http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pope-has-too-much-power-says-bishop/2007/08/24/1187462523655.html (snips)
The Sydney bishop who helped write the Catholic Church's sex abuse policy in Australia has urged a fundamental reshaping of the church's power structures, warning papal authority has gone too far and calling for a review of compulsory celibacy for priests and the church's teachings on sex....In the book, Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church, Bishop Robinson says papal authority has gone too far, local bishops have been marginalised and the faithful of the church rendered powerless....John Paul II had left the church to deal with "one of the ugliest stories to emerge from the Catholic Church" without appropriate levels of direction or guidance....Pope Benedict's failure to even consider a review of priestly celibacy was to "lose credibility even before the discussion has begun"....There was a need for the church to review its commitment to priestly celibacy and its "extreme" teachings on sexual ethics, in which the church treats as a sin sex before marriage between committed couples....And the attire of bishops and priests needed to be modernised - the bishop's mitre abandoned because of its "bad body language" and the priestly collar replaced in some circumstances with a distinctive tie....Priests and bishops should be appraised every five or six years, as was normal in every workplace, and parishes would get a say in the priests appointed....Specifically, Bishop Robinson has called for an elected parliament of bishops to be established, from which properly representative church leaders would elect future popes.
**
I never cease to be amazed by the spinelessness of certain bishops and priests. If one of them saw someone being mugged in the street, would they have had to call the Pope to ask him whether or not to call the police? The blaming of the Pope for the past criminal molestations and cover ups that took place in dioceses is despicable. Thank God weak men like this bishop and others like him were not alive when the Church was being formed. They would have called St. Paul to ask him whether to wipe after taking a dump in the bathroom or not.
And when did the Church become a governmental bureaucracy or socialist entity, with “representatives” and “performance reviews?” Answer: when poorly formed bishops and priest open their mouths and expel bilge and utter ignorance. They forget that the structure of the Church and the election of the pope is not the result of “focus group” thinking. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and obviously Robinson does not have a hearing aid so that he could hear the Spirit.
The church reorganizes sexually and politically because there are too many spineless bishops and priests who cannot be lawful, faithful, walk, and chew gum at the same time? I think not. There is nothing wrong with discussion but there is everything wrong with insulting and ignoring the role of the Holy Spirit. At times like this I don’t mind the dwindling number of priests and bishops if the ones who remain are righteous, faithful and have spines. Sometimes a weedy plant has to be pruned back to its roots, even if the cost is having a paucity of offering the sacraments in some locations. I’d rather they were offered less sacraments and Masses and at greater distance than if there are revisionist priests and bishops that offer sacraments on a garbage can’s lid.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Priests and those wishy washy on God's law
Here is a conversation that God had with priests who became lax in their duties and beliefs. This had happened after they were restored to Israel from the captivity in Babylon, yet they offered imperfect sacrifices and did not keep in full the law of Moses. The message was so tough and so necessary that the prophet who delivered it used a pseudonym.
Malachia 3: 13-23
You have defied me in word, says the Lord, yet you ask, “What have we spoken against you?” You have said, “It is vain to serve God, and what do we profit by keeping his command, and going about in penitential dress in awe of the Lord of hosts? Rather must we call the proud blessed; for indeed evildoers proper, and even tempt God with impunity.” Then they who fear the Lord spoke with one another, and the Lord listened attentively; and a record book was written before him of those who fear the Lord and trust in his name. And they shall be mine, says the Lord of hosts, my own special possession, on the day I take action. And I will have compassion on them, as a man has compassion on his son who serves him. Then you will see the distinction between the just and the wicked; between him who serves God, and him who does not serve him. For lo, the day is coming, blazing like an oven, when all the proud and all evildoers will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire, leaving them neither root nor branch, says the Lord of hosts. But for you who fear my name, there will arise the sun of justice with its healing rays; and you will gambol like calves out of the stall and tread down the wicked; they will become ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day I take action, says the Lord of hosts.
Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I enjoined upon him on Horeb, the statutes and the ordinances for all Israel.
Lo, I will send you Elijah, the prophet, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and terrible day, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with doom.
Malachia 3: 13-23
You have defied me in word, says the Lord, yet you ask, “What have we spoken against you?” You have said, “It is vain to serve God, and what do we profit by keeping his command, and going about in penitential dress in awe of the Lord of hosts? Rather must we call the proud blessed; for indeed evildoers proper, and even tempt God with impunity.” Then they who fear the Lord spoke with one another, and the Lord listened attentively; and a record book was written before him of those who fear the Lord and trust in his name. And they shall be mine, says the Lord of hosts, my own special possession, on the day I take action. And I will have compassion on them, as a man has compassion on his son who serves him. Then you will see the distinction between the just and the wicked; between him who serves God, and him who does not serve him. For lo, the day is coming, blazing like an oven, when all the proud and all evildoers will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire, leaving them neither root nor branch, says the Lord of hosts. But for you who fear my name, there will arise the sun of justice with its healing rays; and you will gambol like calves out of the stall and tread down the wicked; they will become ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day I take action, says the Lord of hosts.
Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I enjoined upon him on Horeb, the statutes and the ordinances for all Israel.
Lo, I will send you Elijah, the prophet, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and terrible day, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with doom.
I love fragrance, perfumes and colognes
I love fragrance. I grew up in a poor family so I did not have access to the “great scents,” but we liked to smell nice and took it for granted. My mother is a life long wearer of Jean Nate, partly because she cannot tolerate sweet fragrance, or in fact, any other fragrance but Jean Nate. My first fragrance was No. 4711, the redoubtable, wonderful German cologne. I still love it. It is a refreshing, classic, and totally unique fragrance, worn by men and women. In high school I added two other fragrances, one called “Meadow” that I found in a pharmacy when visiting my best friend near Rochester, and “Evening in Paris.” My sister in law bought Avon, but she did not share! My niece works for Mac and she does not share! Speaking of Mac, I love “Asphalt Flower,” which I bought as a necklace that carries a slide in glass tube of fragrance.
My first upgrade in perfume was with my first job, when I started wearing Channel No. 19. My ex was walking by a fragrance counter with me in Macy’s and detecting a fragrance he loved, he tracked it down and found it was “Cinnabar,” which he insisted I buy and I wore for quite a while. I also wore “Anais, Anais,” “Pavlova” and after some trepidation, did go for the power fragrances, such as “Opium” when they became popular in the 1980’s. I bought the obligatory “Ralph Lauren” and while I consider it a very good fragrance, it never became a favorite of mine. I love the Caswell & Massey “Number Six,” which was George Washington’s cologne. I really went into a phase of collecting fragrances, since I enjoy so many of them and consider them a part of my day to day wardrobe (including to athletic practice. Once when at my fencing lesson in college one of the fencers stopped his bout and ran around trying to sniff out who was wearing the great fragrance; when he found me he pointed saying, “It’s her! It’s her!”) I bought and still wear these fragrances: “Royal Secret,” “Metal,” “Coriandre,” Guerlain’s “L’Heure Bleu,” “Giorgio Armani,” “First” by van Cleaf & Arpels, “Winter Sweet” by Molton Brown, “L’Air du Temps” by Nina Ricci, “Oscar de la Renta,” “Calvin Klein,” "Tresor" and others that I can’t think of now because I’m listing what is in my “train case” and I have much more in storage. When Giorgio Beverly Hills came out with their signature fragrance I could not stand its sweetness and it was so heavily promoted that it was sprayed all over department stores at that time. But I liked their later entry, "Gio," in a beautiful bottle that just reminds one of the acqua seas. I have a bottle of “Red” that I bought when I was having a jones to buy some perfume a few years ago. I buy Carnation scented fragrances when I can find them.
For years I wore Jean Paul Gaultier because it was given to me by an ex. I liked the fragrance, but hated the headless woman bottles. Sometimes, just because it is possible to do something “edgy” and “arty,” it still is not the right thing to do. I know why people design things like that, and it’s not the sex or sensuality (which I have no objection to) but it’s the schizophrenic implications that have been baked into “art” and “culture,” to everyone’s detriment. When the relationship went defunct I threw away the remaining perfume and bottles.
I’ve bought a few vintage Avon bottles with product remaining: Hawaiian White Ginger, Bird of Paradise, one that’s shaped like an upside down bell shaped flower, Island Parakeet Moon wind Cologne, Her Prettiness Cream Sachet (in a wonderful jar that is shaped like a blue fountain with a gold fish in waves leaped on top), and After Shave Spicy (in a large silver container that is a reproduction of the Indian Head Buffalo Nickel.) I guess you could call that last one a Spice Buffalo Head.
One of my favorite fragrances was a gift to me by a friend, who thought it would be perfect for me, and it was, “Apple.” I made that bottle last to the very final drop. My best friend knew I wore “Poison” so she gave me “Poison Light” to try, which I liked. She also brought a perfume back for me from France which was great, but got thrust in storage in my haste of selling my house. I treasure the bottle of “Realm” that I bought in the shop in the mall in the World Trade Center as a reminder of that sad place that I commuted through daily for many years. My favorite all around fragrance is “Pheromone” by Marilyn Miglin. I’ve recently worn a lot of “Shalimar,” but am outgrowing that now.
Recent fragrances I’ve bought and like: Doce & Gabbana “light blue,” Estee Lauder “pleasures delight.” I stopped having high paying jobs before I could try such great fragrances, recommended to me by celeb acquaintances, such as the Creed line. I’m reading about them to enjoy the ingredient list. Living jobless in Mississippi I’m not finding many samples handed out in department stores ha ha ha.
My first upgrade in perfume was with my first job, when I started wearing Channel No. 19. My ex was walking by a fragrance counter with me in Macy’s and detecting a fragrance he loved, he tracked it down and found it was “Cinnabar,” which he insisted I buy and I wore for quite a while. I also wore “Anais, Anais,” “Pavlova” and after some trepidation, did go for the power fragrances, such as “Opium” when they became popular in the 1980’s. I bought the obligatory “Ralph Lauren” and while I consider it a very good fragrance, it never became a favorite of mine. I love the Caswell & Massey “Number Six,” which was George Washington’s cologne. I really went into a phase of collecting fragrances, since I enjoy so many of them and consider them a part of my day to day wardrobe (including to athletic practice. Once when at my fencing lesson in college one of the fencers stopped his bout and ran around trying to sniff out who was wearing the great fragrance; when he found me he pointed saying, “It’s her! It’s her!”) I bought and still wear these fragrances: “Royal Secret,” “Metal,” “Coriandre,” Guerlain’s “L’Heure Bleu,” “Giorgio Armani,” “First” by van Cleaf & Arpels, “Winter Sweet” by Molton Brown, “L’Air du Temps” by Nina Ricci, “Oscar de la Renta,” “Calvin Klein,” "Tresor" and others that I can’t think of now because I’m listing what is in my “train case” and I have much more in storage. When Giorgio Beverly Hills came out with their signature fragrance I could not stand its sweetness and it was so heavily promoted that it was sprayed all over department stores at that time. But I liked their later entry, "Gio," in a beautiful bottle that just reminds one of the acqua seas. I have a bottle of “Red” that I bought when I was having a jones to buy some perfume a few years ago. I buy Carnation scented fragrances when I can find them.
For years I wore Jean Paul Gaultier because it was given to me by an ex. I liked the fragrance, but hated the headless woman bottles. Sometimes, just because it is possible to do something “edgy” and “arty,” it still is not the right thing to do. I know why people design things like that, and it’s not the sex or sensuality (which I have no objection to) but it’s the schizophrenic implications that have been baked into “art” and “culture,” to everyone’s detriment. When the relationship went defunct I threw away the remaining perfume and bottles.
I’ve bought a few vintage Avon bottles with product remaining: Hawaiian White Ginger, Bird of Paradise, one that’s shaped like an upside down bell shaped flower, Island Parakeet Moon wind Cologne, Her Prettiness Cream Sachet (in a wonderful jar that is shaped like a blue fountain with a gold fish in waves leaped on top), and After Shave Spicy (in a large silver container that is a reproduction of the Indian Head Buffalo Nickel.) I guess you could call that last one a Spice Buffalo Head.
One of my favorite fragrances was a gift to me by a friend, who thought it would be perfect for me, and it was, “Apple.” I made that bottle last to the very final drop. My best friend knew I wore “Poison” so she gave me “Poison Light” to try, which I liked. She also brought a perfume back for me from France which was great, but got thrust in storage in my haste of selling my house. I treasure the bottle of “Realm” that I bought in the shop in the mall in the World Trade Center as a reminder of that sad place that I commuted through daily for many years. My favorite all around fragrance is “Pheromone” by Marilyn Miglin. I’ve recently worn a lot of “Shalimar,” but am outgrowing that now.
Recent fragrances I’ve bought and like: Doce & Gabbana “light blue,” Estee Lauder “pleasures delight.” I stopped having high paying jobs before I could try such great fragrances, recommended to me by celeb acquaintances, such as the Creed line. I’m reading about them to enjoy the ingredient list. Living jobless in Mississippi I’m not finding many samples handed out in department stores ha ha ha.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Bible Reading: laundry soap in the Bible
Laundry suds mentioned in the Bible
Just for fun, here are two passages from the Bible that mention nitre, soap (washing soda), and vinegar, which were used for laundry suds in those days.
Proverbs 25:20
As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre: so is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart.
Another version of that proverb:
He who sings songs to a heavy heart is like him who lays off a garment in cold weather and like vinegar upon soda.
Now, it's interesting that two of my Bibles have the above proverb, but in my other Bibles it is replaced with:
Like a moth in clothing, or a maggot in wood, sorrow gnaws at the human heart.
This is an example of two completely different conclusions from what is supposedly the same proverb. So I went online to give you all the variations listed on the www.biblebrowser.com web site:
NASB: [Like] one who takes off a garment on a cold day, [or like] vinegar on soda, Is he who sings songs to a troubled heart. (NASB ©1995)
GWT: [Like] taking off a coat on a cold day or pouring vinegar on baking soda, so is singing songs to one who has an evil heart. (GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to an heavy heart.
ASV: As one that taketh off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon soda, So is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart.
BBE: Like one who takes off clothing in cold weather and like acid on a wound, is he who makes melody to a sad heart.
DBY: As he that taketh off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to a sad heart.
JPS: As one that taketh off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart.
WBS: As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre; so is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart.
WEB: As one who takes away a garment in cold weather, or vinegar on soda, so is one who sings songs to a heavy heart.
YLT: Whoso is taking away a garment in a cold day, [Is as] vinegar on nitre, And a singer of songs on a sad heart.
There is a variety of opinion as to whether it is good to sing songs on a sad or heavy heart. Vinegar upon nitre is a foaming and agitating action (used to lift out stains) so one could interpret the proverb as being advising to sing to the sad (to lift out the stain and agitate into a response) or as a corrosive effect. People who thought of it as a corrosive effect are those who then translated the "one who takes a garment in cold weather" as being symbolic of a moth (who eats wool in winter) and oddly, interprets vinegar on nitre (washing soda) as like a maggot eating away at wood.
This is an example of how translators can give actually what seems like opposite spectrum interpretations of what is presumably the same simple phrase. Is "he" who takes a way a garment in cold weather a heavy and contrived symbol for a moth being destructive, or a man who sheds a heavy outer garment in order to feel more refreshment in the cold? Is vinegar being added to washing soda to remove a stain, or to eat away at the substance of something? I'm voting for the more positive interpretation, that singing to a heavy heart is a positive cleansing treatment.
Here is the second mention of washing suds:
Jeremiah 2:22
For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.
Another version:
Though you scour it with soap, and use much lye, the stain of your guilt is still before me, says the Lord God.
There is not too much trouble understanding the washing, sudsing and scrubbing imagery in this passage! Sometimes soap is not the only answer. I suspect that some of the old time folks of last century who only had their once a week "Saturday night bath" but held the Lord close to them are cleaner than some people I could mention who compulsively shower and worry about antibacterial soap! ;-)
See, scripture is so interesting and rich in thought, even when the subject I decided to search for was the use of washing soap.
Just for fun, here are two passages from the Bible that mention nitre, soap (washing soda), and vinegar, which were used for laundry suds in those days.
Proverbs 25:20
As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre: so is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart.
Another version of that proverb:
He who sings songs to a heavy heart is like him who lays off a garment in cold weather and like vinegar upon soda.
Now, it's interesting that two of my Bibles have the above proverb, but in my other Bibles it is replaced with:
Like a moth in clothing, or a maggot in wood, sorrow gnaws at the human heart.
This is an example of two completely different conclusions from what is supposedly the same proverb. So I went online to give you all the variations listed on the www.biblebrowser.com web site:
NASB: [Like] one who takes off a garment on a cold day, [or like] vinegar on soda, Is he who sings songs to a troubled heart. (NASB ©1995)
GWT: [Like] taking off a coat on a cold day or pouring vinegar on baking soda, so is singing songs to one who has an evil heart. (GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to an heavy heart.
ASV: As one that taketh off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon soda, So is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart.
BBE: Like one who takes off clothing in cold weather and like acid on a wound, is he who makes melody to a sad heart.
DBY: As he that taketh off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to a sad heart.
JPS: As one that taketh off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart.
WBS: As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre; so is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart.
WEB: As one who takes away a garment in cold weather, or vinegar on soda, so is one who sings songs to a heavy heart.
YLT: Whoso is taking away a garment in a cold day, [Is as] vinegar on nitre, And a singer of songs on a sad heart.
There is a variety of opinion as to whether it is good to sing songs on a sad or heavy heart. Vinegar upon nitre is a foaming and agitating action (used to lift out stains) so one could interpret the proverb as being advising to sing to the sad (to lift out the stain and agitate into a response) or as a corrosive effect. People who thought of it as a corrosive effect are those who then translated the "one who takes a garment in cold weather" as being symbolic of a moth (who eats wool in winter) and oddly, interprets vinegar on nitre (washing soda) as like a maggot eating away at wood.
This is an example of how translators can give actually what seems like opposite spectrum interpretations of what is presumably the same simple phrase. Is "he" who takes a way a garment in cold weather a heavy and contrived symbol for a moth being destructive, or a man who sheds a heavy outer garment in order to feel more refreshment in the cold? Is vinegar being added to washing soda to remove a stain, or to eat away at the substance of something? I'm voting for the more positive interpretation, that singing to a heavy heart is a positive cleansing treatment.
Here is the second mention of washing suds:
Jeremiah 2:22
For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.
Another version:
Though you scour it with soap, and use much lye, the stain of your guilt is still before me, says the Lord God.
There is not too much trouble understanding the washing, sudsing and scrubbing imagery in this passage! Sometimes soap is not the only answer. I suspect that some of the old time folks of last century who only had their once a week "Saturday night bath" but held the Lord close to them are cleaner than some people I could mention who compulsively shower and worry about antibacterial soap! ;-)
See, scripture is so interesting and rich in thought, even when the subject I decided to search for was the use of washing soap.
Mother Teresa's aridity of faith
Book about Mother Teresa's aridity of faith
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html
And in fact, that appears to be the case. A new, innocuously titled book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (Doubleday), consisting primarily of correspondence between Teresa and her confessors and superiors over a period of 66 years, provides the spiritual counterpoint to a life known mostly through its works. The letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever — or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist."
That absence seems to have started at almost precisely the time she began tending the poor and dying in Calcutta, and — except for a five-week break in 1959 — never abated.
***
I am totally not surprised at the news that seems to shock so many others, that Mother Teresa had a nearly lifelong period of spiritual aridity that coincides exactly with her work as tending the poor and dying in Calcutta. Here is why.
Being close to Jesus and hearing God is not the same as being "the ultimate social worker." This is a colossal error that has developed during the liberalized laity and religious of the Church. The more one fills one's head and one's hands with the sorrows of the world, to the exclusion of lengthy sabbaticals of prayer and living life for one's own good and one's own relationship with God, the farther apart one can grow from God. God means for people to live fulfilled vocations, either personal or religious, and not to recreate within oneself an extended and inflated period of "trying to be Jesus" or "carrying the burdens of the world on one's shoulders." When one wallows, no matter how well intended, in the hardest aspects of life, everyone knows that "compassion fatigue" sets in, among both secular and religious care givers. The same is true when one turns into a societal workaholic so that your family partner - God - can no longer be heard. God was speaking to her, Jesus was speaking to her, but like the kid who plays his music too loud, her hearing was damaged by being saturated in the woes of the world, and not allocating the majority of her life to her relationship with God. This is an ego inflation that those who seem the most humble must guard against. Trying to be exactly like one imagines Jesus to be in a literal lifestyle choice is impossible and not desirable.
Thinking that you have a special mission to solve the world's problem is also an ego inflation. She fell into the very human tendency to measure herself by her achievements, rather than by her peace of mind and relationship with God. This is one of Satan's interesting spins. He tempts the good to think that they must be more and more and more "good" in what soon becomes a hamster wheel of endless carrying of the burdens of the world. (Is that not God's job actually? Are people called to love and obey God first, and love neighbor, and give charity and alms, and serve... but are they meant to be a slave to a societal cause?) I have felt uneasy about her for her entire life, because you could see that love of God was an effort for her. Remember: blessed are the poor of spirit. This is because if you empty yourself with humility, God will fill that space with holy spirit and grace. She crammed so much of unrelieved social work into her spirit, that there was really barely a finger's space for God to infuse spirit. This is why I've been against classic liberation theology and other dogma that tempts people to fill their hearts with exclusively works of social merit, thinking one is imitating Jesus, and what is instead happening is parched aridity of communion with God and the Holy Spirit. Who is holier? The average Joe or Sally who has a religious or secular vocation, devotion to community, love of the Lord and a tithed of time donation of service to social causes, or the person who swaps devotion to their community, love of the Lord, and care giving to their own self for a one hundred percent struggle against social forces and ills that no one person can hope to solve? I think the answer is obvious. Whenever I looked at her over the past decades, I was troubled by her struggle and how the model she was setting was not the way to communion and personal relationship with the Lord. Well, rest her soul.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html
And in fact, that appears to be the case. A new, innocuously titled book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (Doubleday), consisting primarily of correspondence between Teresa and her confessors and superiors over a period of 66 years, provides the spiritual counterpoint to a life known mostly through its works. The letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever — or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist."
That absence seems to have started at almost precisely the time she began tending the poor and dying in Calcutta, and — except for a five-week break in 1959 — never abated.
***
I am totally not surprised at the news that seems to shock so many others, that Mother Teresa had a nearly lifelong period of spiritual aridity that coincides exactly with her work as tending the poor and dying in Calcutta. Here is why.
Being close to Jesus and hearing God is not the same as being "the ultimate social worker." This is a colossal error that has developed during the liberalized laity and religious of the Church. The more one fills one's head and one's hands with the sorrows of the world, to the exclusion of lengthy sabbaticals of prayer and living life for one's own good and one's own relationship with God, the farther apart one can grow from God. God means for people to live fulfilled vocations, either personal or religious, and not to recreate within oneself an extended and inflated period of "trying to be Jesus" or "carrying the burdens of the world on one's shoulders." When one wallows, no matter how well intended, in the hardest aspects of life, everyone knows that "compassion fatigue" sets in, among both secular and religious care givers. The same is true when one turns into a societal workaholic so that your family partner - God - can no longer be heard. God was speaking to her, Jesus was speaking to her, but like the kid who plays his music too loud, her hearing was damaged by being saturated in the woes of the world, and not allocating the majority of her life to her relationship with God. This is an ego inflation that those who seem the most humble must guard against. Trying to be exactly like one imagines Jesus to be in a literal lifestyle choice is impossible and not desirable.
Thinking that you have a special mission to solve the world's problem is also an ego inflation. She fell into the very human tendency to measure herself by her achievements, rather than by her peace of mind and relationship with God. This is one of Satan's interesting spins. He tempts the good to think that they must be more and more and more "good" in what soon becomes a hamster wheel of endless carrying of the burdens of the world. (Is that not God's job actually? Are people called to love and obey God first, and love neighbor, and give charity and alms, and serve... but are they meant to be a slave to a societal cause?) I have felt uneasy about her for her entire life, because you could see that love of God was an effort for her. Remember: blessed are the poor of spirit. This is because if you empty yourself with humility, God will fill that space with holy spirit and grace. She crammed so much of unrelieved social work into her spirit, that there was really barely a finger's space for God to infuse spirit. This is why I've been against classic liberation theology and other dogma that tempts people to fill their hearts with exclusively works of social merit, thinking one is imitating Jesus, and what is instead happening is parched aridity of communion with God and the Holy Spirit. Who is holier? The average Joe or Sally who has a religious or secular vocation, devotion to community, love of the Lord and a tithed of time donation of service to social causes, or the person who swaps devotion to their community, love of the Lord, and care giving to their own self for a one hundred percent struggle against social forces and ills that no one person can hope to solve? I think the answer is obvious. Whenever I looked at her over the past decades, I was troubled by her struggle and how the model she was setting was not the way to communion and personal relationship with the Lord. Well, rest her soul.
Outrageous rape of child in Afghanistan
Outrageous rape of child in Afghanistan
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_6699869
Two brothers—identified only as 18-year-old Ismat and 24-year-old Mohammad—allegedly asked their teenage sister to lure the girl to their home in the Jaghuri district of Ghazni province and raped her until she lost consciousness, according to human rights officials and advocates handling the case.
The two suspects' 15-year-old sister knew the 7-year-old because they grazed sheep together. The sister invited the girl to eat cheese and then left her with Ismat and Mohammad, said Jamila Zafar, a social worker who is counseling the girl and her family.
After attacking the child, the brothers left her unconscious near the family home. When she came to, she went home and complained of stomach pains for a few days, Zafar said. The family then took her to the hospital, where doctors examined the girl and determined she had been raped.
The men were promptly arrested, but Naderi and Zafar said they believed bribes were paid to free them. Human rights commissioner Hangama Anwari said the brothers were released because "there was some relationship" between them and district authorities.
***
These two rapists and their abetting sister are an outrage to Islam and human rights and decency. They have no honor. They should all three be punished to the maximum under the secular law, since they do not deserve either religious or traditional tribal consideration. What kind of sick men rape children? And what kind of sick sister helps them? They disgust me. Child rape is a disgust and abomination to Allah. They should be hunted down like dogs, as all who disgrace children.
Blessings and prayers for the child, for her brave and honorable family who are doing right by her, for the human rights commission helping her, for honest government officials who will help, and for the social worker treating her. Prayers for her recovery.
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_6699869
Two brothers—identified only as 18-year-old Ismat and 24-year-old Mohammad—allegedly asked their teenage sister to lure the girl to their home in the Jaghuri district of Ghazni province and raped her until she lost consciousness, according to human rights officials and advocates handling the case.
The two suspects' 15-year-old sister knew the 7-year-old because they grazed sheep together. The sister invited the girl to eat cheese and then left her with Ismat and Mohammad, said Jamila Zafar, a social worker who is counseling the girl and her family.
After attacking the child, the brothers left her unconscious near the family home. When she came to, she went home and complained of stomach pains for a few days, Zafar said. The family then took her to the hospital, where doctors examined the girl and determined she had been raped.
The men were promptly arrested, but Naderi and Zafar said they believed bribes were paid to free them. Human rights commissioner Hangama Anwari said the brothers were released because "there was some relationship" between them and district authorities.
***
These two rapists and their abetting sister are an outrage to Islam and human rights and decency. They have no honor. They should all three be punished to the maximum under the secular law, since they do not deserve either religious or traditional tribal consideration. What kind of sick men rape children? And what kind of sick sister helps them? They disgust me. Child rape is a disgust and abomination to Allah. They should be hunted down like dogs, as all who disgrace children.
Blessings and prayers for the child, for her brave and honorable family who are doing right by her, for the human rights commission helping her, for honest government officials who will help, and for the social worker treating her. Prayers for her recovery.
Qur'an and Bible do not disagree: Jesus
Explanation why Qur'an and Bible do not disagree
I am often asked why the Qur'an states that Jesus did not die, though he was taken up to heaven by God, in seeming contradiction to the Gospels who witness that Jesus did die before he was taken up to heaven by God. Here is the passage from the Qur'an:
Surah 4: 157-159
And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.
And this passage is important for understand my explanation of the difference:
Surah 5: 110
When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and your mother, when I strengthened you with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.
When the Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) hundreds of years had passed since Jesus Christ had risen to heaven. Christianity had been rejected by the large majority of the Jews (this is observed and commented on in the last two lines of verse 110 above.) The Jews, who had seen their own temple in Jerusalem destroyed, claimed that Jesus either never existed or was just a man who had died and been buried. Christianity had great faith, and these early Catholics had withstood great persecutions and martyrdoms, and did not waiver in their faith of the resurrected Jesus. However, there were many heresies that had to be argued through and put down, and more were coming. Some heresies dealt with whether Jesus had a divine nature, but they foreshadowed a time when there would be Christian heresies that Jesus was simply a wise man who had lived, died and was buried.
God is the greatest source of wisdom about human nature, and knew that there would be a time when the resurrection of Jesus would be denied. It is almost as though he knew back then that there would be "DaVinci Code" books and heretical influence of secularism that would deny Jesus in all of his divine and prophetic aspects (impugn the virgin Mary, declare that Jesus "must" have had secret sexual relationships, call Jesus a great teacher but completely a man and not sent by God nor fathered by the Holy Spirit, and, most recently, claim to find the buried body of the man Jesus and deny the resurrection.) You will notice when you read the Qur'an that it is actually a stouter defense of the sanctity of Mary, Jesus as sent and empowered by Allah, the purity of Jesus' message and the truth of his miracles, and the resurrection of Jesus to Allah in heaven than many who consider themselves Christian and yet dilute the message with heresy. Therefore the Muslim people were entrusted by Allah with the definitive statement that Jesus did not die (that is, he did not die in body, and decompose in the grave) but that Jesus ascended into heaven, both body and spirit. This is why there seems to be a disagreement, but it is really a matter of where the emphasis is placed. Islam was entrusted, almost like a treasury, with the unwavering belief and truth that Jesus was not a man who died. Because Allah was so firm on this point with the Prophet (PBUH) the Qur'an wording assumes that witnesses to Jesus' death must have been mistaken. But whether or not the body of Jesus spent time as one dead was not the objective of the holy message given to the Prophet Muhammad. The objective was to state unequivocally for the ages that Jesus did not die as a man but was raised to Allah upon fulfillment of his ministry, and that Jesus did indeed live a virginal and miraculous life. Rather than denying the miraculous and Allah granted life of Jesus, Islam actually affirms it in the most firm way, as a treasury to both faiths, because the Muslims are unshakable that Jesus was not a human body buried set of bones to be found by modern nonbelievers and publicity seekers, but that the truth is that he did not "die" (into the earth) but was ascended by Allah when the message of Jesus was rejected by the Jews and so his ministry was completed. This is why there really is not a difference that is one to be quarreling about because both the Bible and the Qur'an are divinely inspired and serve God's will. The Qur'an spends much time affirming the sanctity of the Virgin Mary and the role of Jesus as Messiah, who was rejected by the Jewish priesthood, and so ascended to heaven to God, bodily and in spirit.
Muslims state the Qur'an has never changed and take appropriate pride in that, as they should, as the word of Allah. I take great pride that they record also the unchanging truth that Jesus was sent by Allah to be the Messiah, born of the virgin Mary, ministered and performed miracles, and was raised physically and spiritually to God when he was rejected as the Messiah. I hope this posting helps bridge some of the gap of misunderstanding that exists among the faiths, much of the gap being one of misunderstanding and not of fact. God inspires emphasis according to the needs of humans at the times of the prophets through the ages, and what Moses recorded differs in focus (the law) than what the Gospels recorded (the ministry of Jesus) and what Muhammad recorded (the oneness of Allah and his will.) Just because there is different emphasis does not mean that the truth is changed; it means that people of the time need to be reminded by God of what is important to them, especially if there is danger of straying.
I am often asked why the Qur'an states that Jesus did not die, though he was taken up to heaven by God, in seeming contradiction to the Gospels who witness that Jesus did die before he was taken up to heaven by God. Here is the passage from the Qur'an:
Surah 4: 157-159
And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.
And this passage is important for understand my explanation of the difference:
Surah 5: 110
When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and your mother, when I strengthened you with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment.
When the Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) hundreds of years had passed since Jesus Christ had risen to heaven. Christianity had been rejected by the large majority of the Jews (this is observed and commented on in the last two lines of verse 110 above.) The Jews, who had seen their own temple in Jerusalem destroyed, claimed that Jesus either never existed or was just a man who had died and been buried. Christianity had great faith, and these early Catholics had withstood great persecutions and martyrdoms, and did not waiver in their faith of the resurrected Jesus. However, there were many heresies that had to be argued through and put down, and more were coming. Some heresies dealt with whether Jesus had a divine nature, but they foreshadowed a time when there would be Christian heresies that Jesus was simply a wise man who had lived, died and was buried.
God is the greatest source of wisdom about human nature, and knew that there would be a time when the resurrection of Jesus would be denied. It is almost as though he knew back then that there would be "DaVinci Code" books and heretical influence of secularism that would deny Jesus in all of his divine and prophetic aspects (impugn the virgin Mary, declare that Jesus "must" have had secret sexual relationships, call Jesus a great teacher but completely a man and not sent by God nor fathered by the Holy Spirit, and, most recently, claim to find the buried body of the man Jesus and deny the resurrection.) You will notice when you read the Qur'an that it is actually a stouter defense of the sanctity of Mary, Jesus as sent and empowered by Allah, the purity of Jesus' message and the truth of his miracles, and the resurrection of Jesus to Allah in heaven than many who consider themselves Christian and yet dilute the message with heresy. Therefore the Muslim people were entrusted by Allah with the definitive statement that Jesus did not die (that is, he did not die in body, and decompose in the grave) but that Jesus ascended into heaven, both body and spirit. This is why there seems to be a disagreement, but it is really a matter of where the emphasis is placed. Islam was entrusted, almost like a treasury, with the unwavering belief and truth that Jesus was not a man who died. Because Allah was so firm on this point with the Prophet (PBUH) the Qur'an wording assumes that witnesses to Jesus' death must have been mistaken. But whether or not the body of Jesus spent time as one dead was not the objective of the holy message given to the Prophet Muhammad. The objective was to state unequivocally for the ages that Jesus did not die as a man but was raised to Allah upon fulfillment of his ministry, and that Jesus did indeed live a virginal and miraculous life. Rather than denying the miraculous and Allah granted life of Jesus, Islam actually affirms it in the most firm way, as a treasury to both faiths, because the Muslims are unshakable that Jesus was not a human body buried set of bones to be found by modern nonbelievers and publicity seekers, but that the truth is that he did not "die" (into the earth) but was ascended by Allah when the message of Jesus was rejected by the Jews and so his ministry was completed. This is why there really is not a difference that is one to be quarreling about because both the Bible and the Qur'an are divinely inspired and serve God's will. The Qur'an spends much time affirming the sanctity of the Virgin Mary and the role of Jesus as Messiah, who was rejected by the Jewish priesthood, and so ascended to heaven to God, bodily and in spirit.
Muslims state the Qur'an has never changed and take appropriate pride in that, as they should, as the word of Allah. I take great pride that they record also the unchanging truth that Jesus was sent by Allah to be the Messiah, born of the virgin Mary, ministered and performed miracles, and was raised physically and spiritually to God when he was rejected as the Messiah. I hope this posting helps bridge some of the gap of misunderstanding that exists among the faiths, much of the gap being one of misunderstanding and not of fact. God inspires emphasis according to the needs of humans at the times of the prophets through the ages, and what Moses recorded differs in focus (the law) than what the Gospels recorded (the ministry of Jesus) and what Muhammad recorded (the oneness of Allah and his will.) Just because there is different emphasis does not mean that the truth is changed; it means that people of the time need to be reminded by God of what is important to them, especially if there is danger of straying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
