RELIGION WITHOUT MULTIPLE SACRIFICES

just one-- Christ

Here's the answer: In January 1878 Charles Peirce published a crucial paper in the history of philosophy in Popular Science Monthly, a magazine targeted to the lay public. This was the beginning of his public fame has a philosopher and psychologist. The paper was titled “How to make our ideas clear”. A sampling of this essay makes one understand why Peirce stimulated so many people.

“To talk of something as having all the sensible characters of wine, yet being in reality blood, is senseless jargon. Now, it is no my object to pursue the theological question…having used it as a logical example I drop it without caring to anticipate the theologian’s reply. I only desire to point out how impossible it is that we should have an idea in our minds which relates to anything but conceived sensible effects of things. (To) mistake a mere sensation accompanying the thought for a part of the thought itself (is absurd). It is absurd to say that thought has any meaning unrelated to its function. It is foolish for Catholics and Protestants to fancy themselves in disagreement about the elements of the sacrament, if they agree in regard to all their sensible effects, here or hereafter”.

Religion is a purely academic pursuit which requires less faith and more disciplined study. This quotation is from one six books I have written to integrate the Catholic (including its sects or rites) and Orthodox with Fitche, Spinoza, science, medicine, human deveopment (Erikson and Maslow) Psychoanalytic theories (Freud, Adler, Jung). My books like Hume's early books were "stillborn" from the Press: YEt the manuscripts are the Library of Congress, copies in the National Library of Italy: they have ISBN and EAN numbers. Alist of valid and true religions Includes orthodox and conservative Jewish religion. I have a morsel of sympathy for Quarkers, methodists, and high church Anglicans. yet they do notmake the cut. the true churches are listed Knaurs grosser Reigionsfurher ( Munich 1986). the categories are Catholic, Orthodox, antique oriental. Try me: I am sure to offend any reader. You are correct not every god is the correct one. You are correct when believing one thing forces us to abandon another. My list comes from a reference book and opinion concerning Mosiac law. If you are Muslim: You are correct when you that God made all things. Beyond that you are correct that Ishmael appears in Genesis and is promised worldly wealth. The opinions now abandoned about Aristotle and other Greek thinkers are valuable as are the contribution to medicine , geography , mathematics. That's it. If you are a Mormon-- you are intellectually worthless. Jesus is God, was incarnate, was historical, rose from the death. To quote (irony) Martin Luther: "here I stand". Martin Luther was as much a political and cultural figure as heretic. His betrayal of his followers is well documented by his conduct during the Peasant's Rebellion. He caused plenty of deathes.You can look it up. What stands outside the creed with a liberal interpretation (e.g. the emergence of the Holy Ghost, pater vs pater et figlio [I have simplified the Latin here], I cannot defend. Anything except transubstantiation (Kant's term: the thing in itself), I cannot defend. The eight fold path of Buddhism, the school of Confucius, certain Hellenic and Hellenistic philosophies, Spinoza among others offer excellent advice on how to live and how to think. My suggestion for most everybody is hit the library first and the church second. Religion need not be an excuse for superstition or ignorance or sin. As Euclid told the Ptlomeic pharoah, there is no royal road to geometry. Same with religion.