We’ve all heard of the parables that the Church or just about any Bible preacher likes to preach. There is one called the “Parable of the Lost Sheep.” Christianity is supposed to be the sheep and the Church is its shepherd. Let’s call shepherds for what they really are: ‘rulers’ – for a shepherd rules over the sheep like the Church rules over its flock in the name of Jesus Christ. Naturally, the Church doesn’t want its sheep to go astray or else it would lose its position of power. One way they stay in power is by not letting their subjects forget them. That’s why they always remind you, the ordinary person, about God’s Promises.
When you first hear of this, that “God is your shepherd” and you are His sheep, it seems like an idea that you’d like to hold on to. The church makes it sound so attractive, especially to someone who is still dependent on others, making them feel that no harm will come to them thereby giving a feeling of security. But is being just a sheep good enough for a person who is free and alive? And, can this ‘shepherd’ really protect you from all the pain and suffering in the world? Is that really what you want? Let me tell you, neither the Church nor God thinks you’re special, to them you’re just another sheep in the crowd. Catholic priests would want nothing better than for you to be the perfect sheep, helpless and without any will of your own, who does everything they say and does nothing but graze in the fields and eat grass.
Let’s talk about herding. How do modern shepherds herd their sheep? They use a herding dog to bark the sheep into their fences. The Catholic Church does the same thing, only their dog can be a lot of things. It can be the threat of going to hell, societal pressure, or it can be actual political influence. Barking is a way of scaring sheep into place without the need of physically forcing them because, like sheep, people like to go in different directions. You only need one dog/one priest to manage a whole flock of sheep or churchgoers. In time the sheep will be trained and will follow without the need to be barked at. Christians now have an internalized herding dog, the all-knowing God speaking to them or something I can also think of as the person’s conscience. Either of the two will begin to bark if they start to go astray. This dog is no ordinary dog; it knows their secrets, their thoughts and every detail of every action in their lives.
Once we realize that this dog is only in our minds. They can’t herd us into a corner anymore and we will be free to relax and go in the direction we choose to go in this life.
I’ll end with these questions. Why will you allow some God to read your thoughts/prayers or record your whole life experience only to hold you accountable about it in the afterlife? How can God actually monitor your every move? Where do we get a conscience? Do you actually need a conscience to do good acts?
You’re an idiot, no offense.
@innerminds : kuya jong! hahaha.i love being a gadfly to my professors.(i'm a philo major, btw.)
the analogy was incomplete, lacking in some dimensions implicit to the premises he gives in the statements. as an analogy, the parable should have sound recurrences of reason and dialectic. this is why you guys, cogitamus and freespirit; argue.you argue on the basis of self-knowledge.try to view the matter from different perspectives, do not be absolute in your statements, this is a form of intellectual arrogance. as such , I think the parable could have been more fitting had it been expressed more explicitly and cogently.keep it up =)
freespirit, I honestly think you're overanalyzing the parable of the shepherd and the lost sheep.
If I recall correctly, the other half of the this parable talks of the shepherd going through hardships and pain to find and bring back that one lot lamb that strayed from the flock.
I always thought this represented the conduct that its own priests and leaders should practice, of never wavering in their protecting and guiding the flock, and of looking out for the welfare of even those they don't like or require them to go the extra mile to look after.
In short, just as much devotion and care is asked of the shepherd as there is asked of the sheep.
Is this the sort of leadership that the Vatican has expressed? Definitely not, and quite frankly I think many of their leaders should either be jailed, or hanged.
On the other hand though, I've heard of the remarks of people like Fr. Bernas, Fr. Carroll, and Fr. Tom Doyle. Theirs are not the most heard voices within the Catholic heirarchy, and they're certainly not as high-ranking as the bishops and cardinals that many of us have heard lately.
But they do offer good, sound insight into how Catholic doctrine should be practiced in reality, and are willing to step up and protect their flock from the figurative wolves, even if said wolves happen to be the leadership of the church itself.
I do not deny that there are priests who make act like the shepherd as described by freespirit. But we do not know the percentage, for example, of priests as bad shepherds. A more scientific and rational approach would be to verify how many of these priests are bad shepherds and asked whether this percentage would represent the general attitude of the priests in the church. In the absence of such data and analysis, no one can issue general statement about the status of the priests as bad shepherds. If there are only few, then it is not a general practice of the church.
Freethinkers demand scientific evidence, logic and reason, and it is imperative that freethinkers must demand the same in their works/articles. Self-criticism does not necessarily divide the group but enhances the group's capability in being scientific, logical and critical. Indeed, a freethinker must be critical of his/her fellow freethinker's work/article as much as he/she is vigilant against fundamentalists and religious fanaticism.
As you affirm the good shepherds like bernas, carroll (fr. john of social justice and peace?), and doyle (i'm not familiar), there are also other well-meaning priests and religious who are committed in their apostolic vocation. How many of them, we don't know. Likewise, there are also tyrant priests, but how many of these wolves in sheep dressing, we do not know as well. It would be more reasonable to criticize your parish priest who is tyrant dictating his will to his parishioners, for example, than making a general statement accusing the whole priests of the catholic church as bad shepherds.
They (bernas and carroll) may not be holding high offices in the hierarchy but they are well respected in the church, especially in their field of expertise and witness as men of faith and reason.
Would you know that even bishop bacani (along with jesuit frs tanseco and genilo — and the long lists of dissenters like famous theologians rahner, curran, sullivan, and others) is accused of being a dissenter concerning the issue of infallibility and contraception by professor horrigan. Within the church itself there is tension and purging — the church is always in need of reform. It means that the accusation of freespirit is not baseless about the tyranny of dogma but he lacks the evidence and worse, he uses a wrong biblical theme to punch his attack.
Fr. Thomas Doyle:
http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/doyle…
http://www.snapmidwest.org/htm/TomDoyle.htm
Btw, it seems that the room is so crowded for another gadfly, this will be my last comment in the FF.
For those I'd offended, intentionally and unintentionally,I'm truly sorry.
God bless. More power to your group.
Wikipedia defines 'gadfly' as "a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or just being an irritant." If you act just the first part of the definition and avoid the second part, we should get along just fine.
oh come now, whatever happened to "forgive, forget, and move on"? its not solely a christian thing you know…
wasn't it Jesus that said "Do unto others what you want others done unto you"? if you play nice, I'll play nice, then everyone will play nice and we can avert the next friggin' flamewar…
plus I kinda like having progressive christians around, helps maintain the checks and balance around here. we may not always agree but if things are kept civil, then we may all learn a thing or two
It was an error on my part about christianity/church as shepherd/sheep thing. Perhaps I was in a hurry to comment. I was indeed busy at work when I checked my laptop and visit FF, but that's not an excuse. I'm sorry freespirit.
I promised to visit FF after work because I was saddened by the use of the parable of the good shepherd out of context. In fact, sheep here was pictured negatively considering the importance of the sheep to the jewish people at that time. Even the use of the role of the dogs as a threat (rather than a help to shepherd against wolves) to the sheep is ridiculous. If you situate the biblical text in its historical context, the picture is not as bleak as painted by the writer. In addition, the depiction of the shepherd as ruler and dictator is also out of context. The gospel depiction of the good shepherd is one who is willing to die for the sheep:
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away—and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. The hired hand runs away because a hired hand does not care for the sheep."
I actually met two filipino priests who died for their sheep: Fr. Rudy Romano who advocated human rights in cebu and Fr. Neri Satur who opposed illegal logging in bukidnon. I knew them because I used to work with them.
I was assigned in remote places in our country and I witnessed the sacrifices of many priests and religious (even bishops) in promoting the welfare of the people, especially the poor. Now, working in a first class city, I do not see priests harassing the faithful by imposing their will to the people. I admit there some cases, but they are at the fringed of the catholic church. Distribution of power remains a challenge particularly in basic ecclesial communities where decision making is decentralized and some priests (even bishops) are threatened by the active participation of the faithful. Nowadays, the faithful has become more aware of their role in the church and indeed, actively participated in the life of the church.
A Personal Note:
I'm not a model catholic, but I participated in the sunday masses. At times I attended selected forums when invited by my friends (for personal updating) organized by the religious groups, but I'm not a member of a church organization. I listen to homilies and even critical when a priest is more concern in making people laugh than inspiring and reminding them of their social responsibilities. Some priests delve on societal issues and relate them to faith. Even the most debated issue of RH bill, I haven't listen to a sermon dealing on this ethical problem. For sure in organized forum for organized religious groups, the church deals with this issue. I attended one of these forums and the presentation is more educational and dialogical. Participants are critical in challenging the ideas presented by the resource persons during the Q&A session. The method is not purely lecture type but more on a workshop with discussion of topics or case studies. There is no imposition of ideas. The church did not impose its own views and there are a good number of dissenters, I'm one of them. My work now is different from my previous work. Corporate world is difficult but I'm generally contented and happy. Working with the poor is much more rewarding.
Notes on the terms Church and Christianity in the article:
"Christianity" is broader than the "church". Following closely his usage of the term "church" it is clear that he refers it to the hierarchy of the institutional church and the term "christianity" is not used in its usual usage as religion, but the "faithful" or the "people of god." Since the membership of the church is not only the hierarchy but also the faithful, it is important to note this distinction. It is more accurate to use the term "leaders of the Church" or "hierarchy of the church" or "holy governance of the church" or simply "hierarchy". Others simply use the word "pope" which refers to the highest governing office of the church.
The use of the term "shepherd" to "hierarchy" is in fact used by the Church. The leadership of the church must be that of a shepherd– the leader as shepherd. This kind of leadership is inspired by the gospel itself, particularly the parable of the good shepherd. (John 10:1-18)
Notes on Ignorance of Topic:
I'm a bit judgmental but surely not intended to insult the writer. I was more concern about using biblical texts/themes as a jumping board. It's foul and unfair, if not malicious. If you critic a teaching, for example, it is imperative to present it objectively as honestly as you can and then, criticize its and affirm its strength. That's why I advised (unsolicited) the writer to take some biblical themes with good exegesis but still critical of the church's hierarchical structure and practice. For example, the work of Edward Schillebeeckx "Church: The Human Story of God" has a lot of sound criticisms on the church, particularly on hierarchy. Filipino writers like Wostyn and De Mesa can be useful as well. The point here is that, be prudent in using the biblical text/theme especially when you do not know it well. Use other theme on which you are familiar and then attack the hierarchy of its tyranny of dogma. Isn't it ridiculous reading an article written by a writer who's unfamiliar with his/her topic?
So you are actually capable of writing an objective comment about the article without resulting to ad hominem attacks after all. Thank you.
My understanding of the terms used in the article : Christianity = all the millions of Christian followers = ‘the flock’ (e.g. the mass of sheep) — ‘the Church’ = religious strictly dogma enforcing wealthy institution with its clear hierarchy is ‘the shepherd’.
Now what was written :
[ freespirit : Christianity is supposed to be the sheep and the Church is its shepherd. ]
[ Nomadic Gadfly : he said that Christianity is the shepherd and the church is the sheep …. Now, the sheep becomes the shepherd. lol!
This is not a minor error but it hints us that there is something wrong on how the writer deals with the data of his article. It is an affront to science, logic and reason. …. A writer who is so ignorant about its topic is not simply annoying but a joke in itself ]
?? I am afraid you (Nomadic Gadfly ) are mixing something up, you haven’t read the article properly, or you are using the term ‘The Church’ as religious community of faithful and not as the dogmatic institution, wealthy, tax-exempt, with strict hierarchic leadership.
[freespirit : Let’s call shepherds for what they really are: ‘rulers’ – for a shepherd rules over the sheep like the Church rules over its flock ]
[ Nomadic Gadfly : “Then, he writes: “Naturally, the Church doesn’t want its sheep to go astray or else it would lose its position of power.” Now, the sheep becomes the shepherd. lol! “]
As the meaning and usage of the term ‘The Church’ is very clear meant as the institution — instead of attacking the writer and the entire FF community – to quote back your own words “can you not self-critique” ?
error:
any = must be deleted.
threat = treat
thanks.
Where are the critical freethinkers here? Or, are there any critical freethinkers here?
Just because an article is anti-church, some men of science, logic and reason are now singing in unison… Amen! If this is not blind faith, which we reject, then tell me what is it? I refused to believe that freethinkers are incapable of self-criticism.
At the outset of the article, you can clearly take a mental note about the error of the writer. Using the gospel account of the good shepherd, he said that Christianity is the shepherd and the church is the sheep. Then, he writes: "Naturally, the Church doesn’t want its sheep to go astray or else it would lose its position of power." Now, the sheep becomes the shepherd. lol!
This is not a minor error but it hints us that there is something wrong on how the writer deals with the data of his article. It is an affront to science, logic and reason.
If you go further, it would become clear that the writer is so ignorant about the shepherd-sheep relationship. A writer who is so ignorant about its topic is not simply annoying but a joke in itself. The wolves will be gathering now in protest for exclusion. Well, the dogs are still barking… I just hope that they are not ones singing Amen here.
Come on freethinkers… I know that you are cultured people (hate to use "cultured despisers") and intelligent enough to know that the article needs improvement. You can actually help editing this piece.
Of course, the attack is clear: about the dogmatic tendency of the highly centralized power-based of the RC. We all know that. It's not about form vs content. While I understand that the writer is a novice, but can you not self-critique so that he can be guided properly?
@ freespirit: there are good articles in the web that threat biblical texts, using historical-critical method (a biblical exegesis which scientifically study the bible and highly accepted by biblical scholars and theologians today), which can attack the dogmatist church. The works of Lode Wostyn, De Mesa, et al for example are available in the Philippines. Progressive biblical scholars and theologians are often accused as dissenters by the conservatives. If you want to attack the church's doctrines rationally, there are various works on atheism and agnosticism. To start with visit Hume, Marx and Nietzsche. For the "sins" of the church the "God Delusion" of Dawkins and "god is Not Great" of Hitches are good materials.
God bless on your search for the truth and meaning of life.
your fellow traveler,
nomadic gadfly
(to be continued… I'm still at work)
//he said that Christianity is the shepherd and the church is the sheep.//
Uhm…on which part of the article did he say that? On the third sentence of the first paragraph he wrote: "Christianity is supposed to be the sheep and the Church is its shepherd."
Maybe you should read the article carefully before commenting, or maybe you should not be commenting on blogs at all while at work. 😉
I also noticed that you are fond of using ad hominem attacks like "A writer who is so ignorant about its topic is not simply annoying but a joke in itself." Are you naturally obnoxious, or did you just learn that in your church?
"Where are the critical freethinkers here? Or, are there any critical freethinkers here?
Just because an article is anti-church, some men of science, logic and reason are now singing in unison… Amen! If this is not blind faith, which we reject, then tell me what is it? I refused to believe that freethinkers are incapable of self-criticism. "
Admittedly, this article does need polishing. This doesn't excuse you from acting the part of the drama queen though, or rambling with hyperbole.
Come on twin…
I expect more from you. Just be intellectually honest. Can't you not argue rather than dismissing my comment as a "rambling with hyperbole." There is no drama here. Help this article a little polishing. That's all. And repost it.
My opinion still stands – that the article could use some serious polishing, and that you can deliver your message better without having to resort to sweeping statements about the rest of us here.
My my, is this another "Dean" in the making? watch where you're throwing those "you freethinkers" around. getting a tad bit passive-aggressive now, are we? Trying to intimidate the freshie writers? That's low. Every trick in the book too… tearing him down, being condescending and sarcastic, data overloading to overwhelm him, throwing down a challenge, then putting on a nice fake smile at the end. classic. someone's been watching a little bit too much Law and Order.
If you have constructive criticisms, then there are more civil ways to say it, else there'll be another flame-war on our hands soon with all your taunting.
FYI, I already sent my suggestions to the author via PM on how to improve on his essay even before you posted this. Its up to him whether he wants to update it or not. That is the nature of being a freethinker, everyone's got a right to express their own opinions, politically correct or not. Its part of the learning process and the least you could do is be a bit more civil to newbies instead of playing the good-cop-bad-cop routine. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, they reflect his opinions, not everyone else's.
Even as blog editor, I will not change nor censor another person's words without prior consent just to please some anonymous commenter. Their thoughts, their words.
What about you, Mr.Gadfly, you seem to be big about the whole political-correctness thing. But I don't seem to see your name elsewhere speaking out against Christians crossing the line as well. So why bitch about how "other freethinkers" aren't tripping over their own tails rushing to correct the author? What was it that Jesus said about throwing the first stone?
//What about you, Mr.Gadfly, you seem to be big about the whole political-correctness thing. But I don’t seem to see your name elsewhere speaking out against Christians crossing the line as well.//
Actually I was rather impressed with the way he commented on the article In Defense Of Church Scandals (3rd and 4th comments) and how he objectively criticized the article and not the Christian writer.
This was the last paragraph of the article: "In the same way, we should not tend to forget that a Priest, though a servant of God, is also a human being like us who equally share each our weaknesses and tendency to make mistakes. There is no better way to put it, in the words of Alexander Pope: “To err is human, to forgive divine.”"
And this was his comment: "There’s nothing to defend here. You don’t have to defend the erring sons and daughters of the Church. Even, the “Mea Culpa” of our late beloved pope John Paul II was not enough. The call for God’s justice in favor of the victims is the only morally correct stand even by the apologists."
Makes one wonder if there is more than one Nomadic Gadfly.
ewwww @Innerminds, stalker-ish much? 😛
but the point stands, if they're the same person, then this is a case of double-standards. why correct the catholic author in a civil manner then go all-out inflammatory with this one?
I'm sensing a conspiracy theory here, christian apologists targeting newbie atheist writers like @sath and @freesprit with more vitrol than is warranted by the situation… to what ends? because they're easy targets? scaring them into quitting writing altogether before they have a chance to hone their craft? it may not be a concerted effort but you can definitely see the pattern. Veteran debaters here like John have written far more controversial essays but you don't see apologists messing with him.
I sent feedback and suggestions to the author discretely by private mail earlier because I had the best intentions to help him improve his writing if he wants to. I find outright grandiose scolding counter-productive as any student who's had an asshole for a professor can attest.
[ innerminds: (quoting N.G.) “The call for God’s justice in favor of the victims is the only morally correct stand even by the apologists.” Makes one wonder if there is more than one Nomadic Gadfly. ]
[ Wes: “ if they’re the same person, then this is a case of double-standards. why correct the catholic author in a civil manner then go all-out inflammatory with this one?”]
More a single standard – ‘them’ versus ‘us’ – be nice to (religious) in-group members viciously attack (atheist) out-group members.
And reading the content : the RCC has not to apologize for their inhuman, disgusting wrongdoing in the countless global child abuse cases – no (1) sit back, do nothing and just hope for god’s favor to the victims – and (2) no punishment of god for the abusive clergy is mentioned.
who is john?
I see no typhoon in a sunny skies. The conspiracy theory is ridiculous. Well, I'm new here. Maybe in your experience there are.
If you truly care for the newbies as targets of this conspiracy-thing, you can always defend the said article. But if you defend the article solely because he/she is a freethinker, and not based on the sound arguments or merits of the article, then you have no right to call yourself a freethinker. If you do not correct an erroneous idea because it is said by a freethinker, then you are merely a freethinker by name.
Just as some freeethinkers do not want to be called atheists, please refrain also from calling someone an apologists. There are blog writers who are clear about their role in defending the faith by all means. I'm not one of them. Like you, I'm too is a traveler in search for the truth and meaning of life.
just because I criticized, correctly or not, some of ideas of freethikers, it does not necessarily mean that I'm an apologist. I can be comfortable as a gadfly, if christian freethinker in indeed an oxymoron as innermind has noted in one of our dialogues.
oh he's just one of the oldtimers here, just a name I pulled out of a hat.
but my apologies for calling you an apologist. I didn't know you had negative connations about it. it was a knee-jerk reaction when @innerminds pointed out that you were also hanging out at a catholic defenders website. It was a hasty conclusion so sorry about that. I personally don't mind being called an atheist, a freethinker, or what-not, they're just labels in the end, and I hope you'll agree with me that we are all more than what labels can hope to impart.
but just to be clear, I never defended the article, I defended the author against overly-aggressive criticism. Did professional writing jobs before, met asshole-editors-from-hell who like tearing down newbie writers and though this isn't a paid writing gig, I swore this won't happen on my watch. call it a messianic-complex on my part 😛 There's always a more civil way to help someone improve his craft.
In the end, I hope *everyone* takes a few lessons learned out of all this.
Yes, I wrote those comments.
Here's my point. In these scandals committed by the sons and daughters of the church (hitchens even accused pope benedict of protecting the erring priests), the only christian response is to ask for forgiveness. However, forgiveness demands justice. Calling for justice in behalf of the victims is morally correct. By arguing that these erring priests are only humans without asking for justice is the most unchristian thing to do.
After noting the "mea culpa" of pope john paul II on the "sins" of the church, the writer wrote:
"On the contrary, the Pope clarified that it is not the Church (being the Mystical Body of Christ) per se, that had committed such wrongdoings but rather the sons and daughters of the Church (being all too human, therefore, frail and fallible), who were behind its hierarchy and administration."
While the distinction is correct and necessary, but it seems that the Church as a mystical body of christ is given more attention rather than a call for justice for the victims. For sure, even the mystical body of christ will care less whether "it" is tainted by the blood of the victims or not, but following the prophets and jesus himself, "it" will demand vindication for the victims. Nowhere in the article can you find the call for justice.
Without the call for justice, that apologetic article lacks moral perspective. jesus said: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).
Part of a call for justice also means making those responsible for the offenses accountable for their crimes.
As far as I'm concerned, addressing the victim is only half a victory. You want real justice, then make sure those who hurt them are dragged out into the light, and THAT is exactly what the Vatican has been making so systematically difficult.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/irela…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,151…
wes, by thinking that there is a conspiracy by christian apologists to harass the newer writers here, sans any hard evidence, aren't you in danger of conjuring up a conspiracy theory yourself? 😉
that was a bit of black humor there @twin. a bit of poetic license on my part. sorry forgot to put the smilies in to make the punchline clearer.
to even suggest that there's really a secret underground cabal of christian masterminds scheming to eradicate the next generation of young atheists… ah well, I could probably write the next Da Vinci Code eh? 😛
"to even suggest that there’s really a secret underground cabal of christian masterminds scheming to eradicate the next generation of young atheists"
I always thought it was the lizard men myself 🙂
http://www.cracked.com/article_17469_5-pathetic-g…
A sheep will never even complaint even if the shepherd is guiding it towards the slaughter house.
Well for this view of a shepherd who will lead their sheep (not only to shearing, milking …) but also to the slaughterhouse – cogitamus will blame you of being [“completely irrational and verging on bigoted “] – as this contradicts his personal view of ancient circumstances of shepherds (priests) loving their sheep of course only for the sheep’s wellbeing.
This deep and true love for sheep (the woolly animals) reminds me of a Vatican circular which addresses not only the widespread abuse of little boys inside the Catholic priesthood, but also scorns and deals with bestiality e.g. intercourse with animals – well the celibate lifestyle might be yielding strange results.
And of course highlighting also the fact of :
1) papal infallibility in all doctrinal matters
2) removal of deviating ‘too moderate’ religious teachers from universities (Prof. Uta Ranke Heinemann, Prof. Hans Küng)
3) the strict Catholic church hierarchy,
4) the banning of any contradicting views as heresy for now 2000 years often with burning at the stake as punishment,
5) Selling of indulgences, craving for tithes, donations, death-bed assigned inheritances to the Church, tax exemption etc…
6) The poor flock giving substantial parts of their meager income to the already rich clergy who are living in mansions and palaces ……
Well all these facts are of course not signs of strict doctrinal enforcements down the hierarchy to the religious flock, the easy living of priests, shamans, gurus on the expense of their gullible flock – no any such negative interpretation of shepherd –> sheep relation is surely [“completely irrational and verging on bigoted “].
So the parable of the lost sheep and the relation Vatican->Bishops->priest->flock are all a sure sign for the true caring love of the church hierarchy for all their sheep alone.
[ cogitamus says: I haven’t always been Catholic. I was born one ]
That’s exactly what Richard Dawkins and other call child abuse: you are not born a Christian or Catholic or whatever sub- denomination – you are indoctrinated from Catholic parents, Catholic teachers, Catholic priest to become a Catholic – same as you become a Communist, free market capitalist, libertarian or whatever political mindset and are not born as communist etc….
And these are common terms : “the priest and his flock”, the priest as shepherd” – are not newly introduced here from poster ‘freespirit’ who wrote the article, these are labels from Catholics for themselves. Therefore calling ‘freespirit' a [“completely irrational and verging on bigoted “] first of the feather of a vocal theist sound somehow strange and it is a new repetition of the ad hominine attack that poster zaurahpatricia was talking about.
Fine that you cogitamus : are cherry picking the very few nice passages in the Bible and re-interpret them further in a positive meaning, but that is just your personal opinion and everybody might have other favorite Bible passages. Like Catholic Adolf Hitler who liked the cleansing of the temple e.g. Jesus using a whip to drive out Jewish money changers very much, and took his main inspiration for the Holocaust from it.
About cherry picking: Jesus approves slavery and gives tips of punishment – doulous means slave and not ‘paid servant’ e.g. OFW maid or something which doesn’t existed during 1st century AD.
Luke 12:47-48 (NIV) 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.
Jesus is egoistic and against giving to the poor :
Mark 14:5-7 (NIV) 5It could have been sold for more than a year's wages[a] and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly. 6"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want
Jesus does not except any neutral stance : Matthew 12:30 (NIV) 30"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
Jesus with sadistic pleasure of killing enemies: Luke 19:27-29 (NIV) 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
Jesus have sadistic pleasure in torture and agony: Matthew 13:41-42 (NIV)41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Well like the father JHWH from the OT – the jealous, genocidal maniac – so the son in the NT if you like to cherry pick these verses.
Buddha’s teaching way before alleged Jesus term : it is all inside yourself – everybody picks what he likes most, or like in many martial arts films: the search and fight for the secret of power of all – is just yielding a mirror, it’s all inside yourself good and bad – up to you what to choose – no need for a specific faith as cover or imagined support base.
@freespirit I never insinuated that the Filipino Freethinkers were all idiots nor "burnt them at the stake" as a group. I merely expressed my disappointment at how your article didn't live up to what I had understood was one of the group's missions–that is, to "Promote freethought, science, and reason online (websites, blogs, wikis, and forums) and offline (magazine, radio, and TV) with a positive, non-adversarial approach." I found your article and style of argumentation not just irrational, but also rather adversarial in its arrogance.
The idea came to me because there are quite a few articles here about the CBCP meddling with the government. The CBCP, the shephard is trying keeping the sheep within their fences by not letting them stray. If you had indeed written your piece with the CBCP in mind, then you should have criticized them outright, instead of writing about Christians and the Church in general. The CBCP does not represent all of Christianity.
And while we're on the topic of hasty generalizations: I’m just doing the same things the Catholic Church is doing. They take stories and verses from the bible and then change it’s meaning to fit what they want to teach people. They find verses and take its meaning to show positive connotations in present day living and not how it meant during Ancient Israel. Who is this "they" you keep referring to? I hope you do not mean ALL Catholics, because that would be a totally ridiculous claim. How do you know what all Catholics teach? Not all of them "dumb down" the verses and use them as a means to further their personal agendas. I've heard many sermons from many priests who always made it a point to first explain the cultural and historical context of a Bible verse, and then use this is a linchpin for its interpretation. So please, please, stop making such reckless, all-encompassing claims about my religion.
If you want to then emulate Jesus then, that’s what you mean isn’t it. “WWJD?” as the saying goes. What’s the need for all this initiation into religion? Organized religion sprung from man's natural tendency to institutionalize various aspects of life. It's perfectly normal for people with common goals and interests to band into groups. These groups, when they grow large enough, organize themselves in order to function more efficiently. Unless I'm mistaken, this is precisely how the Filipino Freethinkers was formed. Now I'm not saying that you guys are an organized religion; I'm merely using your group as an analogy. You said: Becoming A Christian or a Atheist will only label me and divide me from other people. But see, I suspect you became a Freethinker because you wanted to be united with people of similar interests with yourself and there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with belonging to different groups with different interests. It doesn't divide people, it unites them. Division and alienation only comes when some members of a group–if not the whole group itself–make uninformed generalizations about other groups.
@zaurahpatrici I did not make any kind of personal attack at the author. If you care to read my comment again, you'll see that I merely criticized his writing and style of argumentation based on what I read from his article.
You made things clear for me.
If you haven't left this site already forever I have these on my mind right now.
How can Christianity be not sheep when their lives are their worship of God? They call themselves the children of God.
Or how can they not be sheep when they don't question the what the church wants to have them believe in? They become the church's sheep who are protected from everything.
I thought about not furthering this argument because it seems like you never tire of making sweeping statements that are completely irrational and verging on bigoted. But I have just one last thing to say.
I haven't always been Catholic. I was born one, but had a lapse of faith sometime in my teenage years. I had a lot of issues with certain aspects of Catholicism and wanted to be as far away from the Faith as possible. Fortunately, when I got to college, I met incredible professors of Theology and Philosophy who challenged me to really pursue all the questions I had instead of using them as fuel for my steadily-growing religious cynicism. They never force-fed their lessons, instead they patiently outlined arguments supporting whatever truth it was that they wanted to share with their students. The most important thing was that anyone in class could challenge the professors at any time, and there would often be lively debates that continued long after the bell had rung. Suffice to say, all the doubts I had regarding my faith began to fade away and I eventually re-converted.
So please, do not call us all sheep. Do not think that we don't have our own doubts. One cannot possibly know what questions spring forth from the deepest, most secret parts of a someone's heart unless that person is yourself.
Peace be with you, sir.
Think of this way, you are not a child of God,
you are an heir to God.
If you are child or sheep, you have not grown.
Do not emulate Jesus, just be who you are.
Are you looking for God in order to know yourself? Do you need to?
This is what I have learned. Sorry for the Pain I've caused you.
A Sheep is a Sheep is a sheep. I'm just doing the same things the Catholic Church is doing. They take stories and verses from the bible and then change it's meaning to fit what they want to teach people.
They find verses and take its meaning to show positive connotations in present day living and not how it meant during Ancient Israel.
You said so yourself that a person doesn't need a 'conscience' to do good acts. And does being 'arrogant' show a conscience? I don't think so. That means that might really mean well to help the people around me get what's best for them. I tell myself that I'm just giving "tough love"
About my previous posts. I'm just a little 'shy'
As a "whatever I am now", I grew up Catholic. Great acts can come from anybody, anywhere, anytime and not just people who follow Jesus Christ. People believe in Jesus Christ because they identify with his qualities and the way he helped others. People naturally want to help their fellow man. Christian or not, we are all part of humanity. Becoming A Christian or a Atheist will only label me and divide me from other people.
I'm sorry, I came to this site expecting rational, sensible arguments and this person's article is anything but. Not only is it poorly-written, it also reeks of sheer arrogance. "Let me tell you, neither the Church nor God thinks you’re special, to them you’re just another sheep in the crowd. Who are you to tell us how God thinks? How can you possibly know what he–or anyone else, for that matter–thinks?
Also, as long as you're basing your whole argument on the Parable of the Sheep, maybe you should consider developing some knowledge of exegesis first. I hope you realize that you've taken the parable completely out of its context. Sure, the image of "sheep" has a lot of negative connotations, including the ones you've used in this argument (i.e. mindless, ultra-conformist, etc.). But such a metaphor is a product of a modern paradigm. In ancient Israel, where majority of the local population lived of the land, sheep were valued by their owners and were lovingly taken care of. In essence, therefore, the use of the sheep metaphor in Jesus' parable can only have positive connotations.
Finally, if in case you hadn't really intended on delving deep into the parable and was just using it as stylistic jumping-board for your article, I would also like to say this: Your argument that the essence of Christianity is to be soulless, ultra-conformist "sheep" cannot be farther from the truth. Jesus himself was a rebel. In a time when the poor and the sick were considered "evil" by their Jewish peers, Jesus went around healing lepers and sharing meals with the homeless. He did this because he genuinely cared. Because he thought the weakest of the flock were the ones most in need of his love.
Taking it one step further, Jesus even broke the law of the Sabbath–arguably the most sacred of all the Jewish laws–just so he could attend to a man in need: (Mt 12:9-13) "He moved on from the there and went to their synagogue, and a man was there at the time who had a withered hand. They asked him, 'Is it against the law to cure a man on the sabbath day?' hoping for something to use against him. But he said to them, 'If any one of you here had only one sheep and it fell down a hole on the sabbath day, would he not get hold of it and lift is out? Now a man is far more important than a sheep, so it follows that it is permitted to do good on the sabbath day.' Then he said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand'. He stretched it out and his hand was better, as sound as the other one."
I'm tired of people thinking that just because we Christians call ourselves people of faith, we cannot also be people of reason and compassion. Perhaps the true message of Christianity has been forgotten by some members of the Church, and that is indeed a shame. But I call myself a Christian and a Catholic because I seek to emulate the life of Christ–a man who, to answer the last question in your article, did not have to have a "conscience" or a "barking dog" to do good acts. He did good acts simply because he was a good man who didn't give a damn about the rules except for the only one that ever really mattered: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
If you want to then emulate Jesus then, that's what you mean isn't it. "WWJD?" as the saying goes. What's the need for all this initiation into religion?
I have a modest mind.
@ cagitamus – i was hoping that you would take this article as rationally as possible. by personally attacking the writer instead of his article, how can i expect you to believe that you use your reason to make a point?
Sorry, This is actually just my first article here. Do you want to use me to say that Filipino Freethinkers are idiots? Don't burn this group on the stake just because of this article that came from me. Everybody was invited to share an article and so I did. I know, I'm am not as skilled as many of the writers as you are and most of the guys here on this site. And I'm not just saying this because you confronted me. Maybe I shouldn't even try writing?
You don't know my positions about where I stand. I just can't put my thoughts into writing as well as you and many others. Yeah, many of the church today don't know what it really means to be a Catholic or a Christian. The idea came to me because there are quite a few articles here about the CBCP meddling with the government. The CBCP, the shephard is trying keeping the sheep within their fences by not letting them stray. And, about the 'conscience' thing, I did think the same.
It should not be called "The Parable of the Lost Sheep" it should be called the "The Sheep who ran away."
@cog, after reading freespirit's article in depth, I think what he was insinuating more was how the Catholic Church controls its followers – like shepherds – more than it implies that all Catholics are sheep.
why is the catholic church being singled out in this article when there are many denominations that use the bible, and this analogy applies to them as well?
That's why my first sentence was this "We’ve all heard of the parables that the Church or just about any Bible preacher likes to preach." Just about any bible preacher…
Maybe i should have spent a little more time tweaking everything.
…ending up as lamb chops or a sweater….makes me wonder why people love the analogy
They don't kill the sheep to make them into a sweater. They just electric shave the wool and let it grow again.
not that easy having no hair much less getting your hair harvested for something you'll never use :p
The saying in the west is, "Sheep get fleeced, ****ed and slaughtered".
If you don't know what the asterisks mean, think about the 4% of priests who have been diddling with little boys.
[ " Let me tell you, neither the Church nor God thinks you’re special, to them you’re just another sheep in the crowd. Catholic priests would want nothing better than for you to be the perfect sheep, helpless and without any will of your own, who does everything they say and does nothing but graze in the fields and eat grass. "]
I think you forget something here : they do not want you to eat grass their sheep’s tithe, church tax, donation for missionary work (to gain more sheep) , and your name counted as their flock to gain more political influence – well to get more (tax payers) money, more influence in daily life – to be allowed and even supported from the secular government to indoctrinate just more sheep – ….. who then pay more tithe, church tax, donations ….. to close and repeat the cycle.
Or as Friedrich Nietzsche in the antichrist (chapter 26) has written so fitting:
[[ In place of all that pitiable lie, reality has this to say: the priest, a parasitical variety of man who can exist only at the cost of every sound view of life, takes the name of God in vain: he calls that state of human society in which he himself determines the value of all things "the kingdom of God"; he calls the means whereby that state of affairs is attained "the will of God"; with cold-blooded cynicism he estimates all peoples, all ages and all individuals by the extent of their subservience or opposition to the power of the priestly order….
Simply this: the priest had formulated, once and for all time and with the strictest meticulousness, what tithes were to be paid to him, from the largest to the smallest (–not forgetting the most appetizing cuts of meat, for the priest is a great consumer of beefsteaks); in brief, he let it be known just what he wanted, what "the will of God" was…. From this time forward things were so arranged that the priest became indispensable everywhere; at all the great natural events of life, at birth, at marriage, in sickness, at death, not to say at the "sacrifice" (that is, at meal-times), the holy parasite put in his appearance, and proceeded to denaturize it –in his own phrase, to "sanctify" it…. For this should be noted: that every natural habit, every natural institution (the state, the administration of justice, marriage, the care of the sick and of the poor), everything demanded by the life-instinct, in short, everything that has any value in itself, is reduced to absolute worthlessness and even made the reverse of valuable by the parasitism of priests (or, if you chose, by the "moral order of the world").]]