humility, in place of greed material detachment, in place of vanity frugal life, etc.

So, it's a conditioned attitude or profession that people in religion don't ascribe to the idea of their religion enabling them to get ahead in the material world.

But the way I see it, it's very clear in the Old Testament: "Worship Jahweh and you will get all your self-interests on the earthly levels satisfied to your most profound satisfaction".

From evident appearances, I notice that the people with religion that count in society, I mean the people, are the wealthy ones. The poor don't count.

Ask them where they get their material worth. Of course, they will avow that they got everything earthly from their God, read that, religion.

See? Hehehehe.

Pachomius2000

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Self-interests in my own book of life seem to be the motivation in the last analysis of human thinking and doing.

It leads to sorrow or as Buddha puts it, suffering. So Buddha preaches the conquest of or the escape from desires.

Society has long come to the conclusion to exhalt the opposite of excess self-interests, like in place of ambition humility, in place of greed material detachment, in place of vanity frugal life, etc.

So, it's a conditioned attitude or profession that people in religion don't ascribe to the idea of their religion enabling them to get ahead in the material world.

But the way I see it, it's very clear in the Old Testament: "Worship Jahweh and you will get all your self-interests on the earthly levels satisfied to your most profound satisfaction".

From evident appearances, I notice that the people with religion that count in society, I mean the people, are the wealthy ones. The poor don't count.

Ask them where they get their material worth. Of course, they will avow that they got everything earthly from their God, read that, religion.

See? Hehehehe.

Pachomius2000

"...Have you considered my faithful servant Job?"

Sus, the book of Job in the old testement doesn't quite paint the picture that way. In his conversation with God, Satan brings up a similar point about wealth and faith. In fact he challenges Job's faith before God by acusing God of playing favorites with Job. ...of course he has faith! With all the wealth you provided him how could he not have faith? But should he lose that wealth, then were would his faith be?... (paraphrased).

And thus began the test of the faith of Job in God. First his wealth was stripped, then his family killed off, then his reputation ruined, and finally his very health and sanity were stripped from him. His friends turned from him, or accused him of comitting some grevious wrong towards God. Even his wife told Job to "Curse God and die!" The only thing God would not allow Satan to take from Job was his life.

Job's faith never waivered, "...the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away...blessed is the name of the Lord..."

Once the faith of Job was proven to Satan, of course God rewarded Job with double what he had before.

Faith based on wealth and easy living is no faith at all. True faith tested by fire becomes as finely tempered steel, without blemish, or impurity within. That is the true wealth. The material stuff is just fancy trappings, and usually used by the truely faithful to further the glory of God.

There are others in the old testement who displayed their faith first, and rewards seemed to grow around them second. But again they always used that wealth to help others, which caused them to accumulate more.

Joseph and the multicolored coat comes to mind. In fact he became the second most powerful man in Egypt, and was instrumental in saving it. Daniel and the lion's den. Joshua and the city of Jerico, Abraham. And then there is the Story of Ruth. All of these people grew rich, but their greatest wealth was their faith and walk with God.

v/r

Q