George,
Just to further clarify. My understanding of the Catholic sacraments is they emerged from a crystallization of Eygptian and other mid-eastern myth and allegory into a ritualistic based institution. The literalisation of these myths and symbols consequently meant a large part of an institution failed to evolve. Layered into this is to remember that Western culture is a mixture of Christian and pagan worldviews.

The ‘Word of God’ is based on the theology of the Western Church whose roots sprang from Rome, not Jerusalem. And the western Church has always used Greek rather than the original Hebrew – this further add to the sophistry. Christianity, at its most unsophisticated level, is to to be like Jesus, and live according to the gospel of Jesus. Liberating Christianity from a false image of the deity, in which God was only present in the world in its almost universal and pagan form, was an ‘intervention’ like a deus ex machine ( or literally, “God from the machine” i.e. the surprising or unexpected). We now live in a mixed belief society, rather than one dominated by institutional Christianity.

It is certainly absurd to believe that the mentality and knowledge (or rather, ignorance) of the people who lived two or three thousand years ago would set the guidelines for human beings of all time. It is also reasonable to suggest that if the human mind is itself the product of evolutionary processes, it cannot be trusted to reach definitive conclusions on the metaphysical or the theological.

Part One

But Relda, surely we do need some lessons as we need to find today's truth through our media.

Certainly the lack of interest in Middle East problems right now proves that possibly Murdoch has managed to get more than a few blatant lies across.

First with the one about Saddam's former powerful Sunni Shaiks given the OK from Bush and his Generals to pretty well get on the US payroll if they call in their anti-US Sunni insurgents.

The Surge was thus just a pack of lies, as proven lately by the Sunni Shaiks that if they don't become part of the new Iraqi government as promised they'll order their Sunni sons to go insurging once again.

Part Two

More from A World of Trouble by Patrick Tyler

Bushbred,
I’m not sure whether you’ve lost the thread or not. Your concerns about the Middle East, the media and its ‘truth’ certainly do apply to another topic, or even several.

‘Lessons’ in this thread certainly apply, as I stated earlier “…As with art, literature, music and poetry, libertry is a distinctive achievement of the spirit. The training, discipline and apprenticeship, demanded in its achievement, are often forgotten.” This principle must certainly shine through the current mid-east quagmire.

But briefly... Because Arab sheiks and princes shook hands with President Bush to buy American weapons certainly doesn't mean they are lined up behind Washington. For while Washington has been courting the Sunni Arabs, the Sunni Arabs have been courting Iran - an era of Iranian hegemony has arrived in the Middle East. The Shi'ites are seducing the Sunnis and uniting the sects through violence against Israel. They started this process in 2006, using Hezballah (Shi'ite proxy of Iran) in Lebanon and Hamas (Sunni, but sponsored by Iran) in Gaza.

I am intruding deliberately, Sellus, because I believe Obama is needing truth not deliberate misguided political shadiness for a somewhat dumb world public.

Here's more factual information -

Problems ahead for Obama

From A World of Trouble -by Patrick Tyler

American recklessness and missed chances in Middle East.

1. Promise of peaceful era when America replaced Britain in Middle East in 1950s.

2. Later the US would try to sort out the conflict between the Arab states and Israel

3. Not beyond the capacity of a sensible super-power, but all attempts by America to solve ME conflicts failed, some very miserably.

4. Though Henry Kissinger appeared resolute when he argued against Nixon letting Israel go militarily atomic, he appeared too much unsure of himself later concerning the attitude of the Soviets.

5. Though Tyler appears disgusted with characters like Cheney and Rumsfeld he saves his toughest words for Presidents, especially George W Bush.

6. Though he does show some favour for Eisenhower, he slams him for allowing the coup throwing out Mossadeq of Iran not long after WW2.

7. Tyler's catalogue of blame really begins with Lyndon Johnson for letting Israel get away with failing to return the territories it conquered during the Six-Day War.

But Tyler is hardest of all on Clinton, who seemed possibly too friendly and undecided, finally letting himself be manipulated by Netanyahu of Israel.

Incidently, Patrick Tyler works partly for the Washington Post, similar to Bob Woodward, Ron Susskind and David Ignatious.

Regards, BB, WA.

relda,
>>We now live in a mixed belief society<<
Yes, and a mixed interpretations - of e.g. Mt 16:18-19 or of the meaning of sacrament as "a visible sign of an invisible reality" (Augustine) - society.

>>rather than one dominated by institutional Christianity<<
Again yes, except that protecting one‘s identity (and this is what the whole controversy was about) is not domination.

>> It is also reasonable to suggest that if the human mind is itself the product of evolutionary processes, it cannot be trusted to reach definitive conclusions on the metaphysical or the theological.<<
Of course, I agree, however without restrictions to only “metaphysical or the theological“. You can reach “definitive conclusions“ only within a formal, conceptual - metaphysical, theological, mathematical, scientific etc - model, not about the reality it is supposed to model, although the claim is often made that you “know” reality through that model.

In case of scientific models your choice of a particular model is restricted not only by the cultural context but mainly by its adequacy (“truthfulness“) as measured through observation, experimentation and mathematics.

One’s choice of a metaphysical or theological model is more “arbitrary”, more up to the individual, although still subject to personal psychological, cultural, and social circumstances. Nevertheless, everybody should have the right to choose his/her own, say theological, model, whether or not it conforms with this or that Christian or other “institution”. And so should also religious institutions have the right to proclaim their own preference for this or that model of reality, and define the symbols or signs they wish to represent it with.

Relda, its hard to fathom what game you people are playing with rather romantic religous niceties mixed with a few nasties, but not really solving today's worrying Middle East problems?

But I do know what game we are playing, to try to philosophically understand today's Middle East and possibly find a way to share the blame by even admitting not only what colonial killers we were, but what neo-colonialistic bastards we still are, telling a wealth of lies about democracy but still hoping we can leave our troops there mostly because of the oil there.

Because sharing the blame is what the Sermon on the Mount's all about, putting oneself in the place of the enemy, and to take a good look what we look like from the other side.

Anyhow, Relda, reckon you still have good qualities, and apologise for giving the wrong name above some briefs I took from an article in the latest Guardian by Martin Woolcott based on a book almost completed by Patrick Tyler part-time journo for the Washington Post.

Article can be found back further where fool me could not remember your true monicker.

Regards, Bushbred, WA.