Paus Ajak Kaum Muda Kembali ke Gereja Lewat Facebook

Paus Benediktus XVI menggunakan jejaring sosial Facebook untuk berdakwah. Melalui media yang 'berpenghuni' ratusan juta orang di seluruh dunia itu, Paus mengajak para kawula muda Katolik untuk kembali ke gereja.

Seperti ditulis Reuters, Jumat (22/5/20090), website baru Vatikan yang beralamat di www.pope2you.net menawarkan sebuah layanan yang disebut 'Paus bertemu Anda di Facebook.' Layanan ini memungkinkan masyarakat mengakses ucapan-ucapan dan pesan-pesan Paus lewat iPhone atau Ipod.

Ini merupakan pola komunikasi baru yang dijalankan oleh Vatikan. "Kami tahu bahwa gereja yang tidak berkomunikasi akan berhenti hanya sebagai gereja," kata Sekretaris Departemen Komunikasi Sosial Vatikan, Monsignor Paul Tighe.

Namun layanan Facebook ini tidak menyerupai pada umumnya. Anda tidak akan menerima 'friend request' dari Paus atau menulis di wall-nya.

"Orang-orang muda sekarang tidak menggunakan media tradisional seperti koran dan majalah untuk mencari informasi dan hiburan. Mereka mencari budaya media yang berbeda, dan ini adalah upaya kami untuk meyakinkan mereka bahwa gereja hadir dalam budaya komunikasi baru itu," imbuh Tighe.
( sho / fyk ) 

23 Mei 2010
Source:http://www.detikinet.com/read/2009/05/23/102533/1135891/398/paus-ajak-kaum-muda-kembali-ke-gereja-lewat-facebook

MacKillop, Orang Suci Pertama Australia

Puluhan ribu peziarah memadati Lapangan Santo Petrus, Vatikan, Minggu (17/10), untuk kanonisasi (penetapan oleh gereja Katolik bahwa seseorang menjadi santa/santo) dari orang kudus pertama Australia dan seorang bruder Kanada yang dianggap sebagai ”pekerja mukjizat”.

Empat orang lain, dari Polandia, Italia, dan Spanyol, juga dinyatakan sebagai orang kudus dalam sebuah Misa yang dipersembahkan oleh Paus Benediktus XVI dan hampir 50 kardinal, uskup, dan pastor lainnya itu.

Sorak-sorai terdengar dari tengah massa ketika nama Mary MacKillop diumumkan, bukti bahwa cukup banyak warga Australia yang datang pada upacara di Vatikan itu untuk merayakan biarawati abad ke-19 itu.

Pihak berwenang Vatikan memperkirakan ada sekitar 6.000 peziarah Australia di antara 50.000 massa yang memadati lapangan untuk mengikuti misa kanonisasi itu.

Di Australia, ribuan pengagum MacKillop lainnya berkumpul pada hari Minggu di kapel Sydney di mana dia dimakamkan dan di Katedral Katolik Sydney.

Lahir pada tahun 1842, MacKillop tumbuh besar dalam kemiskinan sebagai anak pertama dari delapan bersaudara, anak keluarga imigran Skotland. Dia pindah ke kota Penola di Australia selatan untuk menjadi seorang guru, mengundang kaum miskin dan Aborigin di daerah itu untuk datang ke kelas gratis di bekas kandang kuda yang dijadikan tempatnya mengajar.

Dia ikut mendirikan ordonya, Kongregasi Biarawati Santo Josef dari Hati Suci, itu dengan tujuan melayani kaum miskin, kaum sakit, dan kaum yang terpinggirkan, terutama melalui pendidikan.

MacKillop memenuhi syarat untuk menjadi orang kudus setelah Vatikan mengesahkan mukjizat kedua yang diyakini karena intersesi (perantaraan)-nya, yaitu mukjizat pada Kathleen Evans, yang sembuh dari kanker paru-paru dan otak tahun 1993.

Dalam sebuah pernyataan hari Minggu, Evans mengatakan, dia terilhami oleh teladan hidup MacKillop. Dia merasa bersyukur atas kesembuhannya dan merasa bersukacita bahwa teladan MacKillop kini diketahui oleh orang lain.

Veronica Hopson (72) adalah mukjizat MacKillop yang pertama, sembuh dari leukemia pada tahun 1961. Setelah hampir setengah abad membisu mengenai kasusnya, dia berbicara pada acara Minggu Malam di stasiun televisi Channel Seven, Australia, ”Saya merasa sangat beruntung bahwa saya mendapat kesempatan untuk menjalani hidup, memiliki sebuah keluarga, memiliki cucu-cucu, jadi itulah sebuah mukjizat.”

Bendera Quebec juga tampil menonjol di Lapangan Santo Petrus mendukung Bruder Andre Bessette, yang menurut legenda menyembuhkan ribuan orang sakit yang berdoa dengannya di tempatnya di Montreal.

Lahir tahun 1845, dia menjadi yatim piatu pada usia 12 tahun. Setelah mengucapkan kaulnya, dia mencurahkan hidupnya untuk membantu orang lain dan memperoleh reputasi sebagai seorang penyembuh. Ketika dia meninggal pada tahun 1937 pada usia 91, sekitar 1 juta orang datang memberi penghormatan.

Menlu Australia Kevin Rudd berada di Roma untuk kanonisasi itu, seperti juga Menlu Kanada Lawrence Cannon.(AP/Reuters/AFP/DI)

18 Okt 2010
Source:http://internasional.kompas.com/read/2010/10/18/07485272/MacKillop..Orang.Suci.Pertama..Australia-8

Komuni Pertama Astronot Buzz Aldrin di Bulan

First Communion on the Moon

As we remember the first men on the moon, let's not forget the first supper on the moon -- the Lord's Supper, served and received by an elder in the Presbyterian Church, Apollo 11 astronaut Eugene 'Buzz' Aldrin.
"This is the (lunar module) pilot," Aldrin said on July 20, 1969. "I'd like to take this opportunity to ask every person listening in, whoever and wherever they may be, to pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his or her own way." Aldrin's way was to serve himself communion, using a kit provided by the pastor of Houston's Webster Presbyterian Church.

Aldrin's brief and private Christian service never caused a flap, but it could have. Aldrin has said that he planned to broadcast the service, but NASA at the last minute asked him not to because of concerns about a lawsuit filed (later dismissed) by atheist Madelyn Murray O'Hare after Apollo 8 astronauts read from Genesis while orbiting the moon at Christmas.

Did NASA do the right thing by making Aldrin keep his religious beliefs to himself?

As an elder in the Presbyterian church, Aldrin had the authority to conduct what is called an "extended serving" of the Lord's Supper. But Aldrin was representing the United States of America that day, and in many ways, all of his fellow earthlings. Should he have even conducted a private religious service?

"In the radio blackout," Aldrin wrote in Guideposts magazine in 1970, "I opened the little plastic packages which contained the bread and the wine. I poured the wine into the chalice our church had given me. In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine slowly curled and gracefully came up the side of the cup. Then I read the Scripture, 'I am the vine, you are the branches. Whosoever abides in me will bring forth much fruit.'
"I ate the tiny Host and swallowed the wine. I gave thanks for the intelligence and spirit that had brought two young pilots to the Sea of Tranquility. It was interesting for me to think: the very first liquid ever poured on the moon, and the very first food eaten there, were the communion elements."

One small sip for man, one giant leap of faith for mankind.

The small chalice Aldrin used for the wine went back to Webster Church. Each year on the Sunday closest to July 20, the congregation celebrates Lunar Communion. "Communion can be celebrated anywhere," senior pastor Mark Cooper said Sunday. "Even cramped up in a lunar module on the moon."
Aldrin wasn't the only person to bring his faith to the moon that day. The astronauts left behind a tiny silicon chip containing a message of peace from four U.S. presidents and 73 other world leaders. Seven of them made references to God -- the presidents of Brazil, Ireland, South Vietnam and Malagasy, the king of Belgium, Pope Paul VI -- and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, who wrote:
"On this occasion when Mr. Neil Armstrong and Colonel Edwin Aldrin set foot for the first time on the surface of the Moon from the Earth, we pray the Almighty God to guide mankind towards ever increasing success in the establishment of peace and the progress of culture, knowledge and human civilisation."

UPDATE: I asked On Faith panelist Richard Mouw about provisions for self-serve communion. Mouw is president of Fuller Theological Seminary. He also is representing the Presbyterian Church-USA as co-chair of the official Reformed-Catholic Dialogue. Mouw's response:

"For our Reformed theology, communion is something that necessarily takes place in a congregational context, with two requirements. It is tied to--accompanied by-- the preaching of the Word and it requires at least one elder assisting the minister. Two exceptions: chaplains in military and other settings are given a blanket approval to conduct a communion rite without an elder. And a minister and elder may bring the elements to a sick or shut-in person--with the understanding that this is an extension of the congregational rite that has recently taken place. There is simply no provision for a solitary self-serving of communion. It is difficult to think of a theological rationale even as an unusual event."

Source:http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/07/first_communion_on_the_moon.html

Mengapa Ilmuwan Menjadi Atheist?

In the early 20th century, studies showed that scientists were less likely than the general population to believe in the existence of God.¹ A survey conducted in 1969 showed that 35% of scientists did not believe that God existed.² In contrast, recent surveys on religious belief have shown that 90 percent of Americans believe in God and 40 percent attend a place of worship weekly.³ Is a lack of belief in God among scientists due to their higher intelligence and knowledge? A recent study was designed to look at differences in belief among scientists (and other academics) and what factors influence those beliefs.

Religion and Academics

Elaine Ecklund, and Christopher Scheitle questioned 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology from 21 elite U.S. research universities.⁴ Overall, 75% of professors contacted completed the survey. Among the different disciplines, disbelief in the existence of God was not correlated with any particular area of expertise:

Disbelief in God by Academics⁴

Discipline	%
Physics	40.8
Chemistry	26.6
Biology	41.0
Overall	37.6
Sociology	34.0
Economics	31.7
Political Science	27.0
Psychology	33.0
Overall	31.2

In fact, disbelief in the existence of God was nearly as high in the natural science as in the "soft" sciences. Earlier studies had shown a similar trend, with those in the social sciences regularly attended religious services less often than those in the life sciences.² So, it doesn't seem that study in any particular field is associated with a disbelief in God's existence. However, several factors unrelated to areas of expertise and training did correlate with belief in God. It was found those scientists who were immigrants (where belief in God is lower) disbelieved in God to a greater degree than those who were born and raised in the U.S. In addition, the study found that scientists come disproportionately from non-religious or religiously liberal backgrounds compared to the general population, suggesting that at least some part of the difference in religiosity between scientists and the general population probably due to religious upbringing rather than scientific training or institutional pressure to be irreligious. Most interesting was the correlation between marital status and number of children on religiosity. Those who were married (especially with children) attended religious services more often. Those who were cohabiting were more likely than married scientists to believe "There is very little truth in any religion." This could be a reflection of wishful thinking!
Another reason why social scientists are atheists comes from the public perception of the social science profession.⁵ Accordingly, children of liberals, atheists, secular Jews, and other secularists perceive social sciences as more important issues compared with children from religious homes. Therefore, these professions have been abandoned by those brought up with religious backgrounds, leaving mostly secularists and atheists to fill those positions.⁵

Conclusion

It is true that scientists believe less in the existence of God than the general population of the United States. However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise. The fact that social scientists as well as those in the natural sciences expressed nearly the same disbelief in God suggests that rejection of God's existence is not a result of knowledge in any particular area of expertise. It is likely that those who have rejected religious morality (i.e., those who were cohabiting) wanted to justify their behavior by saying that there was very little truth in any religion. The conclusion by the authors:

"Instead, particular demographic factors, such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household, seem to explain some of the religious differences among academic scientists... Most important, respondents who were raised in religious homes, especially those raised in homes where religion was important are most likely to be religious at present."

References

1. Leuba, J. 1916. The Belief in God and Immortality: A Psychological, Anthropological, and Statistical Study. Boston: Sherman, French, and Company.
   Leuba, J. 1934. Religious Beliefs of American Scientists. Harper's Magazine 169:291–300.
2. Trow, Martin and Associates. 1969. Carnegie Commission National Survey of Higher Education: Faculty Study [computer file]. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, Survey Research Center [producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
3. Gallup, G. Jr. and D. M. Lindsay. 1999. Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S. Religious Beliefs. Harrisburg, PA, Morehouse Publishing.
   Hadaway, C. K., P. L. Marler, and M. Chaves. 1993. What the Polls Don't Show: A Closer Look at U.S. Church Attendance. American Sociological Review 58: 741–52.
4. Ecklund, E. H. and C. P. Scheitle. 2007. Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics. Social Problems 54: 289–307.
5. Fosse, E. 2010. Why are professor liberal (alternate link)

Source:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html#n04
Source:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html#n04

Mengapa Albert Einstein Tidak Percaya Kepada Tuhan Yang Personal?

I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote¹ on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.² Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."³

No personal God

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."⁴

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."⁵
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."⁶

Einstein on Jesus

Albert Einstein received instruction in both Christianity (at a Roman Catholic school) and Judaism (his family of origin). When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929, Einstein was asked what he thought of Christianity.

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."⁷

So, although Einstein was not a Christian, he had a great respect for Jesus, and recognized that He was an amazing figure in history. Personally having grown up as an atheist in a non-religious home, I initially saw Jesus as a brilliant teacher when I read the gospels for the first time at age 32.

Why no personal God?

So, what was the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God? Einstein recognized the remarkable design and order of the cosmos, but could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's error

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

Conclusion

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.