|
|
| That's interesting since the Bible doesn't mention Jesus' life before the age of 30. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
  
Location: A Blue State | zoebird - 2005-07-29 8:22 AM
actually, bay guy, i would say that they *have* been emphasized in 'mainline' christianity such as catholic, lutheran, anglican, orthodox, and those related. they have not been emphasized by neo-fundamentalist christianity which is largely an american development that has it's roots/started around the late 1800s.
neofundamental christianity is very vocal, very loud, though, so it *seems* like mainstream christianity. in fact, it is a relatively small aspect (though growing) of christianity, and most christians do emphasize these elements--which is why so many have yoga classes offered in their churches.
Well...I'm not sure I want to investigate this line of argument. We'd have to agree on
whether "mainline" means moderate protestant streams or historical fundamentalist
streams etc etc.
Let me approach it this way: in the Episcopalian Liturgy you have [approximately]
the phrase "We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs from beneath
Thy table..." This does not seem to me consistent with the lines that Nathss quotes
from the Bible, which suggest that man has the opportunity to become one with god
through his own efforts (e.g., rather than by divine grace).
Elson and I had a long conversation about some of these ideas in which he represented
the christian [fundamentalist] viewpoint admirably. I'm not certain whether the more
moderate strains of christianity actually differ when you get down to basic theology,
although they are clearly more liberal in their "enforcement" of the basics.
|
|
| |
|
| i tend to look to more orthodox streams of christianity in general, as opposed to newer fundamentalist groups, which cropped up in europe in the 1600s and 1700s, and in particular the strains that cropped up in the US in the late 1800s, which seem even more strange and more 'fundamentalist' than the european groups that predate them. but then, america was made for weirdos. 
truthfully, it would require a determination of what one considers 'mainstream' and which aspects of the theology that one focuses on. being raised catholic, it seems largely contradictory in language, but on further contemplation (on my own part) i discovered that it was simply the same idea housed in different language to teach different hearers as they may need. I found much of catholic theology to mirror that which we find in yoga, even when the language didn't betray this fact easily.
but, i think it's worthwhile to point out that many churches offer yoga in their buildings. I have been rejected from room rental at some churches (baptist, namely), but for the most part, i've also been invited into churches to teach (catholic, lutheran, episcopal, methodist, united church of christ, unitarian, quaker etc). I've also been invited to mosques and synagogues. So, it can't be that much of a conflict! In most of these cases, i didn't approach the church leaders to rent a space, i was called and asked to do it--and the group learning was made up largely of members of the church. There was prayer, chanting, meditation, comparitive religious studies (i'd tell a vedic story and then mirror it with a christian, jewish, or muslim one).
if a church or religious community is offering yoga, then they can't really have that much of a conflict with it's teachings, or they wouldn't offer it. at least, that's my thinking. |
|
| |
|
| My father is a practicing Catholic for the past 65 years. The priest at his church had a Zen Monk (can't remember the title) teach Zen meditation over a 6 week course at the church. My parents, Father Joe (the priest) and many members of the church participated the entire 6 weeks. My parents even shelled out $110.00 each for 2 meditation stools. And they NEVER spend money.
God is Love, right?
PS My mom, also 65, just bought her first yoga mat this week Will the craziness ever end!  |
|
| |
|
| there's a whole movement within the catholic church called the 'zen catholic' movement. might like Thomas Merton's Zen and Christianity (catholic monk), and thich naht han's CHrist and Buddha As Brothers. |
|
| |
|
| Hi guys & gals :-)
Wow! I've been busy for awhile & have not had a chance to visit :-(. OTOH, when I get here, there is a great conversation :-).
My comments below come from the core of Christian theology, which as Bay Guy pointed out, does not change that much from one denomination to another. To be precise, I sit at the feet of Moses, Jesus, the prophets and apostles, the Church Fathers, the early catholic Church, Martin Luthor, John Calvin, the Reformed church in general, and the Prebyterian (PCA) church in particular. Not, I suspect, that that clarifies very much :-).
*
Nathss - The central flaw in Yogananda's book is that he doesn't have a clue about Jesus or Christianity. According to the obvious teaching of the bible, YHWH is God, and there is no other; never was & never will be. You and I are not God, and we never will be, either through grace or our own effort. That which is God cannot become not-God, & vice versa.
Had Yogananda taken hold of this essential tenet of Christianity, he would have realized that all of his attempts to read stuff into the bible lead to conflicts with the rest of the text. Taking the example of the third eye,
>> When yogis reach a certain stage, they can experience all the truth in bible as something personal and then move beyond scripture understanding.
e.g. When third eye opens, the two eyes close and single eye sees the body full of light.
Yogananda's interpretation is whimsical but totally unsupported by anything in biblical theology. There is no third eye in Christianity, and it is impossible to move beyond the truth of the bible, because the bible contains all spiritual truth that man is able to grasp. Of course, Yogananda can say these things if he chooses, but to claim that the bible teaches this is absurd.
>> Yogis when they are one in Christ consciousness, they can hear the sound that was in the beginning with God.
There is no Christ-consciousness in Christianity. There is no sound that was in the beginning. The word translated "word" is logos. The Greek term logos speaks of the concept behind a symbol. It is not a sound that was God and was with God, but the perfection of perfections that is Himself. In a word, the Word is Jesus himself.
So Yogananda is free to try to make up his own religion using the bible, but he looks pretty silly to folks that actually know the bible. And calling any of his teachings Christian is absurd. Attempting to reinterpret the bible to make it fit his own religion is as bogus as a Christian trying to explain to Buddhists that they completely misunderstand their sacred writings, which are actually the teachings of Brrth'thchtk'jzjzt of Venus :-).
*
Re: Jesus in India, can I sell anyone a book about Jesus' adventures in America after His ressurection? Oh, I forgot, the Mormons already did that. Too bad :-).
How about "Jesus and the Pirates of Mars," or "Jesus defeats the Molemen, Constructs the Pyramids, and Saves the earth from a Comet"? Wonderful book titles. For FICTION :-). And that is what we call narritive writing that has absolutely no basis in fact. Like the obviously false (accurding to Christian theology) assertion that Jesus trucked off to India.
*
Zoebird :-)
Unfortunately, you have been misinformed about the exclusivity of the Church. Ever since God gave the Law to Moses, there has been no doubt as to the exclusivity of the truth claims of Christianity. "Before Abraham was, I AM!" is Jesus' shocking and unmistakable claim to be God Incarnate. Not _a_ god, or someone who through great effort became one with God, or any Hindu or Buddhist concept, but God Himself.
"I AM the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father except by/through me." Here Jesus combines His God-claim with the reminder that it is not His doctrine that saves, or some secret knowledge, or some accomplishment, trial, or discipline that saves - it is Jesus Himself who saves; who is THE way (not a way), THE truth (not a truth) and THE life - eternal life - the zoe that you take as your UID.
By the way, what are you calling neo-fundamentalism? Fundamentalism is defined as adherence to a basic set of fundamental tenets. So what is the technical definition of neo-fundamentalism? Or is it just a dehumanizing term for a group that you are not fond of??
And to keep you from being led astray by a Presbyterian, you should ask your catechist about these matters, and find out if the Church teaches that Zen and Buddhism is to be embraced by Christians :-).
*
Isha :-)
It seems that you have been misinformed. The writing of the church fathers and the decrees of the early Councils are online. You are welcome to try to find this reincarnation doctrine in them & educate me.
But the whole of biblical teaching on this point is summed up in the verse: "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment," so you are going to have a difficult time of it...
Bay Guy :-)
Good to read you voice again!! Grace to you :-).
|
|
| |
|
| elson:
when i read/translate 'i am the way, the truth, and the life. . .' it says to me 'the path that i live, the person thta i am, the way that i am--this is the way, the truth, and the life.' also, using the concept "I AM is the way, the truth and the life" refers to the ultimate godhead--not to the individuated person of jesus. so, there are two 'orthodox' arguments that came through the bishop and canon lawyer with whom i studied for 4 years while learning to translate the bible from greek as well as other early church documents from greek and latin. There are other, arguments, btw, and i gave references to books from a well-regarded catholic monk, Thomas Merton, who wrote on the topic of buddhism and christianity--a work called Zen and Christianity--which is worth a read.
it is also important to note that catholicism, and most orthodox christian churches, have not come down against practicing yoga. There may be factions within these churches that do--but none of them have officially to date. There are other churches who have, from the highest places in their leadership, come down against yoga, buddhism, and any other church other than theirs. Orthodox christianity hasn't done this, and in fact has supported the practice of yoga within and through their churches--as i wrote before--i've taught there by invitation.
similarly, the Church recognizes the ecumincal elements or ideology that most religions are refering to the same thing in different ways, because they arise out of different contexts. In this way, the Church is 'not exclusive.' although catholicism says that it is the 'best' way--and of course any religion is going to claim this.
Also, Krishna, btw, made the same claim. He was God incarnate. So was Rama. So was Buddha. All of them, in hinduism, were considered "god incarnate." i have no problem with this similarity--and in fact it may be where the idea came from, since the term Christian, comes from the greek X which was brought back from the region that wuld become india by alexander the great--thus bringing in the concept of incarnate gods that greek and roman leaders used for centuries before Christ. And, a label given to christ.
To me, this linquistic nuance links Christ and Krishna in a fascinating manner.
and i feel that i defined fundamentalism pretty well, contextually.
Edited by zoebird 2005-07-31 10:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
| *Fifi* - 2005-07-25 3:00 PM Echo, Looks like Amazon has the book "Jesus Lived in India: His Life Before and After the Crucifixion" by Holger Kerston starting around $22.00. If you plug that title into Amazon they give you additional, similar titles. I'm inspired to see if my local library has any copies. One never knows.... Thanks, Fifi - I'll check it out!  |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
 
| zoebird and elson - I love reading these conversations. I was not raised in a very "church-y" home although I did go to Sunday School and a few other kid things so my background is very slim (although better than DH, who gets all his theology from Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals!). So it is illuminating and educational to be able to take some of this in by reading here.
I think the term "neo-fundamentalists" is clear and descriptive without being derogatory. We all know who we are talking about when using this term. Perhaps the prefix "neo" is the problem for you, elson? I am trying to figure out what the issue with that title is for you. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Actually, I'm with Elson on the "neo" prefix. Fundamentalists have been around for
a very very long time...longer than many of those stuffy sects that style themselves
with "ancient tradition". What exactly is the difference between a neofundamentalist
and the older ones? |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| I was going to say that I think the "neo" prefix means "slightly crazier" but I am trying to be a nice, non-judgemental Canadian here....so I won't say that.  |
|
| |
|
| neo simply means 'new.' and what i mean by 'new' refers to the 'new' ways in which their looking at and interpreting scripture.
this differentiates the term from "fundamentalists" in general--which has multiple uses. One use is the broad use that elson mentions. Another use is the use that refers to extremists in regards to various interpretations of a given scripture or idea (for example, the concept of a 'islamic fundamentalist' or 'hindu fundamentalists'). These two terms can be used to refer to any group in time--and even just smaller groups within groups.
'neo-fundamentalist christians' refers to those christians whose ideologies started and developed from certain american churches who started to schism and redevelope or regroup in the late 1800s and still do so to this day. many of these churches have very little understanding of scriptural or historical context--as evidenced by their theology and application--and rely solely on specific interpretations and ideas regarding scriptures. Many of us consider "conservative christians" and those individuals related politically and socially (such as the extreme right to life groups who bomb ob/gyn clinics and kill doctors) who rely on their interpretation of scripture to justify their violent actions.
in this light, it may be appropriate to consider the groups such as al quaeda (sp?) as neo-fundamentalist islamic groups--and those who are related in ideology and interpretation--while the mainstream of islam greatly disagrees with these groups in their interpretations and applictions of scriptures, and specifically disclaims the violent actions that these groups take.
again, neo simply refers to 'new' as opposed to 'older' or 'other' fundamentalist groups who have either died away, become mainstream, or assimilated into the larger culture from which they were derrived. usually, 'neo-fundamentalist' refers to those groups who are less than 100 years of age and, even though claiming a direct lineage, have no real evidence of such a lineage nor do they have an accurate understanding of historical religious practices that they say they have adopted or are truly living. As an example from the yoga world, some people consider the 'international society of krishna consciousness' to be a 'neofundamentalist hindu group'--even though they are known to be nonviolent. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Fundamentalist Christians have been around for centuries, in one form or another, including
those who came to the US in the 1600's. I'm not sure that there's anything distinctive
about those from after 1800 (as you cite) relative to those who were fundamentalists
in, say, 1700, other than the fact that they were in nominally different sects that those
that might self-identify that way today. Can you be more specific?
|
|
| |
|
| I have to say one of the most truthful things I've ever heard someone say is that the sole purpose of organized religion is to prevent the individual from having a direct experience with God. Fundamentalist Christians, Fundamentalist Muslims, and any other religious extremist groups epitomize this statement. Anything that keeps you from experiencing and developing your own spirit and your own personal relationship with God is not anything you should want to be a part of. Any religion that maintains it's grip on you through fear of separation from God or "going to hell" is the same as an abusive, predatory relationship that you stay in out of fear. Of course these "religions" are afraid of yoga or anything that allows an individual to meet their creator on their own terms and in the light of their own living spirit. |
|
| |
|
| bay guy:
most noteably--the bible that they use and when it was developed and what interpretations, myths and other ideas are related to when this text came about, why, and who used it.
individuals in the 1700s and 1600s who were fundamentalists had the same text as the rest of christiandom, including a closer relationship to orthodox theology. There are fundamentalist orthodox individuals, certainly, a smaller group within a group who tend to take a more 'fundamental' and often considered 'extreme' view of the tradition and scripture. For example, many people consider benedictine ideologies to be 'strict' or 'fundamentalist.' yet, they are now part of the landscape of christian (catholic) ideology. Those who were schismatic from western orthodoxy, tended to have stronger arguments for their schismatic ideologies, taking a stronger form in lineage (ie, lutherans were originalyl considered schismatic scritural fundamentalists, but have become an element of 'mainstream' and 'orthodox' christianity--and always were because of their lineage).
the bible, and the american perspective of the bible, changed with the new jerusalem printing which came in the late 1800s--and this is the governing bible of the neofundamentalists churches of today. An interesting text on the matter: Stealing Jesus. |
|
| |
|
| Oy vey! The Religious Wars!
I'd like to read "Stealing Jesus".
I agree with Miabella. All fundamentalists are icky. I had a Chinese professor who was a fundamental Daoist. You either believed in Daoism or you were wrong in his world. Really weird since that's the opposite of Daoism.
I think people get hypnotized by their religions and beliefs and they can't snap out of it.
It gets really embarrassing when Christians get all smug about their beliefs. It makes me not want to admit I am Christian b/c I don't want to be associated with them. Thus, the smug are cutting off their own lifeline.
|
|
| |
|
| Zoebird:
>> when i read/translate 'i am the way, the truth, and the life. . .' it says to me 'the path that i live, the person thta i am, the way that i am--this is the way, the truth, and the life.' also, using the concept "I AM is the way, the truth and the life" refers to the ultimate godhead--not to the individuated person of jesus. so, there are two 'orthodox' arguments that came through the bishop and canon lawyer with whom i studied for 4 years while learning to translate the bible from greek as well as other early church documents from greek and latin. There are other, arguments, btw, and i gave references to books from a well-regarded catholic monk, Thomas Merton, who wrote on the topic of buddhism and christianity--a work called Zen and Christianity--which is worth a read.
DE> How remarkable incorrect both of these interpretations are, in both the Catholic and Protestant churches. But very consistent, of course. You do not believe that Jesus is God. Thus "I AM the way, the Truth, and the Life; no man come to the Father except by/through me" does not mean that The Way means that we have to come to the Father through the agency of the Son, The Truth does not mean that Jesus is the Logos, and The Light does not mean that Jesus is the Light of the world. And even though Jesus clearly says I AM, it does not refer to His divinity. Yeah.
DE> You are not in full communion with the Roman Church if you hold these beilefs, which are contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium, as documented in the Catechism, affirmed by many Councils, and discussed in various Papal letters.
>> it is also important to note that catholicism, and most orthodox christian churches, have not come down against practicing yoga. There may be factions within these churches that do--but none of them have officially to date.
DE> Yeah. You might want to refer to "JESUS CHRIST, THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE, A Christian reflection on the New Age", http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html
similarly, the Church recognizes the ecumincal elements or ideology that most religions are refering to the same thing in different ways, because they arise out of different contexts. In this way, the Church is 'not exclusive.' although catholicism says that it is the 'best' way--and of course any religion is going to claim this.
DE> Again, see above. The critical distinction is that the conscience of any person who has heard the gospel, is bound by the gospel, and can therefore no claim invincible ignorance of Jesus.
Also, Krishna, btw, made the same claim. He was God incarnate. So was Rama. So was Buddha. All of them, in hinduism, were considered "god incarnate." i have no problem with this similarity--and in fact it may be where the idea came from, since the term Christian, comes from the greek X which was brought back from the region that wuld become india by alexander the great--thus bringing in the concept of incarnate gods that greek and roman leaders used for centuries before Christ. And, a label given to christ.
DE> Again, these ideas are your own, and have nothing to do with Christianity.
To me, this linquistic nuance links Christ and Krishna in a fascinating manner.
and i feel that i defined fundamentalism pretty well, contextually.
DE> This is not a matter of nuance, but identity. In Christianity, and view or understanding or conception of God that is not the Gospel, is not God. It's the whole "there is only one name given among men by which a man must be saved" thing. There is no room in Christianity for Buddha or Rama or Zeus or Bob, because they are not YHWH.
Dale |
|
| |
|
| elson:
you are actually incorrect on both parts. 1. i do believe that Jesus is God. Just as I believe that Krishna is God. Just as I believe that God is within me--as it says in John 1. Christ teaches us that the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand--within. And that God is within Us. THat we, like Jesus, need only recognize this.
2. you are incorrect about these ideas being part of christian/catholic belief or teaching. They aren't just 'my ideas.' these ideologies are part of catholic teaching, and the zen catholic movement--which started in the 1940s--was determined to be a movement within the church that is acceptable and appropriate, as per the encyclical of 1997, which also stated that the charismatic catholic movement, among others, were also a part of the catholic church--appropriate interpretations, permetations, and applications of catholic doctrine and in unity with catholic dogma.
Similarly, it might be noted that the Religious Society of Friends--in all of it's three primary types or varients--is also in line with this line of thinking, as are Unitarian Universalists--perhaps considered small groups of protestants--but the Quakers, at least, have a long and direct lineage from the 1600s and are a response to ritualism in favor of mysticism. I have also found similar movements and interepretations amoung most orthodox or traditional protestant churches as well as other religious movements--many of which are not christian (ie, judaism, islam, etc).
Edited by zoebird 2005-08-04 7:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
| also, catholicism has no problem with people coming up with their own ideas, understandings, and interpretations and applications of their teachings. My long education and practice of catholicism has taught me that only the dogmatic elements--of which there are very few--are required to be considered a catholic. this is what allows for the spiritual growth of the church. All doctrinal elements are 'a matter of conscience' and to be dealt within the individual's relationship with God and through the process of confession as well as other church-related and sacrimental activities.
since i still participate in confession with the same man with whom i studied the scriptures and early church debates and teachings, i think i have a good idea as to whether or not 'my ideas' (which are shared by many within the catholic church) are "acceptable" and whether or not i would be included or considered a catholic. if a person is too schismatic, then generally they are not offered the sacriments--and the confessor has the right to withhold the eucharist if he feels that the individual is not in a place to recieve it. Since my priest of 18 years has yet to do this--nor deny any sacriment including reconcilliation--i think that i have a clear indication of where i stand within the church. I'm certainly not going to take your word or interpretation for it.
similarly, i didn't find anything in that document that refutes or underminds my position--personally and within the context of eccuminicalism. i do not deny the gospel, nor the person of christ, nor his symbology or other cultural functions, nor his truth and understanding. in order to be a person who 'denies' christ, you have to actively disengage from the person of christ. In most ways, i am 'devoutly christian' as it is my primary practice. To recognize the eccuminical nature or ideology of the church, to engage and learn from that policy through direct participation and interaction with other religious groups and ideas is considered entirely appropriate. It is not against the dogma--therefore one can remain catholic--and it is only against certain doctrines, which are a matter of conscience. Some catholics are more 'traditional' or 'fundamentalist' than others--prefering a benedicting approach, whereas i prefer a more jesuit of franciscan approach, which is often considered 'very liberal.'
considering that my priest, now a monsignor and still a cannon lawyer, is well aware of and has encouraged my practice of and participation in the religious services of both other christian and non-christian religious communities alike, and since he specificially encouraged my association with zen buddhism and certainly acknowledged my participation in vedic studies via yoga (i wouldn't say that i practice hinduism or vedanta, specificially, though i do reflect on their scriptures in order to inform my conscience, to inform my christian practice which is my primary language), i certainly think that his authority--over some guy on the internet--is a much better indication of my position within catholicism, and whether or not i 'qualify' as a catholic and/or a christian.
were i to be too problematic, then certainly he would have indicated so at some point within the last 18 years, since the first four of those years i saw him 4-5 times a week, and since then have spoken with him 1-2 times a week. it certainly stands to reason, doesn't it?
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Not too long ago, I posted an AP article describing Cardinal Ratz--'s negative comments
about yoga in this forum. He's now the Pope --- I don't know the rules of Catholicism in
any detail, but I've always had the impression that the Pope's opinion came pretty
close to defining the rules? 
Found it... so here it is again... (yes, it bugs me)....
~~~~~~~
The below apparently dates from 1989....
Vatican Warns About Zen, Yoga VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican Thursday cautioned Roman Catholics that Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can ``degenerate into a cult of the body'' that debases Christian prayer. ``The love of God, the sole object of Christian contemplation, is a reality which cannot be `mastered' by any method or technique,'' said a document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document, approved by Pope John Paul II and addressed to bishops, said attempts to combine Christian meditation with Eastern techniques were fraught with danger although they can have positive uses. The 23-page document, signed by the West German congregation head Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was believed the first time the Vatican sought to respond to the pull of Eastern religious practices. Ratzinger told a news conference that the document was not condemning Eastern meditation practices, but was elaborating on guidelines for proper Christian prayer. By Eastern methods, the document said, it was referring to practices inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism such as Zen, Transcendental Meditation and yoga, which [may] involve prescribed postures and controlled breathing. Some Christians, ``caught up in the movement toward openness and exchanges between various religions and cultures, are of the opinion that their prayer has much to gain from these methods,'' the document said. But, it said, such practices ``can degenerate into a cult of the body and can lead surreptitiously to considering all bodily sensations as spiritual experiences.'' The document defined Christian prayer as a ``personal, intimate and profound dialogue between man and God.'' Such prayer ``flees from impersonal techniques or from concentrating on oneself, which can create a kind of rut, imprisoning the person praying in a spiritual privatism.'' Attempts to combine Christian and non-Christian mediation are ``not free from dangers and errors,'' the document said. It expressed particular concern over misconceptions about body postures in meditation. ``Some physical exercises automatically produce a feeling of quiet and relaxation, pleasing sensations, perhaps even phenomena of light and of warmth, which resemble spiritual well-being. To take such feelings for the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit would be a totally erroneous way of conceiving the spiritual life. ``Giving them a symbolic significance typical of the mystical experience, when the moral condition of the person concerned does not correspond to such an experience, would represent a kind of mental schizophrenia which could also lead to psychic disturbance and, at times, to moral deviations.'' The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the Vatican's watchdog body for doctrinal orthodoxy. The document did not name any particular individuals, groups or religious movements that have strayed in the use of Eastern meditation practices but the congregation often acts in response to complaints. AP-NY-12-14-89 0937EST (C) Copyright 1989, Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
I guess this also bears on Zen Catholicism (sorry, I'm rushing to read to my kids),
but I wonder whether Ratz- also had opinions on Thomas Merton.
|
|
| |
|
| Yuck. That article makes me want to hurl. I forgot, the Vatican owns God. In fact, we can no longer use the word "God" because it has been Trademarked by the Vatican. |
|
| |
|
| >> you are actually incorrect on both parts. 1. i do believe that Jesus is God. Just as I believe that Krishna is God.
DE> And you settle the incompatibilities between their teachings by reinterpreting the bible in such a way as to make it say what you want it to say. This has been the way of theological error ever since satan misquoted God to Eve in the garden.
DE> Your belief that Krishna is God is unacceptable for Catholics. Catechism para 2112
Just as I believe that God is within me--as it says in John 1. Christ teaches us that the Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand--within. And that God is within Us. THat we, like Jesus, need only recognize this.
DE> And I suppose when we recognize this, that we will become God? Perhaps Jesus was just an enlightened man, instead of the unique Son of God, and the rest of us can become as much God as Jesus, if we just apply ourselves. No.
*
The Zen Catholic Movement --- ahhhhh, now I get it. None of these folks are Catholic; they are all heretical sects that are NOT in full communion with the Church. That explains alot. So your opinions are not representative of more than a handful of Religious.
Which encyclical of 1997 are you referencing? I have not found one that said anything positive about Catholics practicing or embracing Zen Buddhism.
Quakers do not accept Zen Buddhism as part of their religion.
The UUs are not Christian, so their views do not bear on this discussion.
Islam and Judiasm enthusiastically reject Zen Buddhism as part of their religions. |
|
| |
|
| elson:
you're entirely welcome to your opinion on the matter, but the group is accepted by the church and many notable priests, monks, and nuns are members of the movement and write on it frequently.
a large part of the reading, contemplation, and application of the scriptures is an aspect of personal interpretation--regardless of one's religion. another aspect is the interplay between traditional or orthodox teachings and how that colors or impacts personal interpretation. because of my extensive study, i feel firmly grounded in both my catholicism and my christianity.
most of the catechism is doctrine. i discussed the nature of doctrine in the above paragraphs.
if you have any more questions, i suggest you take it up with Thomas Merton (in his books Zen and Christianity, for example)--he was a ciscerstian monk--or with Father James Hand, Jesuit priest--who write extensively on this topic. |
|
| |
|
| elson - 2005-08-05 5:32 AM
*
The Zen Catholic Movement --- ahhhhh, now I get it. None of these folks are Catholic; they are all heretical sects that are NOT in full communion with the Church. That explains alot. So your opinions are not representative of more than a handful of Religious.
Elson - can you please elaborate on the above quote. Are you saying Catholics practicing Zen Meditation are heretics?
Just out of curiosity, what is your faith? Perhaps you've already posted that and I missed it. I have to tell you, I appreciate your research and identify with most of your postings. Thanks
|
|
| |
Promoting a Christian Alternat
