Catholic devotee of Christ

whatever...:rolleyes:I think you're alright. I just have to be open to all forms of the godhead. I feel like the veteran of a thousand psychic wars... you know...everyone wants to prove their point. i am sometimes feeling like I do not care anymore. Why should I? What is there to gain? I do not wish for you and I to be at odds. I only know what I experience. I never meant to be hurtful. I just do what i think is right. Sometimes it is not right. The similarities between religions are there for all to see. They just don't want to see them because politics get in the way. One needs to be able to move past the narrow-mindedness of our ancestors and establish the love they talked about but wouldn't do because of the politics and emotion and ego they couldn't see past. Love not bombs. If I seem defensive it is only because I felt attacked. He who screams the loudest has the least to say.

Amen, or should I say, "OM".(in a monotonic Bb {'B' flat}drone);)Go to the thread 'Help needed to save love. (Ironic name for what it turned into) and tell raghu that.

I do believe in the universalism of all religions. I don't think that arrogantly insulting another persons faith is going to resolve the issue at all. it only compounds the problem. You worship your God and I will worship mine. If you really care about people then you would do your best to see the issue resolved instead of promoting hate.

I am grateful for your challenges. You are forcing me to learn more about my faith. This is a good thing. I apologize for my errors in typing and such. It may take me a while to get back to you on your last post.I want to make sure that what I say is correct. I admit that many of my fellow Catholics may view me as somewhat of a heretic. But, I am convinced in the universalism of all faiths. i came here to learn more about yours. It seems the tables have turned, however. I shall endeavor to provide a rebuttal.

http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/index.html There are a few of us, Amlesh.

First, chandu, I wish to apologize for my frustration. I have failed in my communication. For this, I am angry at myself and I took it out on you. I posted the paragragh from the Catechism, but failed to expound upon it from the modern Catholic point of view. 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: <dl><dd>Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.</dd><dt>:deal:It is important to remember that this is written BY Catholics FOR Catholics and those who seek conversion into the Church. Those who have accepted its truth are now bound to it. </dt><dt>847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: </dt></dl><dl><dd>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.</dd><dt>Those who are not in the Catholic Church are not bound by its doctrine.-"those too may achieve eternal salvation." </dt></dl>Allow me to expound upon this from the Christian scriptures. I would like for bija and bhaktajan to know that I appreciate their efforts to compare this with the scriptures from their tradition Romans chapter 2 <table width="100%" border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top">14 So, when gentiles,(non-Jewish) not having the Law,(the doctrine of the Jewish people) still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands,(do those things naturally) then, even though they have no Law, they are a law for themselves. </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"> 15 They can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, (they show how the Law is a natural part of their being)to which their own conscience bears witness; since they are aware of various considerations,(they are able to discern right from wrong) some of which accuse them,(some things cause them shame or guilt) while others provide them with a defence (some things they are content with). . . on the day when, </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="boxborder001" colspan="4" style="padding-top: 15px;" valign="top"> 23 If, while you are boasting of the Law, you disobey it, then you are bringing God into contempt. (If you act like you know about these things, but do not adhere to it, then you are giving God a bad name.) 24 As scripture says: It is your fault that the name of God is held in contempt among the nations. (People who talk the talk but don't walk the walk are the reason why everyone hates God.) I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting what I posted before in post#21, because I think you are truly trying to understand what the modern Catholic church teaches and that you don't necessarily have an agenda to try and make my faith look bad. "Jesus never said he was the ONLY way. In John 14:6 we read, ”I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” In the original Greek version of this scripture, the word for “comes” is erchetai and it is very present tense meaning it does not apply to all people for all time. This verse applied ONLY to those people Jesus was talking to at that time. In the Aramaic Bible, Jesus’ own language, the word for “I” in this scripture is ena-ena or I-I. The meaning is NOT the same as ena which is an individual “I.” ("me") Ena-ena is a cosmic “I” or I AM THAT I AM(YWHW,or Jehovah) (Ex. 3:13 -14). In another scripture, Jesus tells us that we make a mistake if we think he is good, "Why do you call me good?"‘Jesus answered.’ "No one is good-except God alone" (Luke 18:19). And again: "By myself I can do nothing" (John 5:30). The way to reconcile “I am the way...” And “Don’t call me good...” is to understand that it is the I AM(YHWH-Iam that I am-even more correctly I am the ever becoming) (ena-ena) that is talking in John 14:6. The I AM is bigger than Jesus in the same way that all the water on this earth is more than any individual lake. By analogy, Jesus, Buddha and Krishna ...(John 10:16,I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice. They will become one flock with one shepherd.)...are lakes filled with the one living I AM. In another scripture, Jesus clearly says the only requirement for attaining eternal life is loving God and loving our neighbor: Luke 10:25-28 “On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘What is written in the Law?’ he replied. ‘How do you read it?’ He answered: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘You have answered correctly,’ Jesus replied. ‘Do this and you will live.'" If believing in Jesus were necessary to attain eternal life, Jesus would have been guilty of lying to the temple official in this scripture. Not a single time did Jesus ever warn about other religions. Rather, he said, “And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” (Luke 9:49-50). " In Luke 9:49,50 it says, 49 John spoke up. 'Master,' he said, 'we saw someone driving out devils in your name, and because he is not with us we tried to stop him.' 50 But Jesus said to him, 'You must not stop him: any one who is not against you is for you'. Just because there is confusion because of the EVangelical TV preachers' "Sola Scripture" interpretation of the Bible seeping in to the ideas of Cathoics who are not in full communion with the church does not make it so. aif this doesn't make it easier for you to understand the official church stance on this issue, then I believe it is because you do not want to. </td></tr></tbody></table>

Keep interpreting it your own way. I grow weary of your vincible ignorance. You have no desire to learn. You only wish to refute. And your evidence is incorrect. I presented the evidence. You gave me polemics and speculation. When you get Catechized correctly, then you can try and tell me about my faith. Go back to post #21:smash: </td></tr></tbody></table>

You have failed to grasp the point. All of the individuals involved in the various travesty of war for whatever reason it is waged are following their dharma.

Matthew 22 34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." on a side note... I wonder if there is a connection between 'Saddhucees' and 'Saddhu'. There is much in linguistics to suggest this. The same with 'Abraham' and 'Brahmin'. What do you think?

Imitation is the highest expression of flattery!

I am pretty sure it was sustenance and survival. 'akal aw-kal' a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively):--X at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up), dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in...wise(-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite.

So, I am curious. If we are to think that the Koran promotes violence against other religions, should it be banned or edited? Is the correct path to follow? Wouldn't it be better to try and accept it contextually rather than literally? from http://arvindsharma.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/31-the-bhadavadgita-at-war/ The ancients were already concerned with the violence in the Mahābhārata and according to one tradition the sages requested Vyāsa to compose another work which corrected this impression. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa is said to have been composed as a result. It would seem that in all fairness, that all books should then be either banned or edited for the sake of 'political correctness'. Just curious...

I, too, would like to know. I will share this for what it is worth.

You can get all nine of the essential amino acids from animal or plant products. Meats, chicken, fish, eggs, and dairy products are good sources of protein. You can also get all of the amino acids your body needs from soybean products, such as tofu and soymilk. But hang on. Almost all plant-based foods contain at least one of the nine amino acids. If you eat a variety of dried beans, nuts, seeds, vegetables, and grains (like wheat, corn, oats, and rice), you can get all the protein your body needs. Over the course of a day, your body combines the amino acids into protein packages, giving you a complete set. :deal:Here are some facts taken from an article from Cornell University:http://www.css.cornell.edu/forage/forage.html “If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million” “Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein.” “Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; Beef cattle has ratio of 54:1; Lamb meat stands at 50:1, 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.” “More than half the U.S. grain and nearly 40 percent of world grain is being fed to livestock rather than being consumed directly by humans.” “Each year an estimated 41 million tons of plant protein is fed to U.S. livestock to produce an estimated 7 million tons of animal protein for human consumption.” “On average, animal protein production in the U.S. requires 28 kilocalories (kcal) for every kcal of protein produced for human consumption. Grain production, on average, requires 3.3 kcal of fossil fuel for every kcal of protein produced.” “U.S. agriculture accounts for 87 percent of all the fresh water consumed each year.” Hmmm Polemics don't hold much weight.

Yes. In Romans chapter 14 he goes on about what some people think is bad and others think is good. summing it up with 22"Within yourself, before God, hold on to what you already believe. Blessed is the person whose principles do not condemn his practice. 23 But anyone who eats with qualms of conscience is condemned, because this eating does not spring from faith-- and every action which does not spring from faith is sin. Similarly,in the Gita we read in 3:13 that spiritual people partaking of vegetarian food that has been offered in puja receive a multitude of blessings. While those who eat it for the sake of filling their stomachs are eating in sin.(from memory, I don't have a copy...I guess i could google it... I do not personally use drugs. I have in the past.I know that a lot of cultures do. Under the supervision of a qualified spiritual director,...blah,blah,blah I am not going to make a judgment call on the use of drugs.I will tell you why I do not use them. Why would I want to cause my sensory perceptors and neural synapses to misinterpret data? That is all I will say on that. And on that note... goodnight:sleep: