Comments on: Is the host a biscuit? It depends on what you believe.

By: Alexander the not so Great

Alexander the not so Great — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:26:16 +0000

@ Daphne

Hi.. Do you like my nick? Hope this distinguish me from the other Alex’s he he he.. For ease of reference, I’m the one whom you found my attitude as fascinating (@IvanM@Daphne) Wow…. Thanks :) Nice to hear that from a woman, me being a male :) … u dan ghadek ma ltqajtx mieghi personali!!! … though this was not the first time I impressed you. Once I won something from your interesting magazine on which I managed to impress you with my humble contribution… :) so that makes my second ‘good’ impression…

Now onto something more serious!
Some people in here are really trying hard to insult Catholics and their beliefs.. why are they trying so hard to hurt people’s sentiment? All this tit-for-tat comments, many a times trying to ridicule other person’s beliefs… i’m finding a bit difficult to understand why some are using certain type of language and idioms. Reading through them, one can notice that instead of trying to discuss, many a times are more intentioned to hurt Catholics by insulting their beliefs.

Maybe it’s my ‘fascinating attitude’ which might seem ‘not normal’… maybe i’m strange… however please do respect one another. If I believe in that and you believe in something else, or for that matter in nothing, we can still live together in peace.

I suggest anyone to have a look about the Focolare movement, which were a pioneer in establishing realtionships between the various religions and agnostics. You can also look at the Lopiano example which worked out perfectly.

Some of the economic ideologies introduced by this movement, although criticised by the capitalistic world has worked and is evolving well. Maybe one can start discussing such issues instead of insulting each other. This means of communication can serve other good purposes except from making us laugh and discuss politics in general.

Thanks to all for reading my contribution, and to the moderator who has to monitor everything! Naghdrek siehbi/siehba!!

By: Corinne Vella

Corinne Vella — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:02:49 +0000

Salman Rushdie is not an Arab.

By: Etienne Caruana

Etienne Caruana — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:32:42 +0000

I have come to see an act of ‘faith’ (easily interchangeable with ‘trust’ or ‘belief’) as ultimately relational by nature. Thus if, for example, I say “I believe in you” (and ‘you’ may be an individual or a group of persons or an entity) I will implicitly be saying that I take what you are saying as being the truth, or I consider your actions to be congruent with your words. Taken in this sense, faith doesn’t only apply to the sphere of religion, but equally to other areas of human activity (politics, for example). Secondly, faith does not exclude reason in this sense. In other words, reason has its own rules by which to judge whether or not ‘you’ are to be believed, trusted, i.e., do I have good reasons for or against putting my faith in you? Re the issue of the host, in reality my act of faith is placed in an ongoing practice of the Church going back to the first disciples, and is based on a command they received from Jesus Christ. There are two intertwined words “Take and eat, this is my body” and “Do this in memory of me.” Supposing I had to question myself about my belief: Don’t I believe the Apostles words? Was Jesus Christ lying when he said these words? Is Scripture not conveying the truth in this regard? Is the Church under a delusion? Was Jesus being delusional? One can begin to appreciate how difficult the issue of faith is, whether or not one decides to believe in x, y, or z.
There would be those who support their belief or unbelief through emotive arguments, whilst others will attempt to give scientific grounds. There is little I can say about an appeal to emotions because I don’t think that it helps in arguing for or against. With regard to scientific grounds, I have to say this. Much as the scientific method has been helpful in so many fields of knowledge, I cannot let myself be straitjacketed by it. I don’t think that reality can only be described in scientific terms. If such were to become the case, life would be very dry and meaningless — impoverished, to say the least. What place will I give to love, or beauty? What about music, poetry, literature, and the countless other products of artistic endeavour? What about fun, and play? Should I pooh-pooh the gift of a box of chocolates? A beautifully presented meal? The taste of good wine? I’ve just given a few examples, hopefully enough to show how ‘robotic’ our language and activities may become. The empirical sciences have contributed greatly to our understanding of reality, but I’m not too keen on seeing them arrogate to themselves the task of explaining all of reality. Logically put, to say that science cannot prove the existence of something is not thereby to say that something does not exist, just that it cannot be proved or disproved scientifically.

By: Fr Anton Gouder

Fr Anton Gouder — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:14:33 +0000

Dear Michael, if you are feeling my contribution “intimidating and menacing”, I apologise. I have no such intention.

By: eyesonlymalta

eyesonlymalta — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:25:08 +0000

I don’t believe in Intelligent Design. Scientifically it’s flawed.
I believe in Evolution which the evidence backs up mostly.

I believe in God and that He is behind Evolution, which is just the “process” as we see it.
St Augustine was not a creationist by the way and believed in Evolution too. That’s an eyeopener for many I think.

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:20:46 +0000

@ John Schembri

did it ever cross your mind then that maybe it was communism and the totalitarian regime in which the atheists you have met were brought up, which screwed them up so badly and not their lack of beleif in a god!

By: John Schembri

John Schembri — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:35:44 +0000

Non-believers are not believers.They cannot be offended about something they don’t believe in , unlike believers they have nothing to ‘defend’.
If I were an atheist and was told by a priest that I will go to hell after I die , I just lol @ him!

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:21:12 +0000

@ John Schembri

Naqseb li qieghed tkun ftit arroganti billi lil Daphne tipprova tiddettalha fuq xiex tikteb! L-ghazla hija semplici hafna; jekk dak li qed taqra fuq dan il-blog joffendik jew ma jdoqqx ghal widnejk taqrahx. Li qed tipproponi int hija forma ta’ censura.

By: Ivan M

Ivan M — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:11:38 +0000

@ Ronnie I don’t agree.

I think it’s a pure coincidence that 98% (or so the claim is) of the population of this country are RC and that RC happens to be the declared official religion of the country. I sincerely believe that all 98% really understand what their, and other religions, are about, and after a lot of studying and soul searching, they all happen to choose the same religion. Then again, most probably not ;)

By: John Schembri

John Schembri — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:01:44 +0000

@ Ronnie : It-tip ta’ ateji li ltqajt maghhom kienu ghajnejhom imgebbdin u jieklu r-ross , u ma’ nafx li l-mara kienet taqlibielhom , qed niccajta , kienu mic-Cina u mir-Russja (Komunisti jew ex- komunisti) ma’ kienux ex-insara bi trobbija f’kultura nisranija. Ma’ nghid xejn kontra min hu ateju , ghandu kull dritt ikun hekk.
@Ivan M :Habib , assumejt hafna affarijiet , meta wiehed ikun hadem f’hafna postijiet ikun ghamilha ma’ hafna nies , ta’ hafna kulturi differenti , bhal kullimkien issib nies li attaparsi jemmnu f’religjon li jghidu li jemmnu fiha. Ma’ tridx tmur il-boghod hafna , min jidghi tahseb li jemmen kemm jekk hu Nisrani kif ukoll Mislem?