Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Keeping the flock faithful (Catholic priests in battle with Evangelicals for their flock)
Tampa Bay.com ^ | January 4, 2008 | SAUNDRA AMRHEIN

Posted on 01/05/2008 7:06:01 AM PST by NYer

WIMAUMA - Father Demetrio Lorden walks into the garage of a concrete block house, slips on his robe and vestments, and unpacks a gold chalice.

He tests a microphone, and as dogs howl nearby, a small group of Hispanic workers and their families launches into a discordant song of praise.

Lorden calls this his "evangelism Mass," the one he has every Monday night in houses and mobile home camps of the Wimauma immigrant community.

Like other Catholic priests with Hispanic members, Lorden is trying to fend off competitors for the parishioners in his pews.

Protestant evangelists - people just as dedicated as he is, but with a quite different approach to Christianity - are aggressively recruiting on his turf. Some target workers as they labor in the fields; others approach them in their homes or at local bodegas, grocery stores.

Catholic priests like Lorden are responding with outreach and Bible studies, hoping to hold on to this large and growing population.

"Hispanic immigrants need to know someone is there caring for them," said Lorden, pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe church. "But one of the things that pushed me to do that fervently and constantly was because ... other churches and denominations are visiting them and proselytizing them."

Sometimes Lorden's home-based Masses are the only contact workers have with the Catholic church, said Alejandro Lopez, 34, a construction worker who attended Lorden's service on a recent Monday night.

For those who can't make Sunday Mass because of work, Lorden's service helps sustain their faith, especially during hard times, Lopez said.

"It makes you feel better," he said.

The majority of Hispanics in the United States, or 68 percent, still call themselves Catholics. Of those who leave the Catholic church, most become Pentecostal or evangelical Christians or they leave religion all together, according to a national study released this year by the Pew Hispanic Center.

Some Catholic priests acknowledge that Protestant sects like the Pentecostals have responded faster and more aggressively to immigrants with aid and tight-knit worship circles in Spanish.

On a recent Saturday afternoon, the Rev. Jose Luis Correa, a Pentecostal pastor in Dover, handed out pamphlets with some church members as they walked through the parking lots of small Hispanic grocery stores or food stores with Hispanic patrons.

Then, they visited a mobile home park nestled between strawberry fields and railroad tracks. Many residents did not answer the door or weren't home. Others politely took the pamphlets and said they would come to church.

Sometimes, Correa said, he approaches them in the fields with water. Often he brings them clothes and food.

"We tell them we believe God will provide for their needs," said Correa, of Assembly of God or Templo Cristiano. "You're not going to reach them by being on a pulpit or sitting in an office."

Correa tackles their personal problems: marital disputes, alcoholism - a service sometimes lacking in the Catholic church.

For some immigrants like Edin Gonzalez, a 25-year-old Guatemalan carpenter who left most of his family behind, the church has become an instant community.

"It's like my second home. It's my family," he said.

* * *

When Hispanic converts from the Catholic church join Protestant sects, they let go of their attachment to the saints, religious images and Mary, the mother of Jesus, Correa said.

"We don't worship idols," he said.

Catholic priests bristle at the accusation and say Protestant evangelizers are tearing Hispanics away from their culture and faith.

"There's almost like a whole campaign to bring down the blessed Mother like she's the anti-Christ," said Father Carlos Rojas of St. Clement Catholic Church in Plant City.

Rojas, of Puerto Rican decent, said Hispanic Catholics, particularly Mexican Catholics, are very devoted to Mary.

They believe Mary, known as Our Lady of Guadalupe, appeared to a Mexican Indian peasant named Juan Diego in 1531. Juan Diego's story contributed greatly to Catholicism's spread in Mexico.

Recently, in a mix of religion and culture, St. Clement held a three-day festival and a two-day vigil to mark the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe that included Aztec dancers, mariachi bands and statues of the Virgin Mary.

The festival, which took place at the Plant City Stadium, drew 3,000 people, the first time it was held on such a large scale.

And it was yet another effort to cement the Catholic church's historical presence in the Hispanic community.

St. Clement, like other Catholic churches, started a Bible study for its Hispanic members in part to counter Protestant evangelizers, shifting from a tradition that left Bible readings and interpretations to priests.

"When you are entering into dialogue with other religions and people who are attacking the Catholic church, there is a need to have Bible studies," Rojas said. "If you are asked this question, here is a way you can respond."

Juan Gomez, pastor of the Church of God, a Protestant church in Wimauma, said his members don't attack Catholics. They just worship differently.

"We believe that (Mary) was a beautiful woman of God, but in terms of redemption, Christ is the one in terms of intercession, Christ is the interceder, not Mary, as they believe," said Gomez, who converted from Catholicism to the Church of God at 15 after immigrating to Ruskin from Mexico.

Gomez said he questions the Juan Diego story and the Catholic blending of religion with Hispanic culture.

But ultimately, newcomers aren't forced to stay in his church. If they don't like the spirited form of worship and Bible study, they go elsewhere.

"We try to bring people to a deeper relationship with Christ," he said. "It will always be up to the people."

Saundra Amrhein can be reached at amrhein@sptimes.com or (813) 661-2441.

Clear differences between the two

The battle for Hispanic faithful continues to brew between Catholics and Protestants, with both sides increasingly stepping up their recruitment efforts. Among the Protestant denominations, the Pentecostals have been particularly aggressive. Here are some major differences between Catholics and Protestants.

PROTESTANTS vsCATHOLICS

Believe the sacrament, or communion, is symbolic. Believe the sacrament istransformed into the body and blood of Christ.

Have no supreme hierarchy such as a pope. Believe in the infallibility of the pope.

Many churches, particularly Pentecostals, embrace aspirited worship style. Embrace a liturgical worship style.

Allow women to pastor and become bishops. Allow only men to become priests and bishops.

See no need for a priest to serve as a mediator between them and God. Revere Mary and the saints and ask them for intercession. Require confession before a priest.

Source: Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: aog; evangelicals; fl; immigrants; mexicans; migrantworkers; pentecostal
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last
To: GoLightly

That’s what I figured.


101 posted on 01/05/2008 6:19:18 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum
That's a simile: It's meant to express something comparatively, but it's not literally true.

Something doesn't have to be literally true to be true. Similes, metaphors, personifications & the like are forms of expression. I could have left out the comparison. If I had just said, "the woman is thin", it could have been an accurate statement, yet it would be one that lacks precision.

102 posted on 01/05/2008 6:22:43 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
Something doesn't have to be literally true to be true.

That sounds eerily postmodern. I already left my cradle denomination because the prevailing opinion now is that things like the virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection aren't literally true, but they're metaphors so they can still say the Creed without crossing their fingers.

Similes, metaphors, personifications & the like are forms of expression.

And they are just that. But don't get me wrong; that is not to say they are lies. There is no intent to deceive, and if everyone is on the same page then they can add beauty and poetry to our discourse. In fact, there are cases when a metaphor might express something deeper, more than what is said with words, and in these cases it may appropriately be called a symbol.

If I had just said, "the woman is thin", it could have been an accurate statement, yet it would be one that lacks precision.

It would not be accurate without a "precise" (i.e. lacking ambiguity) definition of "thin"; otherwise it is a relative statement. For instance, a 300-pound woman might see a 200-pound woman as thin, but a 100-pound woman probably wouldn't.

At this point I should point out that you might be correct if you're taking "precise" to mean something else, which is perfectly valid given that the word has more than one meaning. However, words having multiple meanings can make discourse confusing at times, and is the source of much misunderstanding. This is why, in fields such as mathematics where "precision" (i.e. a lack of ambiguity) is essential, giving words multiple meanings is generally frowned upon.

103 posted on 01/05/2008 7:40:09 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
Who would the church that "Princess Bishop" is a member of be "protesting" against?

Every other one. Remember the Eemo "Die, heretic, die!" joke?

I was quite surprised to see her shopping on Sunday - I grew up Southern Baptist and we just DID NOT DO that. 'Course, in Virginia we really couldn't - nothing was open. I'm sorry that changed, really, and I try to patronize businesses during the week that do still close on Sundays.

104 posted on 01/05/2008 7:56:22 PM PST by nina0113 (If fences don't work, why does the White House have one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The big problem with articles such as this is that Protestant is all lumped together. For the most part I have no problem with Non Catholic christian churches. But I think it is wrong to treat the Evangelical non denominational church which takes to heart the mission of the Gospel with the Name It and Claim It crowd.

Both may appear the same but they are extremely different in their goals, practices and mission.


105 posted on 01/05/2008 8:58:17 PM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum
I said, "Something doesn't have to be literally true to be true." That sounds eerily postmodern.

Yes, I suppose it does. My problem is coming up with a good example. If I say the ball is round, could it be true? Without getting into all of the particulars of tolerances, which would be necessary to determine the precision of my statement, could my statement be true?

I already left my cradle denomination because the prevailing opinion now is that things like the virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection aren't literally true, but they're metaphors so they can still say the Creed without crossing their fingers.

I left the church of my childhood for other reasons. After I left they joined the ELCA. I can relate. That isn't what I was talking about.

I said, "Similes, metaphors, personifications & the like are forms of expression."

And they are just that. But don't get me wrong; that is not to say they are lies. There is no intent to deceive, and if everyone is on the same page then they can add beauty and poetry to our discourse. In fact, there are cases when a metaphor might express something deeper, more than what is said with words, and in these cases it may appropriately be called a symbol.

I agree.

It would not be accurate without a "precise" (i.e. lacking ambiguity) definition of "thin"; otherwise it is a relative statement. For instance, a 300-pound woman might see a 200-pound woman as thin, but a 100-pound woman probably wouldn't.

Those weights you just gave me are also relative, not precise. Were they all weighed on a scale that's on Earth?

At this point I should point out that you might be correct if you're taking "precise" to mean something else, which is perfectly valid given that the word has more than one meaning. However, words having multiple meanings can make discourse confusing at times, and is the source of much misunderstanding. This is why, in fields such as mathematics where "precision" (i.e. a lack of ambiguity) is essential, giving words multiple meanings is generally frowned upon.

Right, but then you get into words like "acute" & "obtuse", which describe some things within ranges... accurate, true descriptions, tho not precise.

106 posted on 01/05/2008 9:01:04 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

And no doubt you can provide historical references for this.


107 posted on 01/05/2008 9:10:44 PM PST by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: nina0113
Every other one.

I suppose, cuz every other one might have a thing or two to say about the sash. LOL

Remember the Eemo "Die, heretic, die!" joke?

Eemo? Stange thin guy, that for some reason brings to mind Pee Wee Herman to me. Erm, no, I don't think I remember that joke.

I was quite surprised to see her shopping on Sunday - I grew up Southern Baptist and we just DID NOT DO that.

I'm old enough to remember when stores weren't open on Sundays *in Wisconsin*. Bars were open, but the stores weren't. Since you were raised a Southern Baptist, you probably wouldn't know that sort of thing, cept maybe in thinking about the poor lost souls who'd be sitting in a gin mill any day of the week, much less on the Lord's Day, heaven forbid.

'Course, in Virginia we really couldn't - nothing was open. I'm sorry that changed, really, and I try to patronize businesses during the week that do still close on Sundays.

I'm thankful for stores that are open 24/7. Back when my sons were little, I'd go shopping at 2 AM, cuz I could go by myself.

108 posted on 01/05/2008 9:15:35 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

“That’s a miracle if you like.”

That’s a miracle even if I don’t like.


109 posted on 01/05/2008 9:33:17 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
I left the church of my childhood for other reasons. After I left they joined the ELCA. I can relate. That isn't what I was talking about.

Sorry, I was just trying to give some background on why red flags start waving in my head whenever I see statements like: "Something doesn't have to be literally true to be true."

Those weights you just gave me are also relative, not precise. Were they all weighed on a scale that's on Earth?

Good catch! In fact, it would be better to compare mass instead of weight. However, I was merely giving an illustration (however imprecise!) and it was not meant to be taken as an argument itself. Anyway, on to the fun stuff:

If I say the ball is round, could it be true? Without getting into all of the particulars of tolerances, which would be necessary to determine the precision of my statement, could my statement be true?

What do mean by "round"? "Spherical", perhaps? We can look at a ball and see that it looks like a sphere, but if we examine it up close then we observe tiny bumps on the surface; so we conclude that the ball is really not a sphere, even though it approximates one very closely. So perhaps our definition of "round" could include "almost spherical" as well. But "almost spherical" is very vague: When does something resemble a sphere closely enough for us to call it "almost spherical"? Perhaps one person might say, "Yes, that looks like a sphere," and another might say, "No, that looks nothing like a sphere!" So even though they can agree on what a "sphere" is (since we have a precise definition), they may disagree on what makes something "almost spherical". This is what I mean by "precision" as a "lack of ambiguity". Since "almost spherical" is ambiguous (unless we define it precisely, and this is possible using tolerances like you mentioned), we cannot say for certain whether something is "almost spherical" or not. The bright side is that most people would agree that something like a ball is "almost spherical", so even though this isn't an objective criterion, a statement like "The ball is round" would be understood by nearly everyone.

words like "acute" & "obtuse", which describe some things within ranges... accurate, true descriptions, tho not precise.

However, keeping in mind what I wrote above, the terms "acute" and "obtuse" are precisely defined, i.e. there is no ambiguity in their definitions. So for example, if I were to tell you that an angle is acute, then you wouldn't know whether it is 20 degrees or 45 degrees or whatever, but you would know absolutely that it is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees.

110 posted on 01/05/2008 10:36:26 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum; GoLightly
The bright side is that most people would agree that something like a ball is "almost spherical", so even though this isn't an objective criterion, a statement like "The ball is round" would be understood by nearly everyone.

And there I go being imprecise again. By "ball" I mean something like a basketball and not a football (precisely, an American football, not a soccer ball). See, it's tricky! :)

111 posted on 01/05/2008 10:41:45 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
And no doubt you can provide historical references for this.

You're serious?

112 posted on 01/06/2008 6:52:51 AM PST by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum
In fact, it would be better to compare mass instead of weight. However, I was merely giving an illustration (however imprecise!) and it was not meant to be taken as an argument itself.

As was I, when I used the rail thin woman as an example.

I said, "If I say the ball is round, could it be true?" Without getting into all of the particulars of tolerances, which would be necessary to determine the precision of my statement, could my statement be true?

What do mean by "round"?

I considered discussing spheres, as you did, but instead raised the issue of tolerances without getting into them. Only God can make a perfect sphere. Men can theorize them, but can not make one. Man can, as best, come close.

I also considered talking about the colour of the ball, which took me into frequency of the colour & the lighting in which the colour is being seen in.

The word "round", in the way I used it has a certain range. It is an imprecise term that can be an accurate description of some kinds of objects, if indeed those objects are round. You wouldn't expect someone with a round face or a round belly to have a face or belly which is spherically shaped. A piece of furniture can be said to have round corners or edges. (there's an oxymoron for you) Range of "round" is determined by the kind of object it is being used to describe. Like the word "thin", it is a comparative word.

We can look at a ball and see that it looks like a sphere, but if we examine it up close then we observe tiny bumps on the surface; so we conclude that the ball is really not a sphere, even though it approximates one very closely.

Let's use something even closer to an actual sphere, a ball bearing manufactured in space. To the human eye it looks like a sphere. To human hands, using any standard measuring tools we have, it seems to be a sphere.

You mentioned tiny bumps on the surface & again, I have to ask what tolerance you're using. Now we're pulling out another group of measuring tools. If we find a single atom out of place, we're not dealing with a sphere. We're dealing with something which is round and it approximates a sphere.

Back to the statement that started this discussion, "A statement can be precise without being accurate, but it cannot truly be accurate without being precise."

All types of measurements come with a standard deviation, which will be described by a range. Precision is determined by the stringency of that standard, while accuracy is a relational term, like thin or round. Something could be described accurately without precision, but you wouldn't be able to determine how accurate that description is without something to compare it to. The more precise the thing it's being compared to is, the more you're able to determine accuracy.

Your statement requires one to fill in a variable with a value, even if the value is unknown.

However, keeping in mind what I wrote above, the terms "acute" and "obtuse" are precisely defined, i.e. there is no ambiguity in their definitions. So for example, if I were to tell you that an angle is acute, then you wouldn't know whether it is 20 degrees or 45 degrees or whatever, but you would know absolutely that it is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees.

The known value is a range. The term that I used in my first response in this particular tangent of this thread (slide fit) is also an expression of a range.

113 posted on 01/06/2008 9:23:06 AM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum; GoLightly

Y’all, thanks for keeping this going.

The reason in the old days people studied Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric is that speaking well is more than a matter of articulating clearly, huh?


114 posted on 01/06/2008 10:07:41 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
speaking well is more than a matter of articulating clearly, huh?

Yes, because communicating requires determination of common references. without common references, it's easy to end up talking past each other.

115 posted on 01/06/2008 12:45:03 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and built upon the Apostles and their successors

Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew. The church that followed was founded by His sucessors.

116 posted on 01/06/2008 12:51:45 PM PST by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ninonitti
Of course Jesus was a Jew. So were all of His Apostles. So were 3 out of the 4 authors of the Gospels. Nevertheless, Jesus did found His Church.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock >b>I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

117 posted on 01/06/2008 12:59:27 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Upon this rock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock >b>I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Correct. I just happen to believe His church was of a spiritual nature and his teaching were designed to enable his students to achieve spiritual enlightenment in the real world rather than empty edifices in the impermanent.

118 posted on 01/06/2008 1:18:45 PM PST by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ninonitti

His Church is spiritual and physical. Just like His body.


119 posted on 01/06/2008 1:26:54 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
His Church is spiritual and physical. Just like His body.

The spiritual is real the physical is unreal.....simply an impermanent ego projection/effect.

120 posted on 01/06/2008 1:52:38 PM PST by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
Only God can make a perfect sphere. Men can theorize them, but can not make one. Man can, as best, come close.

That is a very important observation. It says volumes about the the nature of God vs. the nature of Man. The mere fact that we are able to theorize about perfection, despite our inability to achieve it, is amazing to me.

The word "round", in the way I used it has a certain range. It is an imprecise term that can be an accurate description of some kinds of objects, if indeed those objects are round.

This is a circular statement; unfortunately, it just begs the question.

Let's use something even closer to an actual sphere, a ball bearing manufactured in space. To the human eye it looks like a sphere. To human hands, using any standard measuring tools we have, it seems to be a sphere.

These tools themselves have a degree of imprecision in their measurements. So we only know that this ball bearing approximates a sphere to within the tolerance of the measuring tools (in fact, the boundaries of this tolerance themselves are somewhat ambiguous).

All types of measurements come with a standard deviation, which will be described by a range. Precision is determined by the stringency of that standard, while accuracy is a relational term, like thin or round.

Not only are we using the word "precision" differently, but it also seems we're using the word "accuracy" differently. For an example of how I use the words in an empirical sense, see post 91.

Something could be described accurately without precision, but you wouldn't be able to determine how accurate that description is without something to compare it to. The more precise the thing it's being compared to is, the more you're able to determine accuracy.

That's why I'm saying that accuracy is meaningless without precision.

The term that I used in my first response in this particular tangent of this thread (slide fit) is also an expression of a range.

OK, let's go back to your slide fit:

A slide fit allows for movement. Picture a hinge. The pin & the dealybobs that move around it would have a slide fit. The term is used for some kinds of bearings.

Yes, there is a range involved. But the point I'm trying to make is that the range itself is precisely defined.

121 posted on 01/06/2008 2:07:59 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg; GoLightly
Y’all, thanks for keeping this going.

No, thank YOU and GL for indulging me in this tangent. As I said before, I've been trying to apply an empirical understanding of the words to philosophy, so I've basically been flying by the seat of pants, and I don't know how successful I've been. Thank you for helping me to flesh out this idea. Anyway, I think the analogy might be this: In science, it is meaningless to say that measurements are accurate if they are all over the place (i.e. imprecise); in logic, it is meaningless to say that a statement is accurate if it is not defined precisely. In both cases, there are ideals for both accuracy and precision, but the ideal of accuracy cannot be attained without also attaining the ideal of precision. Also, the further one deviates from the ideal of presision, the further one deviates from the ideal of accuracy.

speaking well is more than a matter of articulating clearly

Something I have enough trouble with as it is. ;)

122 posted on 01/06/2008 2:35:46 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly; Mad Dawg
Yes, because communicating requires determination of common references. without common references, it's easy to end up talking past each other.

I think that's one of the major sources of misunderstanding on the Religion Forum, and between different denominations or even religions in general: People use the same words to mean diffent things.

123 posted on 01/06/2008 2:38:53 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ninonitti

“empty edifices”

You go to Frederick, Maryland, to the Visitation Monastery. Spend a few moments in the sitting room calming yourself, praying, and getting in a contemplative frame of mind.

Then walk into the Chapel.

If at that moment you think you are in an “empty edifice,” ya ain’t got a spiritual bone in yer body.


124 posted on 01/06/2008 2:48:11 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum
It's interesting. At my ridiculous college the first semester "Laboratory" was about measurement. We actually tried to MAKE plane surfaces, straight edges, scales, primitive logorhythmic slide rules, and at least to understand a device with which we could compute the speed of light and such like. It was there that the conversation arose. But, yeah, we were all a bunch of philosophes wanna-bes.

And I htink the virtue of The Trivium - the "three ways" of grammar logic, and rhetoric, is that they address directly this problem.

So after all this study I managed to become completely incomprehensible! Who says collitch is a waste of time?

125 posted on 01/06/2008 3:18:53 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: ninonitti
"The spiritual is real the physical is unreal.....simply an impermanent ego projection/effect."

Fascinating! Would you mind telling me your church affiliation and/or your teacher or possibly a link on the Internet? I had never before heard this philosophy except from friends with a Buddhist or Hindu background. I would like to learn more about your belief.

126 posted on 01/06/2008 3:28:05 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; ninonitti
The spiritual is real the physical is unreal

***

I had never before heard this philosophy except from friends with a Buddhist or Hindu background.

This spiritual/physical dualism is also found in certain "Christian" heresies such as Gnosticism. Given that God saw that His creation was good, and that Jesus Christ has a physical body, this dualism is not a Christian concept.

simply an impermanent ego projection/effect.

This "projection" concept is interesting, though, and C.S. Lewis discussed something like it when he called this world the "Shadowlands". However, I don't think he ever denied the reality of the physical. I believe that Lewis found this "projection" concept in Plato's writings, but that's something that's still on my much-too-long reading list. At any rate, Lewis echoes the Apostle Paul who writes:

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

127 posted on 01/06/2008 4:29:54 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum; Mrs. Don-o; ninonitti
The spiritual is real the physical is unreal

One question to ask here is, "Did Jesus 'really' suffer?"

The answers of course, lead to further questions.

128 posted on 01/06/2008 4:45:16 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum; ninonitti
I remember that in Lewis' "The Last Battle" (the last book of the Narnia series) when the End of the World comes and the Pevensie children go on to the next world, it's all more intense: the colors more colorful, the peaches more peachy, the zest of their bodily experiences more zesty.

This did not, of course, deny or negate the goodness and realness of bodily life on this earth (or in Narnia): it was just deeper, wilder, better.

Just as we Christians do not believe we shall experience an eternal disembodied life as some gaseous being, Casper the Friendly Ghost or whatever: we believe in the Resurrection of the Body.

129 posted on 01/06/2008 4:54:20 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg; ninonitti; Zero Sum

The Muslims, I think, say that Jesus did not really suffer and die on the cross, but it was just some sort of appearance or illusion. They believe neither in the Incarnation nor the Passion.


130 posted on 01/06/2008 4:56:48 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

It’s called Docetism I believe. He Looked like He was suffering. On the kindergarten level the problem is that then we have God (or the Prophet) intentionally giving a false impression.


131 posted on 01/06/2008 5:07:44 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg; Mrs. Don-o; ninonitti
One question to ask here is, "Did Jesus 'really' suffer?"

Here's some food for thought, from +John Chrysostom's Homily on "Father, if it be possible...":

But these proofs alone did not suffice, but even when He had come, lest what had taken place should be deemed an illusion, He warranted the fact not only by the sight but by duration of time and by passing through all the phases incident to man. For He did not enter once for all into a man matured and completely developed, but into a virgin's womb, so as to undergo the process of gestation and birth and suckling and growth, and by the length of the time and the variety of the stages of growth to give assurance of what had come to pass. And not even here were the proofs concluded, but even when bearing about the body of flesh He suffered it to experience the infirmities of human nature and to be hungry, and thirsty, and to sleep and feel fatigue; finally also when He came to the cross He suffered it to undergo the pains of the flesh. For this reason also streams of sweat flowed down from it and an angel was discovered strengthening it, and He was sad and down-cast: for before He uttered these words He said "my soul is troubled, and exceeding sorrowful ever unto death." Matthew 26:38 If then after all these things have taken place the wicked mouth of the devil speaking through Marcion of Pontus, and Valentinus, and Manichæus of Persia and many more heretics, has attempted to overthrow the doctrine of the Incarnation and has vented a diabolical utterance declaring that He did not become flesh, nor was clothed with it, but that this was mere fancy, and illusion, a piece of acting and pretence, although the sufferings, the death, the burial, the thirst, cry aloud against this teaching; supposing that none of these things had happened would not the devil have sown these wicked doctrines of impiousness much more widely? For this reason, just as He hungered, as He slept, as He felt fatigue, as He ate and drank, so also did He deprecate death, thereby manifesting his humanity, and that infirmity of human nature which does not submit without pain to be torn from this present life. For had He not uttered any of these things, it might have been said that if He were a man He ought to have experienced human feelings. And what are these? in the case of one about to be crucified, fear and agony, and pain in being torn from present life: for a sense of the charm which surrounds present things is implanted in human nature: on this account wishing to prove the reality of the fleshly clothing, and to give assurance of the incarnation He manifests the actual feelings of man with full demonstration.

132 posted on 01/06/2008 5:12:46 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
So after all this study I managed to become completely incomprehensible!

LOL, that's college in a nutshell! :)

133 posted on 01/06/2008 5:15:21 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum
Well, yeah, but was +John Golden Mouf Muslim?

Or Christian Scientist? Or Anthroposophist?

(hint: HECK No!)

Seriously, Golden mouth indeed!

134 posted on 01/06/2008 5:18:26 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Yes, you guys claim him as a Doctor of your Church; but then some Christians out East might say, "No, he's OURS!" Seriously, I don't care WHO claims him, I just like what he has to say! :)

Seriously, Golden mouth indeed!

No kidding!

135 posted on 01/06/2008 5:25:33 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum
Yes, you guys claim him as a Doctor of your Church; but then some Christians out East might say, "No, he's OURS!"

On +John we share.

136 posted on 01/06/2008 5:49:44 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: dsc
You go to Frederick, Maryland, to the Visitation Monastery. Spend a few moments in the sitting room calming yourself, praying, and getting in a contemplative frame of mind

It's possible to do that here at a keyboard; behind the wheel of a car stuck in traffic as well; it's always available to us if we allow it.

137 posted on 01/06/2008 6:42:59 PM PST by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum

I’m still looking for the useful reference here.

Last night I watched a rerun of an episode of “Psych”. Two characters were at a shooting range. The first character shot a bunch of rounds at a target. She was going to get out a new target for the other character, but he chose to use the same target she’d used. He quickly shot the same number of rounds that she’d used. Upon inspection, he’d made each of the holes that she’d made into a “doubled” hole.

Her shots determined the precision of the shooting session. It could be said that her shots defined a range. If both shooters had been “perfect”, there would be exactly one hole in the target & it would be the size that the largest bullet had made.

The accuracy of his shooting was determined by the distance between the centers of each of the holes that he’d “duplicated” with all of his shots.

How did her precision (or lack of precision) affect his accuracy?


138 posted on 01/06/2008 6:53:12 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
One question to ask here is, "Did Jesus 'really' suffer?"

In answer to that I have to ask another question? Why would he want to? Why would the Son of God want to further the physical ego illusion of the body thru an example of suffering? Why would Jesus want to set such an example for his students?

To demonstrate Love?

To lock mankind into an illusion?

I believe that the answer is he didn't and that this emphasis was added after his "death" and "resurrection" by followers as opposed to students. I believe that's the real meaning of the cruxcifiction the body can be left behind while the spirit continues; this is when we enter into the body of Christ.

139 posted on 01/06/2008 7:03:04 PM PST by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum
I think that's one of the major sources of misunderstanding on the Religion Forum, and between different denominations or even religions in general: People use the same words to mean diffent things.

I agree & most of us speak a common language. Throw words of different languages into the mix, where a translation can only approximate an idea, discovery of common references gets even trickier.

140 posted on 01/06/2008 7:10:19 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I had never before heard this philosophy except from friends with a Buddhist or Hindu background. I would like to learn more about your belief.

That pretty much nails it Buddist-Hindu or is it Hindu-Buddist? I have enjoyed Christian contemplatives....Merton's a big fav; Sufi mysticism; Meher Baba;The Christ of A Course in Miracles.

141 posted on 01/06/2008 7:13:55 PM PST by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ninonitti

“It’s possible to do that here at a keyboard; behind the wheel of a car stuck in traffic as well; it’s always available to us if we allow it.”

If you think you can do that at will, then what you’re doing is counterfeit. All genuine contact with God is at His initiative, not ours.


142 posted on 01/06/2008 7:28:48 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
If both shooters had been “perfect”, there would be exactly one hole in the target & it would be the size that the largest bullet had made.

No, in this example the second shooter was "perfect", becuase he hit what he was aiming for every single time.

How did her precision (or lack of precision) affect his accuracy?

It didn't. It affected HER accuracy.

143 posted on 01/06/2008 7:37:02 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: dsc
If you think you can do that at will, then what you’re doing is counterfeit. All genuine contact with God is at His initiative, not ours.

I don't "think" anything, in fact it's when I don't think that the connection is available......so long as I stay stuck in the "little me" I'll stay stuck in thought forms and the world of judgement. The holy instant that my thinking stops God is revealed.

144 posted on 01/06/2008 7:40:52 PM PST by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum; GoLightly
If both shooters had been “perfect”, there would be exactly one hole in the target & it would be the size that the largest bullet had made.

***

No, in this example the second shooter was "perfect", becuase he hit what he was aiming for every single time.

Actually, you were right, because if the first shooter had been "perfect" as well (assuming she was aiming for the bullseye) then this would be the result. But the second shooter was still "perfect".

145 posted on 01/06/2008 7:44:30 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ninonitti

“In answer to that I have to ask another question? Why would he want to? Why would the Son of God want to further the physical ego illusion of the body thru an example of suffering? Why would Jesus want to set such an example for his students?”

So, you never heard of redemptive suffering? It’s not that he wanted to suffer; it was necessary.

Your fundamental error seems to be this Satanic delusion that the real world is illusory. You need to go back and read Descartes’ refutation of the notion that God is an evil deceiver.


146 posted on 01/06/2008 7:51:38 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: ninonitti

“The holy instant that my thinking stops God is revealed.”

Ummm...yeah. (Backing away slowly and carefully.)


147 posted on 01/06/2008 7:52:50 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Zero Sum
No, in this example the second shooter was "perfect", becuase he hit what he was aiming for every single time.

His shooting was more perfect than hers, but it wasn't perfect. If her skill had matched his, how many holes would have been in the target after she shot all of her rounds? If we assume that her first shot was placed perfectly, wouldn't her initial hole become her new target?

I said, "How did her precision (or lack of precision) affect his accuracy?" It didn't.

Correct. His accuracy was unaffected by hers.

It affected HER accuracy.

As the first shooter, she set the standard. Her skill affected her accuracy & her accuracy determined the precision of the session.

148 posted on 01/06/2008 8:17:32 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: dsc
So, you never heard of redemptive suffering? It’s not that he wanted to suffer; it was necessary.

Says who? It may be necessary for you to believe that. Suffering is an option and one is welcome to chose it, just stay stuck in the mind created thought forms and one can have infinite suffering.

Chose to forgive and the need to suffer is gone.

Speaking of Descartes you might want to take a look at quantum field theory and the "real" world. God is not the deceiver it is the perceiver.

149 posted on 01/06/2008 8:33:24 PM PST by ninonitti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ninonitti

“Says who? It may be necessary for you to believe that. Suffering is an option and one is welcome to chose it, just stay stuck in the mind created thought forms and one can have infinite suffering.”

Right. (Looking around for somthing that might serve as a weapon as I continue to back away slowly and carefully.)


150 posted on 01/06/2008 9:03:19 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-171 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson