Many years ago when I was more active at Catholic religious forums I recall a hot theological topic at the time. Catholic theologians were beginning to carve out a narrow exception for licit condom use, that of a married couple where the husband is say HIV positive. No big deal I thought at the time so the other night when I'm groggy and getting ready for bed I heard something on the news about Pope Benedict saying condoms can be ok in certain cases and I thought again no big deal as he's finally resolved this quirky theological problem. So the next day in my morning paper I read that in some book he wrote he was actually referring to male prostitutes. Last I checked many people still have moral problems with the practice of prostitution, certainly the Church has never endorsed it. So what to make of all this?
More and more rather than relegating Fatima to the dustbin of History recent events have made this prophetic message more relevant than ever. The prophetic element having to do with some sort of antipope towards the End who would lead the Catholic masses astray drawing away 1/3 of the Church hierarchy with him (i.e. 1/3 of the stars of heaven), the wave of diabolical disorientation to come well you have to say putting the most positive spin on things maybe Benedict wants to make a point about all this. The Vatican is denying this is a revolutionary change in Church teaching of course but it is, not the part about an HIV husband but the male prostitutes and first and foremost if a Pope teaches in error you have no duty to follow him. It's disturbing though and what other revolutionary changes in Church teaching are just around the corner although they won't be termed such? Make no mistake, this is one pope I am not following and that is the inherent problem in Roman Catholicism, always has been and that is blind obedience to a pope who can teach in error thereby putting into jeopardy his flock's salvation. It sows confusion in the minds of the faithful but on a happier note Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!
How can a pope teach in error? If he's made this pronouncement ex cathedra, then it's infallible. If he's just kind of decided that this is his opinion, then maybe yeah, your opinion could be that he's in error.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I find amusing about it all is that it's okay for there to be male prostitutes and for them to use condoms, but like you said, the HIV husband and wife, legally married and so on, can't.
Now remember there's just that one thing, if he's the pope, then as a Roman Catholic he's pretty much the law. Even if he's not ex cathedra, he's still the boss.
You could try one of the Orthodox churches, maybe, or go for Mel Gibson's pre-Vatican II church. I might be a little wary of them personally.
Not being a Catholic (or mail prostitute) can only
ReplyDeletegive an outsider opinion.
Methinks the Pope, given
30 million cases of HIV south of the Sahara, has came face to face with reality ..
Happy Thanksgiving to you -Z-
ReplyDeleteBTW-glad you are rested (Oct 28) and are BACK!! looks like you didn't take a lot of time off - though---
C-CS
It's interesting to watch folks like the Catholic League mindlessly defending the Pope saying this doesn't represent a glacial change in church teaching. Oh yes it does. BB I get the deal, dig your point but when does the Pope endorse prostitution? just sayin':)
ReplyDeletePersonally Saty these days I prefer to worship God by climbing a mountain with a cross on the top. Hey Sat ever been to Graymoor? ("I LOVE it when you talk about shit I know!")
ReplyDeleteCS for me it seemed like a long time though. Must be in my blood.
ReplyDeleteYes .. I've been to Graymoor.. it's gorgeous. I've also been to St. Basil's (my family going back was Greek Orthodox on one side).
ReplyDeleteThe mountain and cross thing is a pretty cool idea. I do the chanting/dancing/eating thing myself. The point is getting close to God, no matter what you call Him or how you get there. Srila Prabhupada said: if you're Catholic, be a good Catholic, if you're Jewish be a good Jew, if you're Hindu be a good Hindu.. as long as it's bringing you closer it's all good. :)
Of course the Appalachian Trail runs through here and I read that the monastery feeds about 400 hikers a year.
ReplyDeleteThat's sweet.. they should always do that. We're really into that kind of thing, every temple has a 'free lunch' kind of program and then we have HK Food For Life that does bigtime food distribution (like over 100K meals a day for schoolkids in India). And of course the feast on Sunday is free.. even if you show up unannounced someone will find you something to eat even if it's just sweets.
ReplyDeleteI wonder do they also give them lodging? That would be even nicer.
Back in the day we spent a weekend at St Gabriel's, which was on Shelter Island.. it was so nice, a monastery, it was such a peaceful atmosphere. Looking back on it I can see why I was so attracted to the whole temple thing.. anyway, it was such a great experience there, and then I heard it burned down :( maybe they'll rebuild it someday so more kids can get that experience.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteSex Outside of Marriage is Opposed by the Scriptures and the Scriptures are a Higher Authority within Christianity than any Religious Leader and that Includes the Pope, so if the Pope Teaches against Scripture, then he is in Error.
Also, Z Never Said that the HIV Husband and Wife can not Use Condoms. He said just the Opposite, so Don't Put Words in his Mouth that he did not say.
Z,
"Personally, Saty, these days I prefer to worship God by climbing a mountain with a cross on the top."
That Sounds more Protestant than Catholic, Z. Why do you Keep Speaking of the Catholics? Come Out from them, if they do not Represent what you Believe.
Satyavati,
Jesus Made a Rather Bold Claim that goes against your Idea that any Religion is Fine. Here are His Words...
"Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.'" (John 14:6, KJV)
Two things, Lista:
ReplyDeleteOne: For Catholics, the Pope and pronounciations he makes Ex Cathedra ARE THE LAW, above and beyond anything else out there, because when he speaks Ex Cathedra he is considered infallible. What people outside the Catholic Church do and think is another matter. The Pope's decrees are binding on Catholics.
Two: Here's what Krishna(God) said:
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear."-Bhagavad Gita As It Is, chapter 18, verse 66.
In the purport to the verse it states: According to the devotional process, one should simply accept such religious principles that will lead ultimately to the devotional service of the Lord.
So our conclusion is that whatever the activity is that brings you to love God-whether it be following the teachings of Jesus (and I mean Jesus, not Paul), or trying to live the Dhammapada, or chanting Hare Krishna, ultimately, what's important is whether your actions are bringing you to the point of developing love of God. Because that's the point. Jesus said, "Love God." That was his point, too. So we don't disrespect or denigrate anyone of any religion; simply we ask them if their process is bringing them to devotion to God? And if it is, then it's all good. If it's not, maybe they might want to consider another way.
Well, Catholics are Supposed to Believe in the Christian Bible and if the Pope's Teachings Go Against the Bible, then this Makes Catholicism a Form of Hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteI Really didn't Want to Get into Putting Down the Catholic Church, yet if I was Going to Challenge something about their Beliefs, it would be How they Place too much Emphasis on Things Other than Jesus and God, for there are Times in which they Appear to Worship Mary, as well as a Whole Series of Saints, not to Mention the Pope. Martin Luther Protested and Started the Protestant Movement for a Reason.
I Guess all I'm Saying, though, is that if the Pope is Going to Go Against Scripture Like that, then he is going to Create Confusion in the Minds of those who Care about the Bible and he is Going to Lose the Respect of a Lot of Protestants as well.
As to Krishna, I'm a little Surprised that you Didn't give me another Answer that I've Heard before and that is that Krishna and Jesus are one in the Same. When it is Interpreted that way, John 14:6, could be Applied to Krishna, just as much as to Jesus.
As to your Quote, it reminds me of Several other Quotes...
"37) Jesus said unto him, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38) This is the first and great commandment. 39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'" (Matthew 22:7-40, KJV)
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6, KJV)
and
"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Corintians 3:6, KJV)
All of these Verses Point to Things such as Love and Mercy (Heart Attitudes) and Knowledge of God and the Indwelling Spirit (Relationship), as being more Important than Laws and Rituals (Religion).
ReplyDeleteFrom your Quote, "Surrender" is a Heart Attitude, not an Empty Form of Religious Ritual.
I guess it's Interesting that I've Pointed out Similarities in this Comment between your Religion and Mine. Where the Problem Comes in is when we Find Differences between the Religions and thus Realize that One of the Teachings is the Truth and the Other is not.
As to the Jesus vs Paul Thing, I could Address that, but I'm Putting it Off because my Answer to that is Probably going to be Lengthy.
As to Krishna, I'm a little Surprised that you Didn't give me another Answer that I've Heard before and that is that Krishna and Jesus are one in the Same. When it is Interpreted that way, John 14:6, could be Applied to Krishna, just as much as to Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThat's because Krishna and Jesus are not the same.
Krishna is God. Jesus is the Son of God. As far as we go, we don't 'interpret' things. We read what's in our scripture and take it "as it is". Interpretation means that some person puts their own ideas into what something means. That's how the actual meaning gets lost.
For example, there are many statements in the Bible that are 'interpreted' to mean different things when a simple reading of the words makes the actual meaning very clear.
About the Catholics: I was raised Catholic and spent 11 years in Catholic school so I've got no qualm about anything I'd like to say about them. The Catholics don't use the same Bible as the rest of Christianity, they use the Catholic version, which contains different books and if it hadn't been so many years I could tell you which ones. Anyway, it's the Apocrypha. The Douay Bible is one translation that I know is specifically Catholic.
According to Catholic teaching, Mary and the saints aren't 'worshiped', they're 'venerated', which the rest of the world interprets in whatever way they'd like to.
If you ever look something up about a sticky issue for Catholics, you will find that their reasoning and justification for whatever stance they take doesn't necessarily (and probably doesn't) come out of the Bible. The authorities they cite for their position are going to be previous decrees and pronouncements by popes and councils. In the Catholic church the teaching of the Church itself (and thereby the Pope) is going to take precedence over anything else. That's just the way they roll.
And personally I don't think that the Pope nor any other part of the ecclesiasticum is really concerned about what Protestants think. About anything, actually. It's only been a couple of years that they've admitted that people outside the Church have a (slim but statistically possible) chance of going to heaven without conversion to Catholicism. So really, no one at the Vatican is going to lose sleep over anyone's opinion.
thus Realize that One of the Teachings is the Truth and the Other is not.
The point of all religions is to love God. Period. Or that should be the point and if it isn't then that's a whole different issue. So if your practices are bringing you to love God, what's the problem? I'm not finding how one can be less 'truth' than another if the goal is the same. It's people's 'interpretations' of things that cause this divisiveness, not the actual words and meanings.
Mark 1
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
That's what Jesus said and that's pretty durn clear and without need of interpretation. If what you're doing gets you to the point of loving God, then you're following that commandment. If what the folks down the street are doing in the Catholic church is getting them to that point, then they're following that commandment. And if I'm chanting Hare Krishna and serving the Deities and that's getting me to that point, then I'm doing it.
Jesus didn't say HOW to do it. He said JUST DO IT.
And on that note I'm off to the temple. Morning program begins at 430 AM.
Basically what Jesus is saying in John 14:6 is that no One can get to the Father, Except through His Son.
ReplyDeleteChristians also Believe that Jesus is God. That is that the Entire God Head (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is God. There is a Oneness there that Goes beyond Just the Unity between People who are United in their Thoughts and Feelings. This is Why we can say that there is Only One God, Even though the One God is Made up of Three Parts or Functions.
To Assume that Scripture is Clear is an Arrogance that Denies that Language is Limited and that things can very Easily be Misunderstood. This is Especially True when there are Several Cultures Involved, such as Early Jewish Culture and Modern American Culture, and the Bible Needs to be Understood in the Light of the Early Jewish Culture in which it was Written, so when People Understand it According to the Modern American Understanding of Things, they do not Understand it Correctly.
All the Word "Interpret" does is Describes the Nature of the Problem of Language. All you have done is Denied that the Problem Exists.
The Catholic Bible Actually is Mostly the Same Bible. There are not all Different Books, but Only the Added Books. These Extra Books are Called the Apocrypha, just as you have Stated. Aside from the Apocrypha, though, the Rest of the Books are the Same.
I don't Know much about the "Translation" that the Catholics Use. If it is Translated in a Correct manner from the Original Greek and Hebrew, though, I don't have any Problems with that.
I was Really Surprised when I Discovered that the Words in the Rosary begin with "Hail Mary". And she is Mentioned First, while Jesus is Mentioned Second. That just doesn’t Seem Like the Appropriate Order to me.
This is Why we can say that there is Only One God, Even though the One God is Made up of Three Parts or Functions.
ReplyDeleteWe often talk about Krishna's expansions but that's a different thing than what you're talking about. Basically like I said before, our view would be that Krishna is God.. everything else is secondary.
To Assume that Scripture is Clear is an Arrogance that Denies that Language is Limited and that things can very Easily be Misunderstood.
I don't know. You talk about being correctly translated.. if it's translated correctly, and if we can trust that God is going to be watching over it making sure that it says what He wants it to say, how unclear can it be? How ambiguous is 'thou shalt not kill'? How easily can you misinterpret 'love thy neighbour as thyself'? I have heard it said that scripture explains itself. Seems to me like if you just read what it says it pretty much tells you what you need to know.
If it is Translated in a Correct manner from the Original Greek and Hebrew, though, I don't have any Problems with that.
How do you know it's translated correctly? Who's your authority who'll tell you whether it is or not? How does that get decided?
was Really Surprised when I Discovered that the Words in the Rosary begin with "Hail Mary". And she is Mentioned First, while Jesus is Mentioned Second.
The whole rosary is about Mary. It's a devotion that she gave personally to (I believe, Lord don't quote me on this, my Catholic history is spotty at best) St. Dominic in like the 11th century but it took a couple of hundred years for the Church to give it the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. So this whole thing, the rosary, it's hers, she was the one who started it, it's her idea. So naturally she's the primary focus on it; to be more specific, on the Mysteries of the Rosary, of which there are fifteen and all I can remember right now are the Sorrowful and the Joyful. The other group might be Glorious. I don't remember. The rosary is immensely popular with folks and I remember my grandfather saying the rosary every night before he'd go to sleep. And virtually every Catholic has rosary beads on the rear view mirror of their car, don't they? My mother had them hanging on our crib when we were babies. (Mine glowed in the dark. Kinda creepy really.) Anyway, Mary's a big deal in the Catholic world, the Queen of Heaven etc and the rosary is her personal thing, so that might at least give you a reason behind it.
Also, the Catholic version of the Ten Commandments is slightly different and has the first commandment broken into two. I know there are other changes in the Catholic translations, but I'd have to look to find them.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the additional books are called the Apocrypha. They either got voted in or voted out at one of the councils and somehow whether it was that there was suspicion that they were spurious, I don't know, but the Catholic church has always accepted them and for some reason the Protestants dropped them.
I gotta start reading up on this stuff.
And, yes, I am Aware that they have a Lot of what I would Call "Extra Biblical" Ideas. That is Ideas that are not Necessarily Found in the Bible. Jesus Often Spoke against Following the "Commandments and Traditions of Men".
ReplyDelete"6) He answered and said unto them, 'Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.' 7) Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups; and many other such like things ye do.' 9) And He said unto them, 'Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.'" (Mark 7:6-9, KJV)
He Also Said "19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; 20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.", which is Known as the Great Commission.
So if the Pope does not Care what Protestants, as well as the Rest of the World Thinks, then they are not Concerning themselves with "The Great Commission", as has been Commanded by Jesus.
Truth and Goals are not the Same. If a Certain Tree’s Leaves are Yellow and Another Tree’s Leaves are Orange and the Pine Needles on the Ever Green are Green, then the Truth is that the Yellow Tree is not Orange or Green, the Orange Tree is not Yellow or Green and the Green Tree is not Yellow or Orange. The Truth about these Colors Remains True, regardless of the Fact that the Goal of all Three is Beauty. You Simply Can Not Insist that the Green Tree is Purple and the Yellow Tree is Red and be Accurately Stating what’s True.
Sure Goals are Important, yet Jesus also Said, "31) Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, 'If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed; 32) And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'"
So Aside from Love, He also Emphasized Truth and Stated that you will Find it in "My Word", that is His Teachings, as well as the Bible, which is the "Word of God".
What I just Posted is just a Continuation of my Previous Comment. My Response to the Last Two of your Comments, Satyavati, is yet to Come.
ReplyDeleteTell me about Krishna's Expansions, for I don't Know that much about your Religion.
ReplyDeleteAs to the Clarity of the Scriptures, you can see how Unclear it is by the Extent to which we Argue.
All Correctly Translated Means is that the English Words Used are a Correct Representation of What the Original Greek and Hebrew Words Mean. Language is Limited, though, so it is Easy to Misunderstand or "Misinterpret" the Original Meaning.
Here is an Interesting Scripture that Relates to that...
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV)
So if a Person Tries to Understand in his Own Mind without Looking to the Lord for Help, then he will not Understand it Correctly, or another way that you can put that is that he will "Misinterpret" it.
Kill Can Mean All Killing, which Supports the Pacifist Position, or it can Mean Murder, which Allows for Killing in Self Defense, the Death Penalty, Etc.
We can also Argue Over how Love is Best Expressed; by Giving Out Free Hand Outs, or by Offering someone a Job.
The General Idea is not Difficult, but the Specifics are sometimes Harder to Apply.
There are Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries and the Translations are done by those who have Studied and Understand the Language. Those that are Called Valid Translations are Held to a Very Strict Standard of Accuracy. If it is Called a Paraphrase, it is not. Paraphrases are Easy to Read and will give a Beginner the General Idea, but they are not Recommended for Serious Study.
And as to the Rosary, Why is it Used as Penitence for Sin, or as a Prayer before Bed, rather than a Prayer that Emphasizes God or Jesus?
It's just my Opinion that the Emphasis on Mary is a Little Excessive, but that's just my Opinion.
You are Making me Curious about the Catholic Bible. I Actually have a Copy of the Koran and the Book of Mormon, but I do not Have a Catholic Bible.
My Understanding about the Apocrypha is that these were the Books that were Debated. There was more Agreement on the Other Books, yet the Apocrypha Books were Controversial enough to Cause some to not Accept them.
The books of the Apocrypha
ReplyDeleteappear in the earliest texts: codex Alexanderinus
and codex Sinaiticus. They
obviously were written and used by early Christians and in some cases still are . During the early stages of Christian dogmatic development, the 'fathers'
determined which books were
divinely inspired (canonical) and those which were mere human writings (pseudopigrapha,
non-canonical). In any
event, the apocryphal writings are instructive
and IMO, more interesting
than Paul's dreary letters.
That's Very Interesting, BB. Thanks for Sharing that. I didn't Realizes that the Removal of the Apocrypha happened so Late in History. That Actually Increases my Interest in it. Now I'm going to have to Get Myself a Catholic Bible.
ReplyDeleteI have a headache so this is short but I wanted to address this commandment thing.
ReplyDeleteIf God wanted to say 'murder' he would have said it. Instead, he used the general word 'kill'. No interpretation needed. Thou shalt not KILL. Not thou shalt not MURDER.. that's a different thing. See my point? People like to say 'oh it means murder, don't kill people'. But it doesn't SAY that. What it SAYS is 'don't kill'. But this would mean don't kill animals, and people don't want to have to do that, so they CHANGE the meaning of the word 'kill' to mean 'murder' so that it's less inconvenient. This is what I mean by 'interpretation'. No interpretation needed: kill means kill.
Except when people would prefer to change the meaning so that they can pretend to be following a commandment when in actuality they're not.
And I'm not going to get into the metaphysics of Krishna's expansions, not because I don't want you to know it, but because it's complicated metaphysical stuff and I wouldn't really know how to explain it to you. I can refer you to the Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 1. You can find it online at SrimadBhagavatam.com. It's not easy reading but it's all there. If you would like some easier reading that goes more into what we believe and practice I can refer you to some more basic books online. Let me know.
Actually, Satyavati, God used the Hebrew Word, "Ratsach", which means...
ReplyDelete"Ratsach, raw-tsakh'; a prim. root; prop. to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), espec. to murder:--put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er)."
This is not an "Interpretation", as much as it is a Direct Translation and the Original Hebrew Takes Precedence over any Modern Translation.
God Doesn't always Spell Things Out in as Crystal Clear a Way as we would Like. He Expects us to Dig and Think a Little, cause He Knows that those who Really Want to Know the Truth will do so.
This is a Translation Thing, not an Interpretation Thing and what's more, in the KJV, it says "Thou salt not Kill", but the NIV, NRSV and NASB all say "You shall not Murder", so it is Possible that King James got it Wrong.
I Know a lot of People Swear by the King James Version of the Bible, yet the Truth is that there are Times in which even this Translation is not 100%. I've even Heard it Said that King James had a Certain Bias when he Translated, but the More Modern Versions are also Translated from Greek and Hebrew and yet are done by Teams, not Individuals, to Prevent Bias from Occurring.
God Actually Commanded Animal Sacrifices During the Time Frame in which the Ten Commandments were Written.
The Main Reason that I Asked about the Expansions is because I was Wondering if I could make a Comparison between that and the Concept of the Trinity. I Guess I'll have to Read Up on it, in Order to See that for myself.
Krishna's Incarnations:
ReplyDeleteIn the Bhagavad-gita (4.8), Krishna gives the reasons He descends to this world: "To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium."
So throughout history Krishna has appeared in various incarnations, all of which are nondifferent from Himself. Some of these incarnations include Lord Nrsimhadeva, the half-lion, half-man incarnation, who appeared to rescue His devotee, Prahlad, from his demonic father; Sri Balarama, who is Krishna's brother and original expansion; Lord Rama, about whom the Ramayana was written; Lord Buddha, who appeared to preach nonviolence and end the sacrifice of animals; and yet to come is Lord Kalki, who will appear at the end of Kaliyuga (the current age) in approximately 427,000 years, arriving on a white horse with a sword (sound familiar?) to annihilate the creation and start another cycle.
Here's a basic book you can get into if you like. I'm sticking to the stuff that's simpler because especially for someone who's not a devotee, the basics of what we're about are more important than the esoteric details.
http://files.krishna.com/en/pdf/e-books/Elevation_to_Krishna_Consciousness.pdf
You can also go to www.asitis.com and read the whole text of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is there. :) we like to distribute books.
Enjoy.
Crap.. I wrote a big beautiful comment and it got eaten. Let me try to redo it. It was supposed to go before the incarnations comment.
ReplyDeleteAbout the KJV: quoted: The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the deuterocanonical books were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.
Now, about my Deities: They are Deities of Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityananda, and Their names are Sri Sri Nitai Gaura Hari. Here is some information about Deity worship from Korsnas Gard in Sweden:
Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai are Deities of Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityananda, incarnations of Krishna and Balarama (Krishna's brother), who have appeared 500 years ago to propagate the chanting of the holy names and to spread love of Godhead.
We are all eternal servants of the Lord, and when we forget this essential part of our nature we are put into material conditions of life. Out of His causeless mercy, the Lord descends as different incarnations, avataras, to remind us conditioned souls about our real identity. We may feel lack of spiritual vision in directly perceiving the Lord, but the worship of the Deity is an easy way to approach the Lord and serve Him. The Deity is also called arca-avatara or arca-vigraha. It is the Lord Himself who appears before us so that we can serve and worship Him.
Srila Prabupada writes in his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.11.24: "The transcendental form of the Lord installed in a temple is not different from the Lord personally. Such a form of the Lord is called arca- vigraha, or arca incarnation, and is expanded by the Lord by His internal potency just to facilitate the devotional service of His innumerable devotees who are in the material world. The material senses cannot perceive the spiritual nature of the Lord, and therefore the Lord accepts the arca-vigraha, which is apparently made of material elements like earth, wood and stone but actually there is no material contamination. The Lord being kaivalya (one alone), there is no matter in Him. He is one without a second, and therefore the Almighty Lord can appear in any form without being contaminated by the material conception."
As far as expansions, it really does become very technical and involved but I can tell you it's both is and isn't the same as the Christian concept of the trinity, because there are unlimited numbers of expansions for different purposes... anyway it's easier to talk about incarnations. This is where the other comment comes in. :)
And if you like, you can go here and see Gaura Nitai from all over the world:
ReplyDeletehttp://krishnatube.com/video/625/Darshan-of-ISKCON-Gaura-Nitai-Deites
And Radha Krsna Deities:
http://krishnatube.com/video/493/Darshan-of-ISKCON-Radha-Krishna-Deities
Or, you can go on my blog and in the right hand sidebar are two slideshows, one of Sri Sri Radha Golokananda (Krishna) from here in NC and then my very beloved Sri Sri Radha Ksira Cora Gopinath (Krishna) from Toronto. But you will see Them both in the video, and both the videos are really beautiful.
Enjoy. :)
Oh, I See; The Expansions are Actually Incarnations and One of those Incarnations is Buddha. That's Interesting.
ReplyDeleteAs to the KJV, I'm not sure where the Bias Came From, I just Know that this is a Criticism that was made. I'm Trying to Remember what the Bias was and the Only Thing that Comes to Mind is the Emphasis on Witches at the Time and the Witch Hunts, so some References to Sorcery or Magic, may be Twisted more that Way, than they should be. I wish I had an Example, but I don't.
Another Criticism of the KJV of the Bible was that it was Translated into an Old English Language and some of the Words no Longer Mean the Same now as when the Translation was Made and this can Lead to Misunderstandings of the Original Meaning of the Greek and Hebrew Texts and this is Why More Modern Versions were Made and these also Used the Same Original Greek and Hebrew Texts, Translated into Our Current Modern Language.
I guess what I was Trying to Establish is that when you Talk about the Deities, you do so in the Plural, yet you say that you Only Worship One God. This is Confusing at Best and so it is not Right to Assume that those who think that you Worship more than One God are in any way Stupid.
I'm Still Assuming that it May be Something like the Trinity. They are Several, but One and the Number is not Three, but Apparently Unlimited.
Jesus has been Called "the Lord God Incarnate", or an Incarnation of God Himself. Remember, He does Claim to be God and this is the Detail that so Many that Respect Him as "A Good Teacher" Side Step, yet it is Central to Christian Teaching and any Group that Calls themselves Christian and yet Sees Jesus Differently, has not been accepted by the Main Christian Group.
This Includes Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and I Believe your Religion as well.
This is not Because you are Different, so don't go Off on that Again. It is Because you have Rejected a Very Key Teaching within Christianity, so that Makes you Separate and not Part of the Main Christian Group.
I Guess I should also Mention that Jesus is also Called God's "Only Begotten" Son. This Implies that there is Only One Human "Incarnation" and Since it was Only done Once, this does not Support the Idea of RE-Incarnation.
ReplyDeleteGod, Himself, Came to Earth in the Form of His Son. He did so by Impregnating Mary. Jesus was Human and yet also God.
We're not Christian in any sense of the word. In fact we are entirely outside of Christianity. We don't claim to be Christian, either.
ReplyDeleteAnd I know that I said that Lord Balarama is the original expansion, but an expansion and an incarnation are NOT the same. I'm telling you this is really difficult technical stuff. I would not call it the same thing as the Trinity, it's a lot more complicated and there's more to it than that.
And actually, there are verses in the Bible that support reincarnation. When John the Baptist first came to preaching, they asked him if he was Elijah come back; this would indicate that they believed it was possible for Elijah to return in a different body.
I'm not here to try and convert you nor am I here to claim that my religion is truth and yours isn't; people have been quibbling over the Bible for centuries and will continue to do so and that's fine with me because it's not my scripture. Do we consider it holy? Sure. Is it the summum bonum for us, the absolute authority? No. So while we respect other religions and hope that they bring people to the point of loving God, we're following the teachings of the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad Gita as it is. It's all good.
Last thing before work:
ReplyDeleteWhen we talk about 'Deities' plural, or when I talk about it, it's because since God (Krishna) is one, His incarnations are nondifferent from Himself and thus equally worshipable... Lord Caitanya and Lord Nityananda are incarnations of Sri Krsna and Sri Balaram (who is also the original expansion and thus nondifferent.. see how complicated it gets) and as such nondifferent from Krsna and Balaram Themselves.
As Gaudiya Vaisnavas, there are certain forms of the Lord that we put emphasis on (in distinction to other groups of Vaisnavas)... we worship Radha-Krsna especially, Gaura Nitai and Lord Nrsimhadeva's worship is also very much done.. you will also sometimes see Sri Sri Sita Rama Laxman, but not so often.. and sometimes you will see baby Krsna (Bala Krsna) but that's not actually in our mood. Now I realize all that is totally complicated and I didn't really say it for that reason but on the other hand I also wanted to illustrate that this stuff is not something I can explain in just a couple of words or that can be understood in just totally simple concepts.
Anyway, in this matter you and I accept different authorities; you take the Bible as your authority, which is fine, and we take the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad Gita and the teachings of the acaryas down through the succession. So really as long as there are two authorities being compared and contrasted there can never be any real consensus, and that's all right too, because like I said, the point in the end is basically to love God and that's what it's all about.
Don't know why I didn't think of this earlier:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudiya_Vaisnava
Thanks. I'll Look at that Later.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to rubbers what I was getting at with BB is this: sure we may all have different views on the subject of how to reduce the incidence of AIDS, that's all swell but the pope is supposed to uphold church teaching (I thought) and to me anyway something as momentous as what he said would be worthy of a council no? What if Benedict went on down the line and said abortion's okeydokey? now if this is infallible then it means to me at least the Catholic followers of the pope are really a bunch of zombies. 'Twould seem problematic:)
ReplyDeleteI Agree, Z, and this is One of Many Reasons why I am not Catholic. What Frustrates me, though, is that People who Leave the Catholic Church often Leave Christianity and do not Realize that there is another Protestant Option and that many Protestants, though Reluctant to Come Right Out and Say it, Feel the Same Way about the Catholic Church as those who have Left Christianity because of it.
ReplyDeleteI'm Glad you are Still Around, Z. If you Ever Actually do Go Away, I will sure Miss you.
Again you would think this would require a conference or council of some sort. You know the other thought that came to mind when I first heard Benedict talk about male prostitutes using rubbers was this: THIS IN THE RECENT WAKE OF THE CHURCH SEX SCANDALS?!? No think about it, it's one thing to say a husband and wife can use a condom in such a case but to talk about
ReplyDeleteFred Garvin, Male Prostitute
I mean just when I was holding back a joke or two about pajama parties at the Vatican. I don't know, it'd be kinda like if your husband cheated on you and all the priest could say to him was use a rubber next time. You'd be hurt no?
Don't know about the theology involved, but apparently the pope just
ReplyDeletechanged his mind
..had a friend back when I
was a kid, Catholic kid. He would go through the
movie list and pick out which 'B' movies he could see without some sort of
sin. We saw a lot of 'B movies' and I never understood the theology of that, either. Dunno...
Hey Z!! Good to see you...you are missed.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if this statement by the Pope was made Ex Cathedra or not. That would really be the big question for me because it would determine the status of his statement, ie whether it's infallible or not. Personally I have issues taking advice about sex from men who are (supposedly) celibate. That's just my own personal issue.
Lista:
ReplyDeleteOn leaving the Catholic Church: I informed my parents 2 weeks after I graduated highschool I was done with the Church. Of course they had collective meltdowns and were sure I was going to hell.. anyway there were too many issues I had with articles of faith and I just couldn't be comfortable saying I believed something I didn't.
It took me 12 years of intensive (INTENSIVE) research before I settled down where I am today. I went to more churches, studied more books of the Bible, read more theological expositions.. I probably qualify for a degree in comparative theology. I studied everything I could get my hands on, from various Protestant denominations to Messianic Jews to Mennonites to Foursquare Gospel to Mormons to Muslims to Tibetan Buddhism to the Salvation Army (I dig the uniforms.) So for me my personal decision was well researched and not (as so many people thought) an impulsive quick thing. I studied KC philosophy for an entire year before ever setting foot in a temple.
Everyone has their reasons for leaving any church and for joining another. If it's not a convenience thing (like your new spouse is Methodist and you're Catholic) and spirituality is important to you it can be really traumatic, especially if you leave out of Christianity altogether. I think if the person is really serious about it they'll do the research and make an informed decision.
Here's what I mean: if someone leaves the Catholic church because they have issues with the Vatican or with the pedophile thing or with transubstantiation, but the basic tenets of CHRISTIANITY are important to them, then it's likely they'll move to a Protestant denomination that maintains those Christian tenets.
If someone leaves the Catholic church, like I did, because of serious issues with articles of faith, then it's a little different.
Either way, I think it's very healthy for a person to be grown up and making their own decisions rather than just being born into a faith that they have no choice about.
So let me get this straight, there really is no permanent teachings in the Church, it's whatever the Pope says it is at the time. BB it's just that I didn't expect this coming from Ratzinger but from maybe someone else, I mean wasn't he the Guardian of Orthodoxy or something at one time? I too like movies the Church has branded Offensive (O). Last Tango in Paris esp. the wake scene where he calls his dead wife a pigfucker and such. I'm still waiting for our rank-and-file conservative talking heads to take on Benedict over condoms and 'hos. Any takers? Rich Lowry, Malkin? c'mon babe.
ReplyDeleteThe best analogy that comes to mind is if your Mom came home and said here's a Hustler. Your Mom is a moral authority figure, you'd have it no other way and if she started buying you condoms you'd find it a little creepy. The Pope is also a moral authority figure but I have to say Saty that on balance I am still more Catholic than Protestant. Yeah we do venerate Mary alot and as my friend joked they have so many titles for her like Our Lady of the Picnic. Again I'm wondering what else Ratzinger, I mean Benedict (and they appear to be two distinct personalities now) is gonna change next.
ReplyDelete"So let me get this straight, there really is no permanent teachings in the Church,.."
ReplyDeleteSo it would seem, although the basic tenets have remained for centuries. The view on abortion, for example, has
varied considerably through the Catholic ages, hot & cold. Infallibility
seems a late comer, though
declared retroactive. IMO,
as social issues change, the Church sort of gets dragged along. The church
is tied to the context of the times- note we no longer burn witches, evolution is more or less accepted. It seems theology is battered by both progress and tradition.
"as social issues change the Church sort of gets dragged along."
ReplyDeleteBut as Ratzinger he always made it a point the Church should not get dragged along. Now if he had said in the example I used that a husband and wife could use a condom if one of them is HIV-positive he could have upheld Church teaching on sexuality at the same time he was being a little pragmatic. The 'hos thing is just a big leap for me is all and I'm STILL waiting for some conservative commentary on the matter.
"..and I'm STILL waiting for some conservative commentary on the matter."
ReplyDeleteOK, I'll give it a shot (but being temporarily conservative gives me nausea and makes me sweat)
How about...
"Newsflash folks. The Word of God is unyielding, and His Church does not require "modernization". His Book is not a living-breathing document, and there will never be ammendments that excuse homosexuality, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, or abortion. I know I'm supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner, but some of you really make that difficult sometimes."
The writer/blogger's post is entitled 'If I were Pope" and you can find him
over here ...:)
What is it that Makes you more Catholic than Protestant, Z, if you don't Mind me Asking? If it is the Fact that it is Formal, or the Nature of the Ritual, believe it or not, the Lutherans are very Similar to Catholics in that Regard. It Seems Odd that it's that way and yet the Denomination that Bears the Name of the Original Protester, Martin Luther, Preserved Quite a bit of the Original Formalities of the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteIt Sounds like the Pope has just a Little too much Power, huh?
BB,
I do not Believe that Evolution is as Accepted as you Think. I Think that a Lot of the Scientists that Question it have Remained in the Closet because of Persecution.
There are a couple of Verses that come to Mind in Relation to "as social issues change, the Church sort of gets dragged along."...
"And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2, KJV)
and
"Ye are the salt of the earth, but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." (Matthew 5:13, KJV)
The Romans Verse Says how we are not Supposed to Conform to the Ways of the World and the Matthew Verse Describes us as Salt and as Salt, we are Supposed to Slow Down the Decay and what Some Call Progress, to the Church, is Decay.
The If I were the Pope Post is no Longer at the Top of the Blog. Here's a More Direct Link to it.
The Episcopalians and the Anglican Church are also mighty close to the RC Church.
ReplyDeleteYou could also try one of the Eastern Orthodox churches... they're Catholic but they don't answer to the Pope.
Lista, remember that the RC Church doesn't take the Bible quite as seriously as it does itself. Verses aren't going to help you here. If you can quote from the Council of Nicea, you'd have more of an edge.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteI was Thinking about the Episcopalians. Their Style of Worship is Formal, Like the Catholics, yet they are Actually Quite Liberal, so I didn't want to Recommend them.
If I Quote from the Bible, it would Primarily be to Show how the Roman Catholic Church Doesn't Follow it, cause I Wonder at Times if all of it’s Followers are Aware of that. Aside from that, I have no Interest in Dialoging with them. Z Doesn't Seem too Impressed with the Pope and he is the Only Catholic that I am Aware of that is Listening to me Right Now.
Hello again.
ReplyDeleteI came back to this Post, at Least in Part, because BB had left a Link here that I had Taken Note that I Eventually do want to Read.
BB has Left a lot of Links Lately on Different Posts. So Much so, that I can Never Keep Up with the Reading of all of his Links.
Interestingly, the Link that he Left on Beth's Blog made me Think of this Post, as we are Talking about Catholicism.
A Saint's Dark Night
It Strikes me Funny as I Think about it in the Context of Z's Post, for as BB Reads this Linked Article, he is Probably Thinking that the Distress of Mother Teresa is Proof that there is no God, yet as I Read it, I'm Thinking, "No. It's just because she is Catholic, rather than Protestant" Lol. I'm Kidding of Course.
Well, the Next Link that I Want to Read is the One that BB has Left Above, but Unfortuately, it is Time for me to Get Off the Computer again. Oh well.
I think that to some extent the Church has to move with the times.. if they didn't, they'd still be doing the auto da fe for people who believed that the earth revolved around the sun, and Torquemada would be out rounding people up for the torture chambers.
ReplyDeleteActually the Inquisition still exists in the Vatican in a formal way; I think it's called the Office of the Doctrine of the Faith or something of that nature. Kinda scary.
Anyway, to some extent they do have to move on with the times. However, you're right: in the wake of pedophilia scandals, this isn't really the most opportune time to be making pronouncements on sex and HIV and condoms.
I don't quite know that Catholic law can change quite as quickly as just a pope's opinion.. they don't make these ex cathedra things every day, and the Catholic public is a lot more willing to take on the Vatican and voice their opinion and even create schism if they're adamant enough (like Mel Gibson). I mean, there's still a lot of people pissed off about Vatican II and doing Mass in the vernacular. And that stuff changed over when I was a little kid. (I do remember High Mass in Latin though with bells and you had to cover your head.) So the people have a bit more say, perhaps, than they used to, and I think maybe the Vatican is a bit more willing to take on complicated social issues (in public) than they used to be. It's inevitable that they have to address the world their parishoners live in, but this was ridiculously bad timing on their part.
The Idea that the Earth Revolves Around the Sun is not Actually a Biblical Idea, as much as it was the Cultural Understanding that they had at the Time and of Course Torture wasn't Biblical Either.
ReplyDeleteI Like to Stick with the Bible. Even that has Changed a Little with the Times, Especially in the Area of Woman's Rights, yet we Try to Preserve as much of the Original Meaning as Possible.
Well Lista it's like this. I agree with the veneration of Mary and also believe in the doctrine of Purgatory which to put it mildly Protestants don't. B I only wished the Pope had said first that look folks I am not following Church teaching here and here's how I feel about rubbers but like Saty said oh the timing!! I would have waited at least 30 years before opining about gay male 'hos. You know we have this thing at work that workers can't badmouth the company on the Internet and so consider the Pope the same way. The Company here is the Church, more specifically her teachings and Benedict as CEO is giving his own personal opinions which is hunky-dory but it ain't the company way.
ReplyDeleteA Lutheran Once Offered me something to Read that Explained Exactly what it was that Martin Luther Protested and Why, but I was Busy with Other Things at the Time. I Really Should Look it Up on the Web Sometime so my Understanding could be more Complete.
ReplyDeleteOne of the Things that Luther Protested, though, was the Nature of the Priesthood. That is in Relation to Confession. To a Protestant, Christ is Our Priest and we can Go Directly to Him, without having to Involve a Human Priest.
I just have a Very High Reverence for Scripture and don't Like it when People just "Make it Up as they Go", but that's just me.
I Guess the Authority of the Pope is Based on the Scripture about the Keys of the Kingdom, when Christ said to Peter...
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19, KJV)
Martin Luther protested the sale of indulgences.
ReplyDeleteIndulgences are still a part of Catholic teaching and if you look in missal books (the kind that people used to bring with them to daily Mass, not the general kind they have in churches), in the back there would be all different kinds of devotions and they'd each have their specified indulgences for doing them. I never quite understood what they meant until much later.
Anyway during the corrupt political days of the Church a lot of the more unscrupulous cardinals and so forth were selling indulgences for money, which might come in the form of 'donations' and so on.
Indulgences were also given for participating in the Crusades.
I don't believe he was protesting the indulgences themselves, but just that they were selling them.
He was just trying to fix a problem and it all got blown out of proportion.
Martin Luther had a Whole List of Things that he Protested and I'm sure that the Sale of Indulgences was on that List.
ReplyDelete5,000+ PRODUCTS, LOW PRICES and DISCREET SHIPPING AND BILLING. Buy the best sex toys, bondage gear, vibrators and women's sexy lingerie. BROWSE NOW stimulating ribbed warming
ReplyDelete