 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: mooman Date: 19 Jan 06 - 08:39 AM I'm no longer a Catholic (long time) and absolutely no apologist for Opus Dei, whose operations and methods I find insidious. But as Joe said, I don't think anyone could accuse them of defending or condoning child abuse whatever their other views or practices might be. So I think the Opus Dei connection in relation Ruth Kelly is a bit of a red herring. Her competence as a minister, however, is another matter entirely. Peace moo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: The Shambles Date: 19 Jan 06 - 02:03 AM Is Kim Howells also a member of Opus Dei? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Amos Date: 18 Jan 06 - 08:56 PM At the council of priests that weas held the next day They decided to banish the auld flute away; They couldn't knock heresy out of its head So they bought Bob a new one, to play in its stead. So the aul' flute was banned, and its fate was pathetic. It was tied up and burned at the stake, as heretic! But as the flames rose, sir, there came a strange noise... That flute was still whistlin' The Protestant Boys!!! ;>0 A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:40 PM You've got to watch out for us Papists. If you don't watch out we'll take over the whole world and burn you all as heretics... I suppose there's got to be some kind of outlet for the suppressed bigotry of people who are committed to being tolerant, and I'd sooner it was directed at us Catholics than at the Muslims or the Jews or the other potential targets. Normally of course it'd be the hardline conservative fundamentalists would be critical of someone like Ruth Kelly who has a fulltime job as a politician instead of stayimg home to look after here four young children... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Grab Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:25 PM Guest, I'd certainly worry about a teacher with a jail term for deception, forgery and theft! Thanks for the link - I didn't know that. As far as "indecent assault", well it's due to statutory law and not the girl's opinion. The girl apparently said in court that nothing happened that she didn't want to happen. As a teacher, he's right to say that he shouldn't have done it, and I agree in principle - teachers are supposed to be able to stay detached from their students. In practise though, as a person in that situation, I have a lot of sympathy for him. It's also worth noting that he *did* have a fair amount of self-control in stopping their physical relationship going any further, since they apparently didn't have sex until she reached 16. And if I had a penny for every father who didn't approve of his daughter's relationships, I'd be a rich man... Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 18 Jan 06 - 06:31 PM Fair enough, Joe. We can certainly agree that Opus Dei is "the wealthiest and most powerful" neoconservative organisation (I would say "cult") in the Catholic church, and is seeking a return to the authority-blind obedience model of religion (I would say the "blind obedience to authority" model). I was reacting to your somewhat forlorn-sounding effort earlier to find middle ground, where in my view there isn't any. (For instance: "I can't bring myself to see it as a threat in any way - just an annoyance.") Opus Dei bought its way into favour with John-Paul II by bailing the Vatican out of its Ambrosiano bank scandal. It is a cult formed around the personality of its founder, Josemaria Escriva, it long resisted all attempts to classify it within the existing church structure, intending to make itself a church within a church. It shares the cult of personality with more extreme catholic factions: Communion and Liberation (founder Luigi Giussani), the Neocatechumenate (Kiko Arguello) and Focolare (Chiara Lubich - hello, how did she slip in?). In the case of the last two, one might even say "personality worship." These factions have majored on luring the vulnerable young into their clutches, sometimes tearing families apart in the process. And their numbers are not small - both Opus Dei and the Neocatechumenate have their own openly declared parishes in London, though the UK is far from their most productive hunting ground. Why on earth did the pope take these dubious factions under his wing? Because he needed the shock troops they could deliver, at a time of catastrophic decline in vocations. A degree of concern about Kelly's dabbling in such circles is entirely reasonable. But unless or until it influences her behaviour in government, it is enough that her involvement is in the public domain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: wysiwyg Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:21 PM No, Fionn, I don't use that as my source-- I was pointing out that one can agree with Joe without being "cradle brainwashed," or affiliated with the RC church in any way, or having had advance knowledge of Opus Dei. The correlation between personal spiritual disciplines and child beating is just not manifest from anything posted here-- and that was my point if you read my post. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Jan 06 - 03:39 PM As I said above, I don't want to put myself into the position of defending Opus Dei - but I don't see a lot of evidence to support the criticism of Opus Dei posted above - implications that it promotes masochism or child abuse, or that it's some sort of insidious conspiracy. On the other hand, I was dismayed when Pope John Paul II contradicted his predecessor Paul VI, and gave Opus Dei an aura of legitimacy by naming it a "personal prelature" in 1982. This allowed local chapters of the organization to operate in defiance of the local bishops, since the organization is an authority unto itself, reporting only to the Pope. Opus Dei is the wealthiest and most powerful among the many neoconservative organizations in the Catholic Church, organizations that seek to overturn the advances made by the Second Vatican Council. They seek to return the Catholic Church to the authority/blind-obedience model of religion. They recognize only the Pope as authority, and show disdain for local bishops, priests, nuns, and other Catholics that are not allied with them. They and the other neoconservatives have made it very difficult for those of us in the Catholic Church who call ourselves moderates or progressives. Now that I'm employed by the Catholic Church to teach religion to adults, I find that I'm under constant pressure from these neoconservatives, and it has caused me a lot of agony. So, no, I don't like Opus Dei one bit, and it sits second on my list of Incorrigible Catholic Organizations. #1 on my list is Mother Angelica and her Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) - they encourage viewers to watch people like me very closely, and to report people like me to the bishop whenever we stray from their very narrow definition of "truth." So far, I've been able to refute the complaints - but the flow is constant and unnerving. Opus Dei and the neoconservatives are a very small minority in the Catholic Church, but they are steadily growing in power. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:38 PM WYSIWYG, if you depend on Dan Brown for your education, your ignorance is understandable. The activities of Opus Dei were a cause of controversy within Catholicism, and attracted acres of coverage particularly in the Spanish and Italian press, many years before the Da Vinci Code, but that might be a bit beyond your world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: GUEST Date: 18 Jan 06 - 08:21 AM I wish the media would drop the opus dei angle. Kelly should resign because of her complete stupidity re authorising the employment of sex offenders in schools, regardless of her involvement with the dodgy sect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Pied Piper Date: 18 Jan 06 - 08:03 AM Does this cult make Women sound like Men, in which case it must be widespread in the US. PP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: wysiwyg Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:25 AM And Opus Dei is an insidious cult, as can be seen by anyone who has not been brainwashed from the cradle, as Joe apparently has. I never even heard of them until the "factoids" were made public in The DaVinci Code, and I was not raised Roman Catholic, so I don't think I qualify as "brainwashed from the cradle." But I agree with Joe, and I don't see the logical connection between a personal spiritual discipline and the abuse of a child. This looks like a smear campaign, to me. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: GUEST Date: 18 Jan 06 - 05:55 AM Gibson assaulted a schoolgirl. Grab things are not as black and white as you believe. In 1980 Gibson indecently assaulted a 15 year old school girl. At the time they were not together 19 years and did not have 3 children. She WAS a 15 yr old school girl. He had no inkling of the future and certainly no right to do what he did. It was a grave error of judgement on his part. He has aknowledged himself that it was wrong. Her father has probably more insight into the kind of man he is than you do. He has recently served two years in prison for fraud and deception, he seems to have a problem with judgement. He isn't fit to be a position of trust, especially where children are concerned. He could just have easily ruined this schoolgirls life forever. The point being, he had no self control and no concern for her welfare at the time. He was paid to teach. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Grab Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:33 AM Sorry John, I guess I was a little OTT in criticising you. You're absolutely right that those guys are total nutters, and dangerous nutters too because people could (and do) believe them. What upset me with your post was the guilt-by-association thing, where a thread about someone who's a member of a minority Christian group, you brought up the fact that some other minority Christian groups are barking mad. Just because they are, it doesn't mean that Opus Dei automatically is, or even that Kelly is as a member of Opus Dei. And I'm also upset by the media frenzy over the story. If I was this teacher, I'd be seriously looking into legal action against some of the UK tabloids. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:43 AM Gee, Peter, what do you want? I did say Opus Dei is annoying and comparable to Catholic Jehovah's Witnesses. On a grumpy day, I might call it "insidious" - but gee, give me credit at least for not liking the organization... I've often told classes that religious fundamentalism is so widespread that even many nonbelievers view religion in fundamentalist terms, and then condemn all religion as fundamentalism. I see Shambles has done just that. Maybe that's a basic aspect of fundamentalism - the inability to see things from a perspective other than one's own. Religious thinking, in most religions, is quite abstract - and I think another aspect of fundamentalism is the inability to deal with abstraction. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: The Shambles Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:15 AM If I read something and find it useful, I try to use it. I find much of what Jesus is reputed to have said as useful. I could say the same of Lao-Tse, Buddha, Krishna, etc...a study of all great religions soon leads to a greater tolerance and respect for all of them, and a recognition that they have much in common. This eclectic process is a quite sensible approach for a personal spiritual belief. But picking-out the good bits and trying to cover-up the bad bits of the founding tenets of an organised religion in is not very really sensible. Especially as this 'spin' is done in the same way you would sell a politician or party. Do you not think that good old St Paul was probably one of the first spin doctors and made a very effective one at that? It could be argued that the fundamentalist route is the only true way to hold the beliefs of an organised religion. That way is at least honest. For if an organised relgion is founded on a core belief as fact - a story like the various creation myths or imaculate conception - folk can clearly see and decide for themselves if it (and its various sects) is for them, can choose another that does suit them better, pick and choose bits from all of them or choose not believe any of them or indeed choose not to believe in anything at all. [Tenet is defined on Word Web as : A religious doctrine that is proclaimed without proof.] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: JohnInKansas Date: 17 Jan 06 - 08:25 PM Peter - I don't have very many of the numerous reports on the Senator on file, but this one I did file, an editorial comment on her "statement of the day" a while back, is representative. [quote - via OCR from a scan] FRIDAY, JUNE 3, 2005• THE W1CHITA EAGLE page 8A Header: Suffrage isn't sad Like any other eligible Kansan, state Sen. Kay O'Connor, R. Olathe, is welcome to run for statewide office, in this case a primary challenge to Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh. But the outspoken conservative senator can't expect Republicans to overlook her 2001 remarks disparaging the 19th Amendment as a "symptom of something I don't approve of and something that "is around because men weren't doing their jobs" as head of the family. "I think that's sad," she added, earning her a Jay Leno Joke at the time. O'Connor stood by the statements this week, while clarifying that "women need the right to vote in today's society." Still, surely Kansans statewide, male and female, can do better than to elect an elections czar who thinks there is something —anything — "sad" about women's suffrage. There isn't. [endquote] O'Connor has repeatedly affirmed her belief in her original statement, and has insisted, in effect, that women should be able to "stay home and mind the babies" and "obey their husbands, who should tell them what to do." Grab - Ditto JohnInKansas, telling us that Christian sect members are all wife-beaters As you paraphrased my post, it may imply to some that I said that "all Christian sect members are wife-beaters." What I said, or meant to say, was that within certain fundamentalist churches the acceptance and teaching of an inferior status for women is prevalent, and the "right and obligation" of a husband to beat a wife who disobeys him, according to evidence specifically known to me, is often counseled by the ministers of those churches. In case you missed it, I also intended to point out that the specific churches who have been most active in political advocacy aimed at imposing their own religious perversions in Civil Law are among that group. Their idea of "religious freedom" is that they should be free to require, by law, that everyone follow their beliefs. As with similar threads, this one has presented a lot of discussion about what's good about religions, and I have no argument with that. I disagree with the argument that "since my religion is good, and I know some others that are good, then all religions must be good." My defense of their freedom to have their own beliefs is not contingent on my approval, but their attempts to impose their beliefs, in law, on me and on all others are something that needs to be opposed. Dismissing the particular "fundies" who are abusing their "free speech rights" and using their pulpits for political purposes to demand "religious support" in US Law for their own beliefs as "inconsequential" is very dangerous. They have been successful in getting State Constitutions changed in 23 states. That's NOT "inconsequential." They have managed to mangle teaching standards for at least 10 state Boards of Education, just on creationism. That's NOT inconsequential. In numerous other instances they have managed to impose statewide censorship on "unChristian" books in curricula (with some very bizarre criteria, apparently). It now appears that they've been able to significantly influence two Supreme Court appointments. I'll reserve judgement on whether that's of major consequence. They do NOT intend to support the beliefs of others, or the freedom of others to choose what to believe; and because they are a sufficiently significant bloc of voters, and politicians have pandered to them and are supporting their political actions to retain their votes, they are extremely dangerous at this time - (unless you're one of them, I suppose). Robert Kennedy, not one I quote often, got it right with: "The problem with evangelists isn't their evangelizing. It's their intolerance." John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: GUEST Date: 17 Jan 06 - 07:18 PM Ruth Kelly doesn't have to worry about the prospect of a beating from her husband because she is, in fact, a man in drag. Next time 'she's' on television, check out the throat area... definite Adams apple-age going on there... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 17 Jan 06 - 06:57 PM Good post, Grab. The present concern in the UK about so-called perverts getting into teaching is another bout of hysteria whipped up by our hysterical press (nearly all of it now; no longer just the tabloids these days). I don't like Ruth Kelly. And Opus Dei is an insidious cult, as can be seen by anyone who has not been brainwashed from the cradle, as Joe apparently has. (But it is by no means the most pernicious cult brought back into the fold by John Paul II.) But Joe has raised a fair point: there is not a shred of evidence that Kelly's bizarre faith has influenced her decision-making as a UK government minister. We should be content to thrash her (she'd love it) for the divisive education reforms she's presently championing. John in Kansas. who is the woman senator who made that comment about women voting? I realise there are some religious nutters in Congress (apparently not a single member of either house dare admit to any doubt about God's existence) but she surely gets the prize. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: LilyFestre Date: 17 Jan 06 - 03:25 PM I love reading all the different thoughts on religion here especially when folks share their own explanations...very interesting stuff. Michelle |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 17 Jan 06 - 02:33 PM Please define maniac. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Jan 06 - 02:17 PM OK, I guess that if I were back in my old job doing background investigations on government officials, I quite possibly would have come up with some reason to find Ruth Kelly unfit for government employment. If I had reported that Kelly was a member of an extremist religious sect, I would have received a nastygram from Washington, informing me that I was an idiot - and the nastygram would have been justified. Certainly, I would have used the Opus Dei membership as a flag to alert me that there might be some problem with Kelly - but to deny her a sensitive government job, I would have been required to find evidence that she had actually done or said something that was erratic or irrational or an indication of unreliability. So far, this thread has produced very little information to indicate that Kelly actually is a maniac. I certainly see no evidence in the thread that she has abused children or advocated abuse of children - although the thread certainly seems to imply that she has. The logic seems to be that Opus Dei is extremist, and some extremist organizations avocate abuse, therefore Opus Dei must advocate abuse. I remember one applicant I investigated who was disqualified because she had cheated on a Civil Service test. She informed me that I was prejudiced against her because of her membership in the Ku Klux Klan - I hadn't known about her membership because my investigation had focused only on the cheating incident, but you can be sure I used her information for followup leads. So, anyhow, if Ruth Kelly is a maniac, prove it. So far, I haven't seen any evidence. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jan 06 - 01:54 PM Hmmm. Interesting. Another media circus, is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Grab Date: 17 Jan 06 - 01:48 PM My personal spiritual view is perhaps not too different from yours but I would not expect anyone else to accept my faith. Can anyone point me at an instance of Ruth Kelly asking anyone to accept her faith? Or an instance of her faith affecting the judgements she makes as a government minister? As for "mortification of the flesh", anyone who gives up something for Lent, you'd better rule them out of any position of responsibility. That's "mortification of the flesh" as practised by Opus Dei, so they might think that it's OK to torture children, according to Richard. Yeah, right. Richard, where do you get this bullshit from? Ditto JohnInKansas, telling us that Christian sect members are all wife-beaters. As for the reason Ruth Kelly's in the news at the moment, has anyone looked into the story at all? Turns out the "sex offender" and the girl he was convicted of "abusing" were genuinely in love, as shown by the fact that they were subsequently married for 19 years with 3 kids. Risk of this guy re-offending? Anyone else think absolutely zero? This whole thing is classic media witch-hunt bollocks. I've no argument with people saying they don't like Ruth Kelly - I know there's few politicians I like. But you're going to need more than some smear on religious beliefs. And you're going to need more than this case to say she's not doing a good job, cos this looks like she's done a perfect job. The only place she's failed is spin management, cos the media have jumped on a story-selling opportunity. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jan 06 - 01:28 PM Yeah, right, Eric. ;-) You're the Messiah for yourself, not for me. Like the other Brian said (in the movie): "You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!" Amen to that. ;-) I love that movie. Of course, Roger, we have no certain proof that Jesus ever said or did any of the particular things he is reputed to have said or done. It's all speculation. I know that. I tend to think he probably said and did quite a few of those things, but who knows? If I read something and find it useful, I try to use it. I find much of what Jesus is reputed to have said as useful. I could say the same of Lao-Tse, Buddha, Krishna, etc...a study of all great religions soon leads to a greater tolerance and respect for all of them, and a recognition that they have much in common. Peace: "We also don't really know anything about anything we haven't personally experienced." Right flippin' ON! That is the truth. People should recognize this and be a little more humble and admit that about 90% of what they believe and take for granted about life is based mostly on faith....whether or not they are "religious". They decide to have faith in what various other people tell them about things, and that forms their view of life and of the World around them. That's why I say that in truth, EVERYONE is religious, whether or not they know it. That includes you, Eric the Red, and it includes Pied Piper too. I bet you guys believed a whole lot of the social/political/historical nonsense your parents and teachers told you, didn't you? Not to mention the cultural nonsense your society and media have foisted upon you all your lives. Well, it's arbitrary. It's someone's habitual assumptions which they acquired from someone else. You are products of your time, and impregnated with all its tacit assumptions, habits, customs and absurdities. So it has ever been. People imitate the customs they are born into. A man like Jesus is someone who radically challenges the prevailing assumptions of his time. Such men often end up dead by violence because people would rather not think, but just accept the status quo. Such men also can have far reaching effects on society if their message is powerful enough. His was. So was Gandhi's. So was Buddha's. So was Lao-Tse's. So was Mohammed's. If their followers later twisted and perverted their messages into a new rigid status quo...well, that's what happens, isn't it? That's why new radical thinkers are always coming along to once again offer people a chance to cast off their mental chains and free themselves and others. There will always be another Messiah (if you wish to use that term), and another, and another, and another... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Peace Date: 17 Jan 06 - 10:11 AM "But do we know that he said or did any of the things that have been attributed to him" No, we don't. We also don't really know anything about anything we haven't personally experienced. History repeats itself because historians repeat each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Stilly River Sage Date: 17 Jan 06 - 10:08 AM Some weeks back there was a very interesting conversation about Opus Dei on Terry Gross' Fresh Air. You can hear the program at this link. Click on the red "listen" button near the top left side of the page.
Opus Dei was founded in Spain in 1928; today, it has 84,000 members in 80 countries. For many, the group first gained wide attention when it was portrayed in Dan Brown's best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code. The thriller depicted the group as a repository for arcane knowledge and fervent -- even dangerous -- belief. Two other real-life events also helped to raise Opus Dei's profile: FBI agent Robert Hanssen, a member of the group, was arrested for spying in 2001; and Pope John Paul II canonized founder Josemaria Escriva as a saint in 2002. Vatican reporter John Allen's new book is Opus Dei: An Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church. The book is being billed as the first serious journalistic investigation of the highly secretive organization. Allen writes for the National Catholic Reporter; he is also a Vatican analyst for CNN and NPR. When I was searching for this program that I'd heard I came across two other results in the search on "Opus Dei." They were these: Book critic Maureen Corrigan reviews Why I Am a Catholic (Houghton Mifflin) by Pulitzer prize-winning author Garry Wills. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist David Vise is a staff writer for The Washington Post. Hes the author of the new book, The Bureau and the Mole: The Unmasking of Robert Philip Hanssen, the Most Dangerous Double Agent in FBI History (Atlantic Monthly Press). Vise tells the story of how a seemingly all-American boy became a traitor. Vise had access to files about Hanssen, and the opportunity to talk with Hanssens family and friends. I don't know why this second one is listed, except perhaps somewhere in the transcript they discuss this group. I haven't listened to it to find out. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Amos Date: 17 Jan 06 - 09:47 AM The REAL MEssiah would never talk like that, eric. I don't believe you!! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Dave Hanson Date: 17 Jan 06 - 08:43 AM OK Little Hawk, I am the Messiah, now fuck off. love Brian |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: JennyO Date: 17 Jan 06 - 06:53 AM Monty Python's - The Life of Brian does rather sum this up and remains the best 'funny' film ever made. Not because it pokes fun at Jesus but that is so accurate in poking fun at our need to follow and the things those followers will do. Here ya go, Roger: "BRIAN: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals! FOLLOWERS: Yes, we're all individuals! BRIAN: You're all different! FOLLOWERS: Yes, we are all different! DENNIS: I'm not. ARTHUR: Shhhh. FOLLOWERS: Shh. Shhhh. Shhh. BRIAN: You've all got to work it out for yourselves! FOLLOWERS: Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves! BRIAN: Exactly!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Paul Burke Date: 17 Jan 06 - 06:29 AM DID YOU KNOW that running right through the middle of Jerusalem is (or at least was) a valley called the Valley of the Cheesemakers ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Pied Piper Date: 17 Jan 06 - 05:50 AM Blessed are the Cheese-makers PP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: The Shambles Date: 17 Jan 06 - 02:18 AM Yes, that is one of Jesus' most powerful and profound statements, and one that a lot of Christians don't seem to focus on much. But do we know that he said or did any of the things that have been attributed to him - no matter how sensible some of them may sound to us as individuals? For I know less about other organised religions than I do this one but this one seems to have used the reported and selected sayings or deeds of a historical figure to paint on a blank canvas rather the picture they wish us to see. Monty Python's - The Life of Brian does rather sum this up and remains the best 'funny' film ever made. Not because it pokes fun at Jesus but that is so accurate in poking fun at our need to follow and the things those followers will do. Rather the point that LH was making here. Could it not be that religion is simply a search for the best that lies within each one of us, and it gets compromised time and again by people's ego-driven need to build worldly power structures? But I think the possibilty must be there - given the politial climate in that occupied country - that the historical figure of Jesus was always involved in that worldly power sruggle and that his elevation to that of a purely spritual leader was a later graft. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Jan 06 - 01:13 AM Yes, that is one of Jesus' most powerful and profound statements, and one that a lot of Christians don't seem to focus on much. Jesus is clearly saying that every human is potentially capable of doing exactly what he did...and even greater miracles than that. If he is divine, if he is divinity incarnate, then we all are...but we just have not demonstrated it yet. It sleeps hidden within us. In him it was awakened. In Krishna, it was awakened. In Buddha it was awakened. That's why you must go within to find it. If people really took to heart what Jesus said and did, they wouldn't worship him as one apart from them, they would see their own humanity brought to its full expression in him, and they would seek within themselves to find what he found and do what he did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Dave Hanson Date: 17 Jan 06 - 01:08 AM Opus Dei although not quite a secret soceity is bordering on fanaticism and anyone who has a deep belief in this should not be allowed to have influence over children. The main thing that strikes me about Ruth Kelly [ and it may be the Opus Dei connection ] is her total arrogance, in that she is the only one who is right. Blair should have realised by now that she has become a liability and dumped her. eric |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Amos Date: 16 Jan 06 - 11:55 PM Exegesis! Exegesis! Yayyyyyyy!! Little Hawk rides again. How about "Greater things than I have done, ye shall do", LH?? What's the word? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Jan 06 - 08:52 PM I'm tolerant, Chongo, tolerant. Besides, I think we're better off without the TV. Also, I realize that as an ape in a human-dominated society you've had to put up with a lot, so I make allowances. Richard, what I was expounding on there was a set of ideas quite common in many Asian religions and philosophies. I don't belong to any particular one of them, but they all interest me, as does Christianity. When Jesus said "Seek ye the Kingdom of Heaven which is within", what do you think he meant? He clearly meant that heaven is an inner state of mind. It's not "out there" somewhere. Or...he meant that God is within each human being. That's another way of saying the same thing, I think. Could it not be that religion is simply a search for the best that lies within each one of us, and it gets compromised time and again by people's ego-driven need to build worldly power structures? Could it be that science could harmonize with that search for the best within us? I think so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Metchosin Date: 16 Jan 06 - 08:40 PM Dona eis requiem....thunk! When I read this thread for some reason or other Monty Python sprang to mind......thunk! Is there a new boom in the hair shirt market too?.....thunk! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 16 Jan 06 - 08:35 PM He is reasonable. He ain't thrown me out yet. Not even after I went "ape" other day and blasted the TV with the tommy gun because it showed a show that was demeaning to chimps. That's reasonable! Either that or he's just scared stiff... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 Jan 06 - 07:03 PM Gosh, LH, you always seemed so reasonable until now. And BTW Dick was my father. I am not an atheist. I'm sort of vaguely theist. But extreme religious belief (I gather there are maybe 500 UK members of Opus Dei, which makes them pretty rare) is so scary becuase rational argument becomes impossible. Everything is a matter of faith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: The Shambles Date: 16 Jan 06 - 06:31 PM My personal spiritual view is perhaps not too different from yours but I would not expect anyone else to accept my faith. And I certainly would not ask anyone to attempt to convince others or do anything like "mortification of the flesh" in its name. But I would question if what we are talking about has much to with the general concept of what God may be or have very much to do with organised religions or the sects that spring off from these. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Jan 06 - 05:01 PM Fair enough, Roger. I also am a silly little man. ;-) Seriously, I am. I do think that we all are God, but we haven't actualized it consciously (with a very few exceptions). Some of those few exceptions have founded major religions. The fact that their naive followers fail to understand and apply their teachings is sad, but predictable, is it not? God is the energy of life in us and the power that we have to think, act, speak, and decide. How we use that energy is entirely up to our personality. Our personality is that which thinks it's separate from God (if we believe in God at all) and from others. It is not truly separate, but it thinks it is, and it acts accordingly. (It's fooled by the fact that it has a separate physical body.) It's like a cancer cell that has no idea its activities are harmful to the whole body that IT is part of. From that perception of separation comes all harmful action perpetrated by some on others. That separation is what is referred to in some religions as "the fall of man" (from unitive consciousness). I mean, if I thought you were the same as my own hand or my own eye, I wouldn't attack you, would I? If the suicide bombers realized that they are one in Being with the people around them, they wouldn't blow up the bomb. They would see themselves in the other people. They would have mercy. It's a great shame that organized religions have often encouraged people to kill one another and be merciless. I do not claim that either you or I are God realized yet on the conscious level. I say that we are God implicitly...potentially...in our inmost nature....and that whatever goodness comes out of us is a result of that. Whatever negativity comes out of us is a result or our believing we are separate from others and from the rest of creation, just because we happen to be housed in clearly separate physical bodies at this time. Each cell in a body is housed separately too...but they are all one part of a single unity. A cancer cell just doesn't act in accordance with that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Skipjack K8 Date: 16 Jan 06 - 03:44 PM Err, Ruth Kelly? I'd rather decently argued atheism from Dick Bridge than whatever it is that Shambles is spewing. Missing a couple of meals doesn't sound tantamount to resigning ministerial office. You should try it, Richard:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Peace Date: 16 Jan 06 - 02:51 PM "If she floats, she's a witch. THEN you burn her!" But dry her first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Morticia Date: 16 Jan 06 - 02:48 PM Answers appear on Jesus' bottom? How cool is that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: katlaughing Date: 16 Jan 06 - 02:15 PM Ohmygawd, Wesley, I want one!!! OM, oops, I mean PM (that realy IS a typo!) on the way! LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Wesley S Date: 16 Jan 06 - 02:03 PM Jesus gives me the answers personally. Really. Here's how : Have you ever seen those magic 8 balls ? You ask it a yes or no question and then turn it over ? The answer then appears in a little glass window. Well - for Christmas I received a big pink plastic Jesus. And when you turn him over the answers appear on the bottom. Answers like "Let me ask my Dad" and "Not a chance in Hell" and "Pray about it". Now if I have a question I can get the answers from Jesus directly. No more middlemen like Pat Robertson. So if anyone has a question and wants an answer from my big pink plastic Jesus send me a PM and I'll get you an answer. Love offerings are not neccessary but appreciated. Offer good for a limited time and to Mudcat members only. If I like you. Sorry - no guests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: The Shambles Date: 16 Jan 06 - 01:35 PM God IS all the answers. And the questions. God is Life. You're God, Shambles, you silly little man, you just don't realize it yet. If you say that I am God - perhaps I am. But why then would I be God only if I accept your word for and realise this? If I were God would I not be as aware of this fact as you expect me to be aware of being a "silly little man"? LH if you were God you should perhaps already be aware that I was six foot two and 15 stone! Unlike you I may not realise I am God but - I do well realise this fact. Everyone is God. If you realized that everyone and everything was God, you wouldn't pester people here so much as you habitually do. If like you - I were God - I would see doing this as part of my job description and if as you say I am God - that is exactly what I am doing now. I would certainly continue to object to followers of organised religions crashing planes into crowded buildings or toturing other human beings in my name. Something I suggest that you would not be too keen on. Or would you say that these victims, planes, buidings and instruments of torture are also God? They may well be but it is t something that would not be of much comfort - were you to suggest this to the families of these victims. I may not accept your perception of me as God but I have discovered from you that you don't have to be a follower of any organised religion in order to talk a whole lot of testicles. You are welcome to whatever faith you choose - so perhaps am I and everyone else? May your God go with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Jan 06 - 12:56 PM Yeah, Kat. That's because they themselves are very personal, very biased lower beings! (so to speak) They figure the "Big Guy" must be just like them....jealous, insecure, judgemental, angry, demanding, conditional, vengeful...ARGGGH! Talk about a recipe for a nightmare. I'm glad I don't live in a Universe run by such a Being. It would be frightful. Like you said, it's up to us to make of our lives whatever we will. That's freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Ruth Kelly, religious maniac From: katlaughing Date: 16 Jan 06 - 12:50 PM Yes, LH, I know. I just liked the bumper sticker. Folks have a really hard time thinking of "God" or the "Cosmic" or whathaveyou as being impersonal; leaving it up to our free wills to make of our lives what we will, literally. Most cannot fathom an impersonal, unbiased higher being. |
