Doubting Thomas - proof that Jesus rose from the dead
April 27th 2009 09:32
Doubting Thomas by Caravaggio
When Jesus rose from the dead, Thomas refused to believe it until he had seen and put his fingers into the nail marks in Jesus’ hands, and put his hand in his side. Jesus later appeared to Thomas and asked him to touch his wounds. Thomas then said ‘My Lord and my God’. Jesus said that Thomas believed because he had seen, but said that those who believed but did not see were blessed.
I admit to having a bit of a soft spot for Thomas. I kind of felt sorry for him. Sure, he refused to believe that Jesus had rose from the dead. But who could blame him? And who seriously could be absolutely certain that they wouldn’t doubt as well? Many Christians can say that they believe in Jesus’ resurrection, despite not having seen him. But I tend to think that it’s a lot easier to believe when you have 2000 years of history of people who believed the same thing. It would be a bit different if you were one of the first people to accept it solely on faith. I admit to having doubts now sometimes. I know that I would have found it difficult if I was in Thomas’ position.
But Thomas did more than just doubt. He didn’t just have a few moments when he wondered and asked a few questions. Thomas refused to believed unless he could had hard scientific proof. He wanted something he could see and touch, not just someone’s word for it. If he couldn’t believe to an absolute certainty, then he wasn’t going to believe at all. He wanted to be sure.
Many of us would like to be a bit more sure about the resurrection. Those who believe it would like something more tangible that they could point to to say that proves that it actually happened. Those who don’t believe it either want the same thing so that they can believe in it, or want the opposite to prove their case. Those that aren’t sure either way would like God to show them something that makes them sure.
Sometimes we go searching for that proof that Thomas wanted. Sometimes we try to create it ourselves. Christians write books on apologetics trying to prove that the resurrection is real. Or they pray for that deep certainty inside of us that it happened. But faith isn’t about being certain. And it’s certainly not about hard scientific proof. Faith is about believing anyway.
I don’t think Thomas did anything wrong in doubting that Jesus had actually risen. As I said, who among us can be certain that we wouldn’t also doubt in his position? And I really don’t think he did anything wrong in asking for proof either. If he did, then why did Jesus give him that proof that he wanted? But what I think we can learn from Thomas is that it is better to believe without wanting that proof.
Jesus said ‘Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’. I don’t think this was just a message to all those that would come afterwards, and would not have the proof that Thomas did, that they just had to believe anyway. It was a message that there is something good about believing without proof. We are blessed when we do that. There is something special that we gain. We can be thankful that we don’t have the hard scientific proof because it allows us to believe solely on faith. Faith is not something that should be proven. It is better when it is not proven.
Some people cannot believe without proof. It’s hard to criticise that. Jesus himself did not criticise Thomas for wanting to actually see and feel the wounds. Instead he gave him that opportunity. And in response to this, Thomas recognised him as his lord and his God. So why doesn’t Jesus give people that proof now? Why doesn't God prove he exists, instead of asking people to believe solely on faith? Maybe he doesn’t offer us that proof because he knows it is better for us if we don’t have it. Maybe he doesn’t want us to miss out on the blessing that comes through believing by faith.
| 194 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Comment by Mistersmith
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME
Your family is in good hands.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Comment by Natalina
My Life My Muse
Beta Girl Blog
If Christians want to spread Jesus' message to those who'd be less than inclined to receive it, I believe it is more effective to lead by example. It is a bigger testament of one's Faith when they don't get bent out of shape whenever someone questions them. Rather, if they simply acquiesce the point of proof, and reinforce the fact that a lack of hard evidence does little to shake that faith, a bigger impact is made.
I myself have fallen into the trap of trying to convince others that their debunking of Christ is wrong. When, in reality, I have found far more responsiveness when I accept their points, and simply show that my Faith is still sound, even in light of their arguments. This is why I enjoy reading your posts. Non confronting, logical, spiritual, and human.
Thomas is one of the Bible's most relatable characters. When reading his story, I feel closer to Christ. He is like a reflection of the human condition. We always want proof. Some things are just mysterious. They are no less true.
Incidentally, I do happen to believe that there is evidence of God all around us!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
When I read this:
Jesus said ‘Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’.
I think 'this is how religion controls people's minds. By telling them what to think/believe without actually giving them a good reason to think that way.' There are so many things we can 'believe' without any proof been offered up for it. Why is this any different?
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Ruby - How dare you question my faith? Please never do so again.
I think there is a big different between proof and reasons. I think there are many reasons to believe in God and the resurrection of Jesus, even though there may not be any hard scientific proof. I'm not going to go into a big list of reasons, but one of them is that the disciples were willing to die for their faith. That doesn't prove Jesus rose from the dead. But it does provide a reason to believe he did.
I also think that there is no hard scientific proof that God doesn't exist. And I personally cannot see any good reasons for not thinking he exists either. I see more reasons for believing in God than not believing in God, but no proof either way.
I think we believe lots of things without having any proof. I think I've already talked to you before about how we believe people love us, despite not having proof. When we're on the internent, we believe we are talking to real people on the other side and not trained monkeys, despite not having proof. We believe that our employer will pay us on pay day, despite not having proof. We take things on faith all the time - because although we may not have proof, we have reasons.
Samaritan
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
But many people have died for many causes over the years. I'm not about to become a Communist because of all the revolutionaries who died fighting that fight. Besides which, the only 'evidence' we have for the existence of these disciples comes from the bible itself. And if the accuracy of the bible of questionable, why would I even take the story of the disciples at face value?
That's true. But then there is no hard scientific proof that the tooth fairy doesn't exist either. Besides which, in scientific theory, the onus of proof is on the party putting forth the hypothesis. If a particular scientist has a theory they want to promote, they have to set about attempting to prove why their theory is correct, it is not up to their colleagues to prove them wrong. Imagine that everything we were taught in school followed your line of logic there. "Well we can't prove that Arthur didn't pull the sword from the stone and that Merlin wasn't a real magician, therefore, we should just take it on good faith that the story of Camelot happened exactly the way the legend says it did". No. We treat Camelot as a myth and a legend precisely because there is no proof that those events occurred. And because they defy all that we know about physics and the natural world. Just as the story of the resurrection does.
But we do have proof in a manner of speaking- we believe people love us because of the way they treat us. And because we see with our own eyes the way they behave. We do not think trained monkey type novels and internet dialogue because all evidence points to the fact that monkeys do not have this ability. We believe our employer will pay us because 1. S/he is legally bound to do so and if s/he does not there is action we take to recover our wages. 2. They have paid us in the past and we have no reason to think they won't do so again, unless of course they have NOT paid us in the past in which case it will serve us will to be suspicious that they may not pay us in the future.
All the examples you cite are actually verifiable so really, they are nothing at all like having faith in god and the resurrection.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
In scientific theory, the onus may be put on proving something exists rather than the other way around. But God is not a scientific theory. It is something we accept on faith. My point has been that we can't prove it.
With the examples I used, you said that we did have proof in a manner of speaking. Well I think, for faith in God, there is also proof in a manner of speaking. I believe that are good reasons for believing that God exists. No proof, but good reasons.
And a lot of scientific research starts off on faith. People believe that something in a certain way, despite not having that proof. They have faith in their hypothesis. Later on, they may find that proof and convince the rest of us. If people only ever believed in things when they had the hard scientific proof there in front of them, then we would never have a discovered quite a lot that we actually do know about the world and what exists out there.
Samaritan
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
That was well said .. and this(in your response to Ruby);
I also think that there is no hard scientific proof that God doesn't exist. And I personally cannot see any good reasons for not thinking he exists either. I see more reasons for believing in God than not believing in God, but no proof either way.
Sums it up about all the way for me too and as for Thomas, I do believe he existed and has many descendants. To me so much of it is personal and symbolic.
A delightfully nice refelction this morning.
Lilla.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Ruby, there was a couple of extra things I wanted to say, but had to do something urgent for work and had to just send the comment as it was.
Firstly, when you buy a house, you buy it on faith. You don't have any proof that it will increase in value. But you buy it anyway, believing that it will. If you wanted proof that the house would increase in value then nobody would ever buy a house.
Secondly, when I was about 20, there was someone in my backyard. I rang the police. When they came, I told them that I didn't think he was there anymore, because he seemed to have run off when the police arrived. Now the police did not ask me to prove that the person in the backyard actually existed. Instead, they went around and checked the whole backyard just to make sure he wasn't there. I guess the point of that is to say that the onus is not always on someone to prove that something exists.
Samaritan
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
Interesting post!
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
This is speculation. The disciples did not record the events firsthand. In fact, no one wrote about Jesus until at least 70 years after his death. And it is safe to say that Christianity would have died an early death if not for the efforts of Paul some 150 years later. This is enough time to have past, especially in those days, for distortions and revisions to abound. I have no doubt that those who died for their faith in the early days of Christianity had faith. However, this still does not prove the story true. Even in this day, despite the vast lack of evidence, there are those who will die for their cult leader believing that leader is ordained by a higher being. Think the Jonestown Massacre and Waco.
That may be so, but you did bring up the fact that science has not proven that god does not exist. That's why I elaborated. Science has however, proven that god is not necessary for the universe to exist. There are perfectly plausible explanations to explain the world around us without resorting to the God Hypothesis.
I won't argue with that. But then, there are also good reasons to believe that Climate Change is a hoax. Does not make it true. There are good and bad reasons for everything. That's why we so often draw up a list of pros and cons when making decisions and why decisions are often so hard to make. Believe me, I can see good reasons for wanting to believe in god. I didn't want to lose my faith. I faugh against it with everything i had at the time. But I couldn't deny it. It just didn't add up and eventually I had to admit to myself that it really just didn't make any sense.
I guess you could call it faith. However, if their studies do not back up their hypothesis, then faith alone will not sustain it.
Believing it will, or hoping?
That's because the police are obliged to explore all options. Had you however said that it was your next door neighbour lurking in the bushes and wanted to press charges for trespassing, would the police have accepted your story? Would they have charged your neighbour based only on your belief that he was in your backyard?
Sorry, I don't mean to nit pick. I do like discussing this. Don't take it personally.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Don't worry I'm not taking it personally. And I like discussing it too. I think it's good to discuss faith with atheists, because it really makes me think about my faith.
However, in one way, I think we're talking two very different languages. You're talking about God from the point of view of proof and evidence. I'm talking about him from the point of view of faith and hope.
One of the reasons I gave those different examples was not really to try and prove that we take things on faith. It was more to show that there are different ways of looking at how we believe in God.
In terms of the house, yes, maybe you're right and it is as much about hope as it is about belief. But still, when a person buys a house, even though it may be a lot of hope tied into it, they wouldn't buy it unless they really believed it would increase. But it is a hope-centred belief, rather than a certainty-centred belief. And I believe that belief in God is a hope-centred belief.
And with the police officers, you're completely right. If they wanted to take someone in for questioning or charge them, they would need more evidence. But then that becomes a matter of finding and requiring proof. But there are different kinds of proof or reasons to believe they need. The kind of proof needed to charge someone is not the same to look into something.
And so when we think about reasons to believe in God, I personally do not think it's like proving a scientific theory or collecting enough evidence to charge someone. It's more like buying a house, in the hope/belief it will increase in value or walking around the backyard, checking to see if someone is there.
Samaritan
Comment by Andrew Biviano
The Middle Ground
I am in the middle of your two viewpoints, as a religious agnostic. I am normally based in reason and will never be certain about the nature or existence of God. But, like Samaritan, I have embraced that uncertainty. For me, I realized after many years of waiting for proof I was missing out on the opportunities that faith offered, and chose to develop and permit my instinctual belief in the existence of a higher power, and love, and interconnectedness. I see evidence, bordering on proof, all around me, such as the love people feel for each that is not explained by Darwin.
Samaritan, where I can't agree with your conclusion is that it seems to me that you, and virtually all religion, combine faith in God with faith in historical events. For me, the former is something where faith alone suffices, the latter should be based on proof and reason. The need to believe with certainty that unprovable things happened a certain way is a mystery to me. Why does it matter? Can't one follow the teachings of Jesus and/or Mohammed based on their own merits, without having to insist on a certain story about how they lived and died? It distracts so much from what matters, which is the message to love thy neighbor. It also chases away so many from that message when we organize religions around acceptance of historical assertions rather than core values. And of course there are millions, if not billions, of people who have died because of differing views on religious history, when they likely believedi n the same core values.
So why should any of us be different than Thomas? He wasn't doubting Jesus' words or teachings, just an unprecedented factual assertion about resurrection. Why must the two be intertwined and packaged together? Why must we care about these details, when we could have a very large tent based solely on the wonderful teachings of one of the best people to walk the Earth?
Again, thanks for the great topic and great perspective.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Short answer is I don't think it really matters. I think you can be Christian and live a Christian life, without needing to specifically believe in the resurrection. I personally do believe in it. And I believe there is something special to be gained from believing in it.
However, if someone calls themselves a Christian, but not believe in the resurrection, I'm fine with that - especially if they're living by Jesus' teachings. I went to a church once where the reverend did not actually believe in a physical resurrection.
To me, it is an important part of my faith. And in relation to the historical event versus faith thing, I think it gets complicated when you talk about something like the resurrection. Yes, it is an historical event - from my perspective. But the importance of it is not on its historical accuracy. But more what it means in terms of my faith. Like one thing it means to me is that Jesus was God's son. It also means that Jesus is with us today. And they're more faith things rather than history things.
I would actually like to do a lot more reading about the resurrection. I kind of feel a bit here like I'm talking about something I don't quite understand. But then again, I don't think many of us do understand it. That's the point. It doesn't make sense. It's not easy to narrow it down to 'the facts' like you can do with history. It's bigger than history - and beyond my comprehension.
Thanks for your comments, Andrew. It was really good to get another perspective on it.
Samaritan
Comment by Anonymous
You say:
St Paul says:
One of the things I notice about Christians today is they don't know Sacred Scripture well enough. And they make concessions for other people that shouldn't be made. You can't be a Christian and not beleive in the Resurrection. IT's that simple. Or St Paul wouldn't have said what he said.
Even Martha questioned the resurrection. She was having a chat with Christ at the tomb of her brother Lazarus. And Christ's answer. "I am the resurrection and the life."
As to Ruby's comments? Well she'll never believe anything other than in her own non-belief. I can't even read half of her crap. I skim read it and just go. Here she goes again. She wants proof of faith all the time. THat's how dumb she is. She doesn't even know that faith with proof ceases to be faith. SHe's one of those modern intellectuals. Her own mind is her God. And that's why faith eludes her.
Sometimes it pays to look at a time line of the world from the point of view of Sacred Scripture. You have God creating the world. And you have the Old Testament with all the promises of a Redeemer. Then you have the arrival of the Redeemer. And you have His promise that HIs Church will last until the end of time and even the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
And you arrive at the modern day. And it is still there. Regardless of how many Ruby's have come along in the meantime with the intent to obliterate it from people's minds with faith. Ruby is a rehasher of old heresies. St Pius X said modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. There is nothing RUby will come up with that isn't an old heresy. She just doesn't know religion and doesn't know the history of it. She thinks she's having original thoughts? Nup. She's rehashing old heresies. She's a product of the modern age. She might have even been to university. That's where the anti-religious congregate. If you go through the list of heresies, you'll find that the Church convened a council in the various centuries to make each one anathema. But modern people like Ruby think they've had an original thought and that makes them feel special about themselves. They know something no-one else knows (in their minds). But people who really know? THey know that type of person doesn't know her history.
You're a very calm person. And fair enough. That's you. But one thing I can't tolerate is error in the name of making a false friend who hates religion. I'd rather tell the truth and have them hate me. And that is CHristianity. It's what Christ did. He couldn't tolerate error. And had no problem telling people the truth and not listening to their garbage. But He had a persona that struck fear and admiration into people. And shut their potty mouths. Have you ever met a living saint? I've met one. And you are just in awe of the person. And so are the people with faith around you. You just know you're in the company of someone venerable. People like Ruby hang around the wrong crowd. Young dissenters who hate everything good and holy. Read what St Timothy said about how children would become and you get a picture of Ruby.
Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.
Hang around bad apples. You'll turn into one.
Comment by Andrew Biviano
The Middle Ground
I know that Samaritan can stick up for herself, but there are a few things that I have to say as well.
First, Saint Paul was not God. His word is not divine. The Catholic church used to believe in papal infallibility but doesn't anymore. Christians don't believe that the Bible is like the Koran -- straight from God's mouth. Rather, it is considered the divinely inspired work of humans. For you to then say that we must be unquestionably obedient to a fellow mortal is sacrilegious in itself. Sure, we should give extra weight to things attributed to Saint Paul, but to say that because he said it it is the unquestionable Truth ("it's that simple" you say), is treating him like he is God.
Also, you forget your history. The church did not spring up fully formed -- it has evolved immensely throughout its history, permitting and even incorporating doubts and dissent. Remember that the First Council of Nicea, the first major attempt to achieve consensus, did not even occur until the year 325. The Bible itself was put together by a majority vote concerning which books were to be included. The Gospels tell the same stories differently. There have been schisms within the church, Vatican I versus Vatican II, all sorts of different sects currently exist, like the jesuits and Opus Dei. This isn't even counting protestants or Greek Orthodox. There is room for opinion.
And most importantly, you are missing the entire point behind this post. Even Jesus was understanding of doubt, hence his patience with Thomas and willingness to give him proof. So there is no basis for your statement that dissent and doubt have no place. If you want to be Christ-like, he has given you a very clear example to follow.
Then you really put the finishing touches on post by spewing hatred for the last half. Jesus loved even the sinners. The only people he truly got angry with were the Pharisees who acted like they were holier than everyone else, put themselves above others, and condemned and punished those who did not subscribe to their teachings and power structure. If you see Ruby and me as sinners, you act very differently than He did, with your name-calling, insults and venomous attacks, and are much more similar to the Pharisees. How you expect to bring anyone into the circle of Christ's love (which he called us to do), while showing none is completely beyond me.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
You are quite right. Paul did say that. And I do think that that's important. But is it a necessary condition for calling yourself a Christian? I'm not sure. People can go around and live lives that are centred around Jesus and that follow Jesus' teachings, without actually believing in the resurrection. I have been influenced by some writers who would probably fall into this category. Who am I to say that they're not Christians? Surely that's only for God to judge.
If we take the case of Doubting Thomas, was he a Christian before Jesus appeared to him and offered for him to touch his wounds? That depends on how you define Christian. One thing I think is clear is that Thomas did not fully recognise Jesus as his Lord and God, until after he believed in the resurrection. And perhaps a belief in the resurrection is necessarily to fully recognise Jesus for who he is. But it is true that Jesus was understanding of doubts. So shouldn't we be too?
In terms of Ruby, yes, you are right. She does not want to change her mind on whether God exists or not. However, I have had some very interesting discussions with Ruby. And I have found her very respectful of my views even when we disagree. I like talking to Ruby about God. It makes me think about my faith. If you only ever talk to people who agree with you, you don't really learn much.
And you and I disagree. I'm sure I'm probably bringing up the regular heresies that have been sprouting up in the church for centuries. Yet you still talk to me. And I'm glad you do. I like hearing what you have to say about the church and Catholicism.
And one thing that I do think about is the fact that my faith tends to be palatable. As my sister, who is not a Christian said, my faith is easy to like. As first I took that as a compliment, but then I thought I'm not sure that's such a good thing. Without looking up chapter and verse, Jesus did say that people would be persecuted because of him. And I think it's something I need to always be careful of - am I straying from the truth, in order to make Christianity more likeable? I think I will always have a tendency to do that. But I need to be aware and conscious of it and try not to, as much as I can.
Samaritan
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Thanks for your comment.
I agree that Paul's words should not be given as much weight as Jesus. However, I do think all the letters of Paul are important and things we need to at least consider carefully. Paul did have the original road to Damascus experience. He had a very real experience of Jesus and I think one of the reasons that happened was so that he would write the letters and we would be able to learn from them.
And I like what you say about Jesus and the fact that he was understanding of doubt. I mean Thomas has just spent three years with him - and saw the resurrection of Lazarus and other people - and Jesus understood his doubts. I believe that he is understanding of the doubts that people have.
In terms of the history of the Catholic Church, I'll leave that one alone, because there are people who know much more about it than me. But I do like what you said about their being room for opinion. I like there to be different opinions on these things. One thing that I get a sense of with the Catholic Church is that there is no room for opinion - but I could be wrong. I think that can be a good thing and a bad thing. But I personally like hearing different opinions. And some things I don't agree with, but I don't want to judge people because of that. I think that's up to God.
Samaritan
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Show me some proof.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
It looks like we've come full circle here. This is where I say but faith is not about proof. And we start all over again.
Samaritan
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Thanks Samaritan, always a pleasure.
Comment by Anonymous
Whatever.
Samaritan.
I'll still maintain you can't say you're a Christian if you don't believe Christ rose from the dead.
I know that sounds harsh to most people. But for starters you may as well not listen to a thing St Paul said if you maintain that stance. Because he's clear that your faith is in vain if you don't believe in Christ's resurrection. I think I'll leave people to tell St Paul he's wrong when they die.
But how can someone say, Sorry St Paul. It sounds good but I'd rather make up my own mind thanks very much ??? Because that's how it comes across. It's like saying, I'm a Christian but St Paul had no idea of what he was going on about.
If you don't believe Sacred Scripture is inspired by God then why bother reading it to gain faith? You may as well say, well I'll read it but I'm not believing it if I don't agree with it. It better agree with everything I already think, or I'm criticising it. And that's the modern approach. In a nutshell. Private, personal interpretation. Thousands, millions of them. Not one faith.
Sometimes you have to be absurd to point out absurdities.
I am putting my money on St Paul, thanks. Not people who don't know what they believe. He said himself, "I know whom I have believed."
Don't forget Christ actually appeared to Him. Do you think he never had another visit from Christ in his life? I don't think so. He was also wrapped up to the third heaven. He learnt things mortals can't utter. He was speaking on behalf of Christ, not on his own behalf. And that's what people miss when I speak about these things. I'm speaking on someone else's behalf. Not my own. For like St Paul said again, "If I seek my own glory it is vain." Etc, etc, etc. It's really only about passing on what a person has learnt. Not for personal glory but because the Faith operates like that. It is an unbroken chain. God never changes. I learnt what I know about my faith by reading the great saints that went before me, and they all say the same thing about it. One God. One Faith.
Again. Don't read Sacred Scripture like a book. Read a small passage and spend an hour on that one small passage until God opens your understanding to it. It's not a novel.
And read what the great saints have said about Sacred Scripture rather than trying to nut it out yourself. For God's grace is with the saints.
You have to look at all the incidents in the Gospels as God orchestrating Christ's life for our instruction. God wanted Thomas to doubt Him. It was meant to comfort people of latter ages who would never have the privilege of seeing Christ in the flesh. And, what does Thomas say. He says, "My Lord and my God." And yet still Christian's question Christ's Divine nature but talk about the Bible. What are they reading when they read it? He doesn't just say My Lord. He calls him My God. How much clearer can it be?
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
I agree that one that cannot discount Paul's words and simply say 'well I don't like that, so I'll just get a big black texta and cross that part out of my bible, thanks'. That doesn't make sense to me at all. I do believe in looking at the bible in different ways. However, I never agree with simply ignoring something, because it's too hard to deal with and doesn't fit in with my views.
To be honest, that verse of Paul's is one that I find uncomfortable. And so perhaps one that I need to meditate upon more. I think one reason why this does make me so uncomfortable is because I tend to take an arms open wide approach to the church. I have very inclusive views. I want everybody to be able to call themselves a Christian if they want to. And I do believe if I have any views that are in error, it will be because of this. This is the area where I am most likely to stray from the truth.
However, it was kind of funny, because later on in the conversation I had with my friend, we starting talking about the prosperity gospel. He asked me whether I thought there would be less people in church if the prosperity gospel stopped being preached. My answer was yes, but who cares? If they're only in the church for prosperity, then we're better off without them. Get rid of them, I say. (And I was talking to someone who goes to a church that tends to lean towards prosperity). And so it appears that my open arm policy has limits after all.
I have to admit I am bad with this. I tend to just read five chapters a day and sometimes my aim is pretty much on just reading them and getting on with things, rather than actually thinking about them. I did have a month once where I did read a small passage of scripture and just meditated on it for an hour, rather than reading my five chapters. And I have to say, that I really got a lot out of that. I think when you read the bible, at first glance, you tend to see what you want to see or what you expect to see. But the more you look at it and think about it, the more likely you are to see things you don't expect to see or things that don't fit with your own views. Things that make you go wow, I never noticed that.
And I have to say that another thing I am bad at is I want to try and nut things out for myself. I'm a thinker. Even my sister recognised that I have a very intellectual approach to faith - and she's agnostic, leaning towards atheist. I like to think. I like to work things out. I don't like to simply accept what someone tells me. I want to think about it myself and come to my own conclusions.
Now I believe that God made me that way. And I believe that there is a reason for God making me that way. However, I also believe that with every thing God gives us, we can use it in a good way or a bad way.
This is hard actually, because now I'm getting into more personal stuff that I'm not sure I feel comfortable sharing on a public blog. In fact, I just wrote a whole other paragraph there and then deleted it when I kind of thought about the fact that heaps of people may read it. Not that I mind sharing lots about who I am and how I approach faith. But I think there has to be limits.
Samaritan
Comment by Anonymous
There's a lot of parts of Sacred Scripture I'm not comfortable with but it doesn't stop me believing they're true. And we arrive back at the fundamental question of faith once again. And I believe Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God, albeit penned by man.
As St Paul says to Timothy:
There is an annotation to this passage in the Douay Rheims Bible:
THe fact that Sacred Scripture is penned by humans is a big stumbling block to a lot of modern people. They always assert it was written by man as proof to their own errant minds that it is not the word of God. But just as a secretary is not the prinicipal author of her boss's letters, the humans responsible for the deposit of Sacred Scripture are not the principal authors of the works.
As to nutting out things for yourself. There's nothing wrong with having an enquiring mind.
But even the apostles and disciples of Christ had to have things explained to them.
He would take them aside and explain His parables to them.
But even that was not enough. Christ even told the Apostles at the Last Supper that they would have to wait for the Holy Ghost:
They were with Him for three years but their minds were not ready to grasp or fully comprehend everything He said to them. For that it needs a huge injection of the Holy Ghost.
And so essentially God chooses certain people, just as Christ chose His apostles, to be the bearers of truth. And we neglect them at our peril. We should take our enquiring minds to them at times. For their enquiring minds were filled with lights and graces that we might not get. Because God wants us to go to these men and women He filled with His spirit for our own instruction. I've learnt as much about Sacred Scripture from reading treatises on it by Saints and holy people as I have meditating upon it. Both are very salutary pursuits.
There's a lot of Sacred Scripture that can be totally open to misinterpretation. The one I hear a lot today is Judge not. But that refers to not judging people's interior motives not their actions. And if we took it too literally, we would never make a judgement about anything, and therefore never make a decision about anything. And you could go totally silly on it by standing up in a court of law and telling the judge he has no right to judge. While you were sitting in prison with a few more months added to your sentence for contempt, you might rethink taking things too literally.
Most of the saints spent their entire lives living off Sacred Scripture. It's an inexhaustible well.
As CHrist said to Satan, "Man ... lives on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." And when he was with the Samaritan woman, He said:
And this is where I get a lot of amusement from Sacred Scripture. What is their response?:
Even they didn't understand everything He said. And they lived with Him. What chance us? At that stage of their spiritual development they were still quite carnal men, so their minds were on carnal things such as eating bodily food. I mean they had gone into town to buy meat.
So Christ explains it to them:
And I do understand the need for a certain amount of privacy on a public blog. It's a wise move to keep certain things to yourself.
There are many people on public blog forums just looking to do people an injustice by whatever means possible.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
I also believe scripture is the inspired word of God. However, your example of the secretary is a good one – because I have worked as a secretary in many jobs. And at the moment I’m working as a typist. (It’s not the most exciting job, but it’s a good one to do from home, so I can be more available for my kids.) Anyway, I know, as a secretary and typist, that even when someone dictates something, errors will come up in what’s actually typed. And sometimes I wonder whether the bible is like that. God dictated, and the people taking down the dictation muddled up a few words. Although that’s not a really a good way to read the bible, because then you can just ignore anything you don’t like by saying well maybe they took this the wrong way.
However, another thing I believe is that God uses metaphors. (Jesus did it when he spoke about the Kingdom of God.) And I also think he explains things in a way we can understand, based on our limited understanding. And so maybe things are not to be taken literally, because God never actually meant them that way.
In terms of what you said about needing the Holy Ghost to understand things, I believe that in order to really know God, you need that spiritual dimension. And it’s not going to be found through reading or thinking, it has to come from God. But in order to let God do that, you have to get more in touch with the spiritual aspects, rather than the intellectual. I can’t explain this very well because it’s actually a new thought that has just come to me, not one that I’ve spent heaps of time thinking about. But I think that kind of ‘spiritual’ as knowing god, in the same way you know someone who you have a very close relationship with. Whereas the intellectual is more ‘knowing about God’, in the same way that someone does who has studied the subject for years. It’s the difference between say Charles Dickens’ wife and someone who has done a PhD on him. This is getting a bit personal again, so I won’t elaborate too much. But I know I am better at the intellectual, rather than the spiritual and it’s something I need to work on.
Ah yes, it probably won’t surprise you to know that I really like that verse. In fact, it’s one of the top principles I use to guide my actions. Maybe that’s why I am such an indecisive person! I always thought it was about judging both people’s motives and actions. But I imagine you have reasons for saying that, and I have nothing except my own personal opinion. And I am beginning to learn that that counts for absolutely nothing. I just want to say that even though you seem to have annoyed a few people on Orble (and I bet you never even noticed that, did you?), I personally have learnt a lot from you. You have actually changed the way I think about theology and Christian history – and they’re my two favourite subjects. And I think my knowledge of those subjects will be deepened (not just now, but because of the way I approach them in future) because of the comments you have made.
But I think, whether it’s about judging a person’s motives or actions, the reason we should be careful about judging people is that often we spend too much time on focusing on other people’s faults and not enough on our own. It’s why Jesus said to remove the plank from our own eye, before removing the speck from someone else’s. Some people will say I’m not judgmental enough. Fair enough. But I judge myself a lot more harshly than I judge other people. Because I tend to focus on what I’m doing wrong, rather than what other people are doing wrong.
By the way, I didn’t go and look at the Catholic Church today. But I did walk past their little book stall that they have out the front. I got seven Catholic books for $3.50. I told you my answer to everything is to read a book. There’s probably not anything too exciting there. Although I did get the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius. So I still need to buy those other books. But at least this gives me something to read in the meantime.
I think this comment is longer than my original post.
Samaritan
Comment by Andrew Biviano
The Middle Ground
I have many big questions when it comes to faith and religion. Well, actually only religion, as I am comfortable with faith. Two of them have been stumping me lately.
The first is the nature of the Bible. The fact is that it the books were not written during or even very near to Jesus' time, nor were they compiled into what we call the Bible until 300 years later. This was all done by man, and it wasn't even unanimous. The fact is that a majority vote of human beings decided what the official version of events and the creed were to be. Countless other majority votes (and edicts from emperors and popes) have made the Catholic Church almost unrecognizable from what it was (thankfully), and formed thousand of protestant christian sects that read the Bible differently. There are conflicting translations. On top of that, so much of the Bible contradicts other parts, and there are parts that virtually every Christian disregards as cultural relics, like almost the entirety of Leviticus (except for one verse about homosexuality), the approval of slavery, beating children, murdering heretics, etc.
This is not to say that the Bible is not sacred, invaluable and worthy of great respect. I have read it and find it profound and holy. But I sense the human fallibility that is unavoidably within it in places. So I don't see how anybody who has received the gift of reason from God can decide to simply ignore this gift when reading the book. How can Anonymous or others say that the book says this, therefore end of discussion, when I can guarantee that in other places he decides that the book is wrong?
The other problem I have is with the doctrine that the only path to salvation is to give all the glory to Jesus, without allowing even questions to creep into your heart. If this same need for glory, credit and praise were held by a person, he would be roundly rebuked and seen as having a major personality flaw. Yet, the version that is becoming the majority view is that works don't matter, how I live doesn't matter, I just need Anonymous' unquestioning belief that Jesus deserves sole credit. If I don't give him full credit, even if live like Mother Teresa, he won't give me a small rebuke, we're talking all of eternity in hell. This version casts Jesus as being egomaniacal . Yet, he lived his life as the most selfless being to ever walk this earth, even willing to die for us. After being that selfless, he is now going to make sure that we all suffer for infinity if we don't belong to the right church? This not only violates common sense, it violates the actual words of the Bible that describe Jesus' true personality. I can't see how biblical literalists can come to this conclusion.
I am so glad that you aim to be inclusive, and don't think it will ever be a fault. You don't lack principle by being inclusive, you hold fast to the most important one Jesus taught us: Love. For everyone, even the sinners and misguided.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
I'm glad that you like my blog and am glad I am writing it. To be honest, right about now, I'm wondering why on earth I'm doing it. So it's nice to know that it is appreciated. I don't know whether I actually do a good job of engaging everybody or whether it's just the topic itself that engages people. I have written some posts that have received no comments at all. And I wouldn't take the whatever comment personally.
Now I do believe that the bible is inspired by God. I believe God influenced what would be written not only in terms of what he wanted to say to people then and there, but what would be beneficial to us here and now. I think one of the reasons why people in the people do have so many faults is because God wanted us to be encouraged by that. And it's also interesting to see how many references there are to the Messiah in the Old Testament. I can't believe that's just a coincidence.
Now it also seems to be that God isn't just to make sure all this stuff is included and then just sit back and watch when it comes to actually choosing the books of the bible. I have to believe that he would influence that process too.
Also, when it comes to disagreements about what was included and what the creeds would be, I believe they serve a good purpose too. Because practically nothing that people will say about God or Jesus has not been said before. And whether we agree or disagree, we know that somewhere in the past this issue was discussed and resolved. And that doesn't always stop us thinking those things. I know I've read books on heresy and recognised many of my own thoughts in there! It's like well I thought I had come up with something new, but it appears somebody already thought of it.
And yes I have big question-marks over why different Christians read the bible differently. So I don't really know how to give you an answer to that one. And as for Leviticus, if I had the choice of getting rid of one book in the bible, that would be it. But unfortunately - or perhaps fortunately - the decision wasn't placed in my hands.
I don't think we are meant to ignore our reason when reading the bible. God gave us brains and we're meant to use them. But I guess - and this is something I'm still working through myself - there is a difference between using our reason and thinking we're the only ones who have ever done so. Other people have used reason and come to different conclusions. And that certainly doesn't mean you should stop thinking about these things or questioning them. Sometimes when you question something, I believe, you actually end up with a deeper faith than before. And I do not find it easy to simply accept something because someone tells me. In fact, I find it almost impossible to accept something if I believe it's wrong.
In terms of giving Jesus the glory, there is one huge difference between a person who asks for that glory and Jesus. Jesus actually deserves it. He is worthy of our praise, and no human ever is. You probably deserve a better answer than that, but I don't really feel able to say anymore on the subject at the moment.
And Andrew, I think it's good you're asking the questions. I am a very questioning person. And I really believe that questions have helped to deepen my faith. But at the same time, a large part of asking questions, is realising that some questions you're just never going to know the answers to. And sometimes you just have to go well I don't know, but God does, and I'll just have to be happy with that. I really hope that your faith is strengthened through this process as well.
Samaritan
Comment by Anonymous
If I see what is an apparent contradiction in it, I'll go off in search of what the great saints throughout the ages have had to say about this passage. And usually, due to their insights (often mystical), it's explained clearly. These were men and women of God who spent their whole lives in Christian penance. And their reward was to gain insights into Sacred Scripture that the modern ratiionalist will never receive. These insights come via the grace of God. Again, if we dismiss what the saints have said about Sacred Scripture, we do so at our own peril. The modern mind is so puffed up with its own intelligence, no wonder it is blinded to these things. God blinds the proud, and gives His graces to the humble.
As to the existence of hell? Christ Himself mentions hell on numerous occasions. It is close to total ignorance of who Christ was to claim hell couldn't exist, when He often mentions its very existence. To deny the existence of Hell when Christ often talks about it, is to also be in danger of not being a Christian.
Here's just a few quick samples of Christ's words for Christians (followers of Christ) who deny it's existence and call themselves followers of Christ's teachings:
And if thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off. It is better for thee to enter lame into life everlasting, than having two feet, to be cast into the hell of unquenchable fire:
Even as cockle therefore is gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world.The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
THey're all Christ's words. Not mine. I think to be a follower of Christ you'd be better of beleiving Him.
God knows human nature intimately. He created it. He is fully aware that even the thought of hell is not enough deterrent for some people, but it does exist, and it's there for a reason. And that reason is because God created it as a place of punishment. Initially for the devil and his angels. He is also fully aware that regardless of how much Christ suffered it was still not going to be enough to save everyone. And I've read how that was one of Christ's greatests torments in the Garden of Olives: That all he would go through was still not going to be enough. Even shedding his last drop of blood was not going to be enough.
This modern tolerance of errror is so contradictory to strong, unshakeable faith. It's a modern disease called 'tolerance'. It's really just tolerance of error. Christ would say, Tolerate everything but error. Because it's contrary to the truth. It's so wishy-washy to say to someone, Oh I respect your opinion, even though it contradicts what I believe. It may be a slight thing, but it's actually a sin against the faith to do that. If you firmly believe what you believe, you can say, I do not agree with you at all. I believe the opposite. And I know what I believe. And whom I believe in. And I do not respect error. Christ did not pander to people when it came to the truth. He woulud rather not offend God than happen to offend a human because that human couldn't bear the truth.
If you look at Christ's life, he often required faith from a person before performing a miracle. And he often praised Faith. It's such an important virtue. It's the foundation of almost everything. A common prayer is, "Lord I believe. Increase my faith."
Without a firm faith (but rather, one of those wishy-washy modern ones which questions everything and is never really sure of what it truly believes) a person will wander rudderless over Sacred Scripture for the remainder of their lives, seeking rational explanations for the inexplicable. Some things were meant to be believed and accepted because God said them. If He says there is a hell, the modern person goes. Well that's not compatible with a God of love. They forget God is also a just God. He is perfect. And justice is part of His infinite perfections. To not punish people for offending Him, he would lack justice and not be perfect. What the modern person should do is go, Well God says there is a hell, so there must be. I'd better make sure I don't end up there.
You can use reason to justify faith. But you sure as hell need faith for the right type of reason to kick in.
Pope St Pius X's encyclical Pascendi is a very heavy read. But he sums up modernism (read the modern mind) as a synthesis of all heresies. The modern mind is rehashing old heresies. If people truly studied history they would realise none of these thoughts are original. They were proferred in the early centuries and throughout the centuries. And they have all been refuted time and time again. In thousands of places. In thousands of treatises and writings. The modern person wants to discover something new and be hailed as an intellectual hero. People who don't know their history will hail them as one. The person will lap up all the applause and adulation and actually believe they are something ultra-special. THese are nothing more than intellectual cults.
As to the deposit of faith itself? As in Sacred Scripture. It finished around 90AD when St John wrote The Apocalpyse. To argue the Bible wasn't formulated till later is a very weak argument. The first century AD was not a time of the printing press. You couldn't email St Paul's Epistles to Random House or Penguin.
Again it's a faith thing. You have to believe that God's providence oversaw the deposit of faith. Instead of accepting God's word, and trying to nut it out via faith, what modern people do is spend their whole time questioning its veracity. All they're really achieving is questioning God's veracity. I think that's a pretty silly thing to do.
Lord I believe. Increase my faith.
St Catherine Laboure, the instrument God used to give the world the miraculous medal, said that there were so many graces of God on offer that people didn't want. She used to say to God. Well give them to me then. Now that's a perfect prayer.
Comment by Andrew Biviano
The Middle Ground
Comment by Anonymous
If I told you my history, you might understand a bit better.
30 years ago I said I would not rest until I discovered the truth. And I didn't.
Do you honestly think I didn't question every religion doing the rounds? Do you think I didn't apply my mind to every philosophical and theological question doing the rounds? I don't think so.
But the time for questioning is over. It has been for quite a while. I don't make apologies for having a firm faith and conviction in what I believe.
I did the hard yards. I'm not going into my whole history. Suffice to say, I did the hard yards.
I like Samaritan. I pass on to her what I have learned without expecting her to accept it. She seems to enjoy some of it. That's the beauty of the exchange. The other beauty of it is, she tells me things about her faith that make it very easy to respond to. And I like this sort of apologetics. It's a mild form of religious question and answer. Damo has his political apologetics. I prefer religious apologetics myself. But God love him. But I'm a hard-core Catholic when it comes to faith. And I certainly ain't apologising to you about that one.
You believe what you like. I know what I believe. I no longer question it. I did the hard yards.
I didn't learn my faith off the net. I learnt it by doing. Jesus did then taught. I'm not even teaching. I'm just passing on what I've learnt. And if people like Samartian get something out of it, then well and good.
As for your criticisms of my approach to faith? Water off a duck's back mate. Quack I say. Quack quack quack.
I'll tell you why I know a fair bit about my own faith. It's because I realise that until the day I die I'll never learn it all. I realise that i am the sum total of what I do know and what I don't know. And the things I don't know far outweigh the things I do. But when it comes to things I do know? I have no fear of exprressing them. It's not a glory thing. It's an exchange.
And Samaritan loves St Francis of Assissi. And I love talking about a man who would pray all night long to God, "Who are you and who am I?". I found out a long time ago that God is immense and I am nothing thanks to him. I'm just a human being exchanging a few thougths about religion.
If you don't like it? Piss off. (that's joke okay? It just gets so ludicrous having to justify things to Orblers. They all want this big argument about something. They beg for it. THen when they get it. They get all ansty-pansty about it.
Christ himself used to say to his apostles. Have I been with you this long and still you don't understand anything?
I love this whole stuff. It amuses me. I don't think people like humour much. They're all so uptight.
THe human condition is so pathetic that we go from a high to a low in an instant. But it's a hell of ride. And where would we be if God hadn't give us life?
It all gets so ludicrous, that I descend into absurdity.
It's bad enough having atheists like Morgan, Ruby and Ed on my case. But now I have to contend with pseudo Christians?
My email address is God@hotmail.com
I find it funny. A lot of people wouldn't.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Because to be inclusive, is to welcome people, with all their questions, and give them space to explore them. However, if people just kind of look at things for themselves, without anyone to say, you know something, this is just wrong what you're thinking, then they're likely to lead themselves into all kind of errors. I completely stand by what I said before. Having questions is a good thing. Asking those questions can deepen a person's faith - even if there is an initial period when their faith seems to grow weaker. But at the same time, sometimes you just have to say that's what I believe and that's it, end of story.
Another strange thing about the inclusive view is it generally only embraces those people whose ideas fit with modern views. It wouldn't be so inclusive of people who decided that they believed that God still wants us to go around stoning people or that God was telling them to launch a crusade against their next door neighbours. Everyone puts limits on what they think it's okay to believe and what it's not okay to believe.
And I think if people were always left to make their own decisions about God and what they think he is saying, you would end up with a lot of people thinking some really strange stuff. I know I would. I purposely surround myself with people who will tell me when they views are going too far in one direction. I do that because I don't want to go off on my own little tangent. Sometimes I really want someone to tell me, you know something, Liz, you're completely wrong there. Whether I agree with them or not is another story. And yet I do that and I have such problems telling people that their way of approaching God is wrong.
And I will strongly stick by the view that I think questions are good. I think our faith can really grow stronger as we think about things and actually dare to ask the questions. But we have to make sure, if we're doing that, that we're really looking for the truth. Sometimes we can question something just because we don't want to believe it. Oh, it would be so much easier if I could find a loophole there, so I can catch ditch this part of the bible and move onto the things that I actually want to believe. And I've been guilty of that.
So to tell you how this works for me. I know I like to think about my faith and question things. But I also know, like many people, I tend to create God in my own image. I envision a nice likeable God that is easy to live with. And so knowing that, and knowing where I am likely to stray from the truth, I try to guard against that. I am willing to explore things, but I also need I need to be careful when I do. I need to listen to what other people have to say, not just what I think. And I pray constantly that God guides me towards the truth, not away from it.
I believe in hell. I find it hard to see how someone could read the bible and not believe in hell. Why would Jesus spend so much time talking about something that doesn't exist? And I believe there will be people in hell. I have a friend who thinks it's just total oblivion. I really don't see how he can think that. Maybe it's another case of believing what you want to believe, rather than what's actually true. But do you want to know something that really, really scares me? I'm scared that I'll tell people it's okay to believe this and it's okay to believe that and I'll have my big likeable inclusive faith going on. And those people will end up in hell. And it will be partly my fault. And now that's all on a public blog to be read by heaps of people. But I felt it was something I needed to say anyway, even though it wasn't something I particularly wanted to share with the world.
Andrew - keep asking questions. Keep searching. But make sure you're actually searching for the truth. Don't discount something just because you don't want to believe it. But don't be afraid to ask the questions either. I think Christians should at least welcome questions. That's how people learn and I do honestly believe that's how people deepen their faith.
And David - I'm not sure if you are interesting in doing this at all or whether you're just happy writing comments at the moment. But I had this thought today that, if you did want to write an actual post on something, I could put it up on my blog as a guest article. Obviously it would have to be about Catholicism or christianity. Anyway, I thought I'd put it out there in case it was something you wanted to do.
Samaritan
Comment by Anonymous
I don't have a problem with your approach to the faith at all.
I respond to your comments as I would to my best Catholic friend whom happens to be a priest. I know you'll read the comment and engage in a discussion that is not bitter.
I do get sick of having to explain what I believe to people. And engage in endless apologetical diatribe with people who are not genuinely seeking the truth. It's much easier to just tell it as I see it. Your site allows me to do that. I just tell it as I see it and leave it up to you what you accept and what you reject. I think souls of good will eventually accept a lot of things. Those of ill-will are just pests. I don't think i've ever had an argument with you. I don't plan on having one with you either. I can go back to my ex if I want to have an inane argument, or just mention Ruby or Morgan.
As to posting on Orlbe? I appreciate your genuine offer, but not while those in charge, and certain factions are so anti-Catholic and so pro-atheist, thanks. While Orble's rules (the ones Jon never enforces apart from to show favouritism and selective ineptitude) allow anonymous comments, I'm quite happy to have a discussion about matters of faith on here. While Orble won't remove posts of Blessed Virgin Mary urinals and similar rubbish, and yet will ban people wily-nily at the behest of the atheists responsible for such rubbish, I'll continue as things are. "As you were, men! At ease! Dismissed!!!"
Morgan would crack a bigger hissy fit than she ever has if Jon let me post on Orble. It would threaten her Queer Queendom. It's doing enough to her mental instability that I can post as anonymous. It's eating away at her to the point where she's even changing her posting pic. Under the delusion that I will cut & paste it, print it out and pin it to my wall next to my photo of Jon pinned to my picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to obscure His Sacred Face. The Beatles claimed they were more popular than Jesus. Morgan is more popular than God. On here. (Intone John Lennon's Imagine ... tra la la doobie da [vomit
At least there's not much in this comment. So if it gets deleted, it won't be a real issue.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Thank you for sharing what you did from the Book of Wisdom. I was very touched by it. It's a beautiful passage. As you probably know, that book isn't in Protestant versions of the bible. So it was something I hadn't even seen before. I was also touched by the comment that you respond to me as you would your best Catholic friend. So although you say there wasn't much in your comment, there were things in there that meant something to me.
And I'm glad you're not planning on ever arguing with me. Because I haven't taken down any details of things you've said to me that I can cut and paste into future comments. : ) I think we might have come close to arguing before. But I can't really remember now. I do remember your comment about people with self-esteem issues forgiving gays and calling themselves Christians. But that only stuck in my mind because I found it amusing.
It's good to know you like discussing faith on my blog. I'm afraid my blog would be pretty boring without your comments. If you do change your mind about posting a guest article, let me know.
Samaritan
Comment by Anonymous
I won't change my mind about posting on Orble. THere is more joy on this godless site in the comments section. It was always my chief delight before the godless overtook it. Without mentioning any names like Morgan Ruby and Ed. And Pontius 'Jon' Pilate. The weak bastard who has washed his hands of Christ and pretended he has nothing to do with his death. St Anne Catherine Emerich called him a weak man. Not Jon. Pontius Pilate.
I like corresponding with you. It keeps me in touch with my own Faith.
As to Protestants removing The Book of Wisdom from the Bible? Well that makes complete sense to me. Wisdom is actually a gift of the Holy Ghost. If you are going to reject the Holy Ghost, you may as well get rid of The Book of Wisdom.
Sacred Scripture can be as beautiful as writing gets. I was just reading your comment today and in my memory was the line 'her conversation has no bitterness'. So I went and found the passage. And when I re-read it, I thought, stuff it. I'll post the whole passage, just to let you know I do enjoy your virtual company and conversations.
That passage alone is worthy of a few hours meditation. It is so rich. So deep. (Not like a pencil. I'm talking real depth here. Spiritual depth. Not queer depth).
Sorry, but Morgan is on her ban David bandwagon again. I'm sitting her laughing because how can you ban someone who doesn't belong to the Orble community? I like her new pic a lot. I like photos of people who can't read or write trying to look bookish.
I'll let you know what a Catholic man's sense of humour is like. Forget about what I say about Morgan. I just know how the devil operates. And like stirring him up. Morgan's one of his disciples so I give her stick. She always bites. Anyway, When St Lawrence was commanded by the evil emperor of the time to produce the Church's riches (because he was in charge of them), he brought all the poor and lame and crippled before the emperor and said, "These are the Church's riches."
The emperor was incensed. Like Morgan gets. They tortured him on a gridiron. But by the grace of God he felt no pain. He said to his torturers, "I think you should turn me over. This side isn't done yet."
And here is an example of God's sense of humour. St Lawrence is the patron saint of barbeques.
St John the Apostle and Evangelist is considered a martyr by the Catholic Church but he did not die a martyr's death. In his old age he was dunked into a pot of boiling oil but by the grace of God it was like a refreshing spa to him. He is a martyr of desire. In that he was prepared to lay down his life. But God made him suffer more by living. All the saints wanted to get out of this awful life. But they all said they would suffer a bit more if it was God's will.
One saint appeared to a holy soul once and said. I would come back on earth to say one Hail Mary because I now know what glory that prayer procures for souls in heaven.
God is the primary author of the Hail Mary. It is Mary's favourite prayer. It reminds her of everything that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost wrought in her soul. I can be a bastard at times and very cynical, faceitous and sarcastic, but I do feel for Protestants at times. They don't know Mary. And I do think that is sad. I do have some serious moments.
The fact that you even want to read a book about Mary says a lot about your spirit. I hope you get hold of a couple of books on her and come to the realisation of what part she played in our redemption. And that I wish with my entire heart and soul and body and mind.
I'm a bit over Orble. I'll still comment on your blog. Up until Morgan convinces Jon to ban anonymous comments. She really is that evil. She will stop at nothing to get rid of me, with no thought for other people who want to comment on Orble anonymously.
When St John the Apostle went to the roman baths, he was told that a famous heretic often visited the baths. He said, Let us flee. Almighty God might collapse the building upon us."
It's a real shame that Morgan is so evil. But the story of Soddom and Gomhorra is very neglected nowadays. I hope she does turn Orble into a Queer Friendly site. I'll certainly call in now and again when I need a good laugh. To see how her and Jon and Norm are getting on together.
In the meantime, we can continue our "polite" conversations about Christ. While Morgan gnashes her teeth.
Teresa and I will just procreate and copulate as God intended man and woman to do, and leave all these virtual people to their onanism. One day Morgan's asexual frustration will get the better of her? And she'll stop taking it out on other people? I doubt it. Satan is still seething after 2000 years of being proved wrong. And hell hath no fury like a scorned woman. I also hope Norm's head doesn't explode.
I did try really hard not to mention Morgan. But she's following me around all over the place, telling lies about me.
But that's Morgan.
Pax Christi.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Well I hope you can keep posting anonymous comments for a while yet. I have been thinking about Orble lately and wondering what I'm doing here. I mean, I do really enjoy it. I think it's great fun. But I often get the feeling that none of it really matters. Particularly with the posts I write. They're fun to write. I enjoy writing them. But they're nothing special. They're not really adding anything to the world. So why bother?
And it's not like I am ever going to be a brilliant writer. I am never going to write something, where just the words themselves and the way they are structured are beautiful. But I do write some things sometimes where I think yes, that was maybe a little bit special. I know I've written short stories that were pretty good. For one of them, a friend even said she cried when she read it. And I think maybe I should be spending more time on that writing, instead of Orble. I have a book of short stories I need to edit and add to. And that perhaps could add something slightly special or valuable to the world. None of my stuff on Orble ever will.
Interestingly, the story that made my friend cry was actually a short story about Mary and her thoughts when she saw Jesus crucified, and how she thought back to when he was a child. So I have spent time thinking about Mary in the past. I even have a ceramic figure of her holding Jesus' body on my mantlepiece.
But anyway, back to what I was saying, one thing I do get out of Orble is that I am learning from your comments. I have lots of conversations about religion with all kinds of people. My friend once joked to me that if I followed the rule not to talk about religion, 90 per cent of my conversation would disappear. If you added politics, I'd be left with 'Hi, how are you?' And it's not like I actively seek conversations on religion. They just seem to happen to me. Anytime I find myself talking to anyone, I can pretty much guarantee that religion will come up.
And these conversations do teach me in a way. I learn about how other people think about religion and about God. I learn what people's experiences with the church have been and what part faith plays in their life. And people share insights on what they've read, both through books and in the bible. But at the same time they don't really have anything of substance to teach me. And I don't mean this in the way that I know more than them, because I don't mean it that way at all. A lot of them know a lot more than me. But they kind of just say the same things that I've heard a million times before. They never say anything new or anything that makes me go, wow, I never knew that, or anything that makes me want to take it away and think about it at a later time. Oh no, I wouldn't say that. My best friend sometimes shares things that I spend a great deal of time thinking about later. But it's not often. And just about every comment you write on here has something in it that I've learnt, that was new and that I want to think about later. And so I guess one thing I am getting from Orble is I am really learning from you.
I love the story about St Lawrence bringing the church's poor when asked for the church's riches. That's the kind of thing I will think about later. I had heard the story about him saying 'turn me over, this side isn't done'. I even tried to share that story with someone once, but I couldn't remember who said it and why he was tortured.
The lives of the Saints are so different from the kind of Christianity that I hear from all the people around me and the churches I go to. I am so sick of the self-help Americanised version of Christianity. I get really annoyed about it sometimes, which is why my conversations on religion very often turn into arguments. And it's not just that's what my friends say, or that's what the church says. It's the fact that all the books they read and talks they go to and TV programs they watch all seem to say the same message. I think you said it was St John that preached the same message all the time, about loving others. (Sorry, if I got that wrong.) Well sometimes I think the churches today all preach the same message - me, me, me. I spent one day in church counting how many times we sang the words 'I' and 'me' in a 'worship' song. I stopped when I got to 20.
And I think that's why I'm so interested in hearing about the saints. Because it's such a different way of approaching faith - and a way that seems to make a lot more sense to me. And maybe one of the reasons why today's message do focus on the 'me, me, me' message is because they have neglected the saints.
And now I think I better copy and paste that bit about St Lawrence and anything else in there I want to keep, before your comment gets deleted.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
I have been to a couple of short writing courses. I was a member of a writing organization once. But I think the best thing I ever learnt was from this one guy who just read what I had written and went ‘this is crap’. I think that pretty much summed up the advice he gave me. (Although he did say heaps of things to the entire group, which I have completely forgotten.) But the thing was I got pretty upset at first. I’m thinking I thought I was a good writer and now this person takes one look and just says it’s crap. But then I went home and I re-worked it and edited it and spent ages on it. Took it back the next week. He said it’s a little bit better. Anyway, I can’t remember any thing he said. But I think I learnt a lot about editing and really polishing my work, instead of just presenting something that’s readable. And I learnt a lot about the fact that just because I think something is good doesn't actually mean it is.
It’s hard to get my head around the idea of learning to love God. I always thought of loving God as just something you do. But in thinking about this, I thought well you learn to love other people from being around them, from getting to know them, and from seeing them as people worthy of love. The people we love in life are the ones we know the most. And so I can see learning to love God from that angle. As we get to know him more and more, as we spend more and more time in his presence, as we recognise that he is worthy of our worship and our love, then we learn to love him.
I have a funny story about turning the other cheek. It’s not nearly as interesting as something about the saints. But I’ll share it anyway. One day my youngest son came up to me and told me that his brother was not being good because he wasn’t doing what the bible told him to do. So I asked him what it was. Well apparently, my youngest son had hit his older brother on the cheek, and his older brother refused to turn his head and let him hit him on the other cheek. Now that’s a case of trying to use the bible for your own purposes.
It was a very nice thing for you to say that I came across as one of the nicest people on Orble. It would be nice to meet you in real life – and Teresa. I’d really like that. If you’re ever in or near Canberra, you’ll have to let me know.
Your magazine based on the lives of the saints sounds interesting. It must be hard work creating and publishing your own magazine. But also a lot of satisfaction in creating something that actually means something and does something worthwhile.
I was thinking about whether I should ask you to tone down the comments on here about Morgan and Jon again. But after reading comments about you on other blogs, I really don’t care. I don’t think it’s fair for people to be able to say whatever they want about you, and you not be able to make comments about them. Although, if they do get deleted, I’m going to look a bit silly. I’ll have a whole heap of comments that just seem to be addressed to myself. Kind of like the internet equivalent of walking down the street and talking to yourself.
Samaritan
Comment by JESUS
What's Love?
Jokes, man I give you credit for your onslaught of godliness, you really do belive in a higher power!
Kudos to your Samariatan, Kudos
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Thanks for the comment, um, Jesus?
Samaritan
Comment by Cheryl J
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
I have to say though that the following comment gave me the biggest belly laugh I've had in ages:
So that's what university is - a congregation of anti-religious people! Someone should have put that in their newsletters. I wonder what the Catholic Universities think of that? I just had a mental picture of everyone in a lecture hall Satan worshipping and got a fit of the giggles. That truly cracked me up
Thanks again for an interesting debate to read.
Comment by samaritan
Fringe Faith
Samaritan's Stories
Ruby actually brought up the fact on another post that the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to believe in God. So maybe there is an element of truth to the statement about universities. I remember when I did my philosophy unit, just about the whole tutorial group except for me seemed to be an atheist. Which was pretty challenging actually. But obviously there are Christians in universities - and Christian and Catholic universities. I am starting a Bachelor of Theology next semester. Maybe I should ring them up and ask when the Satan worshipping takes place.
I think there are lots of things we accept on faith. And there are many, many things where we don't know the answer, but we form an opinion either way. Like with voting. We can't prove that so and so will be a good prime minister. But we vote for them out of faith, even though we don't really know what they're going to be like.
One of the things I love about my blog is that I do get to read lots of very different viewpoints about religion. I like hearing what other people believe, even when I don't agree with them. Thanks for your comments.
Samaritan