From a comment earlier today from looneytombs:
And this is the sad thing about the Shroud, that even if one day it is proven to be the death shroud of Jesus, Christians will still argue and debate over its significance and exploit it to prove their own religious dogmatic convictions. If this precious relic cannot unify us by its awesome existence then it would be better it be proven a fraud.
Very strange comment. Ever since the Christianity started to spread throughout the world there were disagreements upon almost everything. It still did not prevent the Church growth and the spread of the Faith.
And NO, it is not better to be proven a fraud.
Jester, there is a difference between disagreement and outright hostility. Do you think the Protestant Reformation was a good thing? In the end it did lead to greater spreading of the Faith as the resulting conflicts of division forced Christians to new lands in the search of freedom from other Christians. The days of ‘no salvation outside the Catholic Church’ are not so very far behind us. In the original post I was disappointed to see remarks being made about religious matters not directly linked to the Shroud (the subject of this blog). It seems that even here, in the face of this wonderful mystery, we look for division rather than humble unity. If children end up fighting over a gift would it not be better to not have given them the gift in the first place?
I see such conflicts as the struggle for innate truth to assert itself. Like all conflicts, it occasionally gets bloody. Consider whether the diversity of Christianity today, even with its irrational extremes, whether ultra-right wing, merely conservative, indifferent, radical, excessively liberal, or just plain loony, is an improvement or a recesssion, on the relatively uniform but superstitious and corrupt form it seems to have had 1200 years ago! Some such conflicts were in fact not about religion at all, but about assertion of national identity. Sometimes the issue is not the issue! The Crusades, anyone?
No, I do not. But this is not the site to discuss one vs the other and I am not going to.
My remark on the other thread was driven by constant preaching of one of the members and even in that thread it was present – the man has nothing to do with the Church he is so adamant to reform. It is not his business at all. Somehow that did not cause your peacemaking at all ;)
Generally I could not care less who are you in your religion – this site is not about religion and their comparison. But it is not me who constantly dwells on sermons and homilies and instructions to others.
So, please, address your reserve to the original and repetitive offender.
And the best of luck with that! I gave up trying months ago. Dogamtism of whatever kind has little place in the face of any kind of enigma. Sound judgment, prudence and humility are rare commodities.
My reserve wasn’t addressed to you alone.
I thought I had taken your point correctly. However I’m a little surprised at the inference that you consider me to be a guilty party. Perhaps you have misread me.
At least I strive to entertain and amuse rather than to bore, which I took to be your principal objection.
I think it was a message to me
I didn’t think it was directed at you but to another!
another is avoiding the discussion altogether :-)
Comments are closed.