|
Thanks for the reply Arctic. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your post, I finally have the time to sit down and write a response.
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Good to hear - I have a (somewhat regrettable) habit of getting to heated arguments with theists and religious people (especially Christians and Muslims) when to comes to religion, as in my experience - many simply refuse to discuss religion in a rational, civil and logical manner. Good to find a 'nominal' Christian who's actually willing to put their world-view under the microscope. |
I hear ya. I have been involved in many discussions with what I would consider to be fundamentalists Christians, and to say that logic doesn't apply is an understatement. I don't know how the defacto answer of "because the bible tells us so" can ever be satisfactory, even if you are a firm believer. To me it is no less than brainwash when what I would consider to be an otherwise sane person is able to use that as a valid response in a debate. Unfortunately, I tend to avoid talking religion now with people I know to be of this character, because it's like arguing with a brick wall.
| quote: | | I see where you're coming from here. You look at Jesus' teachings and even existence as generally metaphorical and symbolic. That I can understand, although I don't see how you can continue to call yourself a Catholic, especially when your beliefs are by definition heretical and revolutionary when you contrast them with Roman Catholic (and biblical) teachings. The belief system that you're describing really isn't Catholicism, it's a heavily modified and warped version of Catholicism. In my view - Catholicism has been (and still is - to an extent) generally a pretty vile branch of Christianity. If people in Africa take any notice of what they say - then they currently have a direct hand (and in my view, therefore shoulder some of the responsibility) for uneducated Africans contracting AIDS and later HIV. |
I agree that for much of its "middle" existence, the Catholic church did some pretty vile things. Not to condone their actions, but it was also a time when the Catholic church was also basically the ruler of the western world. There was no clear differentiation between politics and religion and when you have the corruption of politics mixing with the weight of religion, you're going to have some problems.
I would also say that the term "Catholic" in this day and age is almost the same as saying "Protestant." By this I mean there are nearly as many "flavors" of Catholicism as there are protestant denominations. An American Catholic differs from one in Italy or South America. I know many Catholics in the US that have beliefs similar to my own. In fact I would go so far as to say that many of the priests I have gone to or have heard speak talk of Jesus in a metaphorical sense. There is a big push in the Catholic church, at least in the US to get away from any fundamentalism that may remain and focus mainly on the message and not the accuracy of biblical history. There was a time for much of the Catholic church’s existence that the emphasis was reversed, but at least in the more progressive American Catholicism it is now the example and not the physical man that is the center of Catholic teachings.
| quote: | Slightly off topic (but also slightly humorous) - last year the pope took it upon himself to attack Australia's "sense of equality", cautioning that religious freedom shouldn't mean that people don't bow to his almighty will. This year - he informed a conference of Australian bishops in Rome that we really shouldn't be playing sport on Sundays, because after all, the Sabbath is on Sunday, and every human being on earth is also a reverent Catholic.  |
I'll be the first to say that I don't agree with everything the Pope says, including this and his stance on birth control. However, the Pope speaks for one billion Catholics and there are going to be opinions of other followers that he will voice that I will not agree with. However, I will say that if you're going to look at the Pope as the leader of a religious group, him telling his followers to keep Sunday reserved for religious reasons is not that absurd.
| quote: | | I guess it all boils down to me simply not understanding how a rational and generally moral human being could associate with the Vatican. Someone once assumed that I was a Catholic - my immediate reaction was to take it as an insult. Some of the stuff that Rome pulls is downright disgusting - the Vatican should truly be ashamed of itself. |
Well, I don't think all of it is that bad. As I said before, the Pope does say things that I don't entirely agree with. I do think that under John Paul, the church has become much more progressive, and I can only imagine what will happen when a new generation of Pope steps into power after John Paul. The Catholic church I think has improved by leaps and bounds under his watch, and from rumblings I hear from most Catholics world wide, even John Paul has grown a little too "behind the times" for many. The Catholic church is in a state of evolution and I see it going in the right direction, even if there are occasional road bumps in the name of tradition or "moral correctness."
| quote: | | By the way – it's interesting to find a 'Catholic' who isn't completely shocked by Nietzsche and nihilism. I'm certainly not a nihilist, and I think that Nietzsche was, how should I put it – clinically insane, but he did have some amazing ideas none the less. |
I loved reading Nietzsche when I was younger. It expanded my mind both by shocking my core values and by giving me another point of view. Although he was questionably insane (although I think much of the insanity in his writings is mainly due to his sister's "editing") he makes several good arguments. His "God is dead" quote is famous, but I have taken it to mean that God no longer has a place in modern society. This I agree with to a point. Religion is a private thing and should be kept to one self or talked about with willing partners. "God" has no place in government or everyday public workings. I guess you could interpret Nietzsche your own way, but I believe he makes just as many valid points about the social progression of man then any other modern philosopher.
| quote: | | I don't presume to know anything about you nor your life - but I'm noticing a common pattern here. Most religious people were either indoctrinated as children, or have gone back to their (generally monotheistic) faith when they hit a rough patch. Let's face it - it's a nice idea to have a sky daddy up there watching over you, it gives you a certain sense of comfort and safety. So much so - that I want there to be a god. Yes, you heard right, I would very much like there to be a god up there watching over me. However, I simply can't force myself to believe when I've seen no evidence for the existence of one - to me, that's intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. Out of curiosity, do you think that you would be any less moral if you weren't a catholic? The appreciation point is an interesting one. I can appreciate liberal Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism and humanistic Judaism, but that, to me at least - doesn't translate into belief or a need for membership. |
I agree that religion, or "God" is nice in that it does give you an ultimate source of appeal. No matter how bad things get, you always have the option of "praying" to that ultimate divine individual for intervention. In fact I believe that is one of the primary reasons for religion: to have an ultimate means of "help," as well as to help in explaining the unknown.
As far as membership goes, I guess I have two reasons. First, as I said before, I like knowing that I am a part of something "bigger." Something that has been around for 2000 years and has history, art and science behind it. Secondly, it makes me feel good. I feel good when mass is over and I walk outside. It’s hard to describe but I feel refreshed both physically and mentally. I would never say that I have seen God or felt his presence or any of that mumbo-jumbo but I will say that the feeling I get after mass comes as close to a confirmation of divine existence as I can find. (I hope you don't think I'm crazy now  ) Unfortunately, I don't get this feeling just knowing that I'm a Catholic, it comes from me actually practicing what I believe in.
| quote: | I've heard the Catholic Church called many things before - but progressive certainly isn't one of them. 
Aside from their acceptance of evolution (which I would describe as common sense/inevitable rather than particularly progressive), what parts of their doctrine are progressive? |
Well, as I said before their acceptance of science, especially evolution is something that I do not see in many of the other major world-wide religions.
When it comes to stem cell research, I think the church’s feelings agree with their stance on abortion. It is important to note that the church does not condemn the use of all lines of stem cell research, only from fetal stem cells. There is an entirely different branch of stem cell research, derived from adult stem cells that goes unannounced by the media, because it lacks the appeal of the controversy caused by stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses. I urge all of you to look up this line of stem cell development to realize the situation is not as one sided as usually thought.
I also disagree with you on the gay issue in the Catholic church. Catholics have a notoriously bad reputation when it comes to homosexuality, but I'm not sure where it comes from, other than its distant past. Here is a quote from the Catholic Catechism.
| quote: | | The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. |
This basically tells me that although Catholics do not outright favor homosexuality, they do not see it as something that should be discriminated against or something that cannot ultimately prevent someone from "salvation." There is a TON of bad publicity and misquotation or interpretation on Catholic doctrine when it comes to homosexuality, and I believe for the most part, it is media sensationalism. On a personal note, I have a good friend who is openly gay that is his church's choir director and neither the parish or the priest had any reservations in hiring him. I also have two other openly gay friends (yes, they're a couple) that attend mass more regularly than I do.
| quote: | As for the conversion point, I think this is partly related to the strange concept of purgatory. Most, if not all of the fundamentalist protestant denominations run with the (admittedly biblically supported) idea of a heaven and a hell, without the 'limbo' stage of purgatory in the middle. As such, conversion is a major issue for them, as they believe that all non-Christians (In other words, around 67% of the world's population, at the very least) are going to hell. I'm a little sketchy when it comes to Catholic history, although I am looking into it at the moment - but would I be correct to assume that purgatory was introduced at the Vatican II council, and as such - is a rather recent idea? But yeah, rabid preaching and evangelism is extremely irritating to someone like me, and as such I generally avoid people who have a habit of preaching, or if I'm already acquainted with them, I argue the toss with them instead.  |
Purgatory is no longer taught in the Catholic church, or at least in any Catholic setting I have ever been a part of. I have never heard of it spoken of in mass or in "Sunday school." It is for the most part a tradition held on to by older Catholics that is a relic of earlier, more corrupt times. For all intents and purposes, Catholics no longer believe in purgatory. Purgatory stems from before the Protestant reformation and was a major point of contention for Luther. It is an ancient idea no longer seen in modern Catholicism. (Sorry, just wanted to make that point clear)
| quote: | Sorry, that was flippant. Personally I couldn't stand being associated with an organization like the Catholic church - especially if I was a deist, because the vast majority of deists advocate the use of our 'god given reason', to quote Thomas Paine. Judging by their actions - the RCC appears to be against the use of reason and logic.
How do you manage to stomach the stuff that Catholicism preaches? Surely their doctrines outweigh the (rather vague in my opinion) 'general philosophical message' and history of Christianity (which is undoubtedly rather bloody, at certain stages they were completely okay with murdering people like me because they disagreed with them). |
Again, I think there is a lot of faulty ideas of what modern Catholicism is...especially American Catholicism. As I have said, there was a time in the church where it was very corrupt, and until recently it has been slow to change its ancient ideas. However, although the church continues to modernize itself, many of the ideas that made people weary of the Catholic church are no longer issues today. It is difficult for an organization as large as the Catholic church to completely modernize itself in only a span of maybe 100 years (since wide-scale reformations began taking place) but it is even more difficult to shake off opinions held against it for the past 2000 years. Catholicism has changed, especially in America. I would agree that if Catholicism were still the same as it was 100 years ago, I would not find myself a Catholic. However, being a Catholic "insider" I guess I see things differently. The Catholic church is no longer what I would consider to be a fundamentalist power seeking organization and has returned to its roots of emphasizing its message.
| quote: | I see. Would you describe yourself as an IDer? I'm just checking here, because ID has been thoroughly debunked, and as a man of science, it would be, well, most un-scientific to support it.  |
No, I'm definately not an intelligent design advocate. If anything "God" setup some base rules and started the whole thing going, but I don't see "Him" as having a direct hand in the direction of biology. I guess you can say I believe he created the rules of science, and let it go from there. Maybe you could say the rules of science are the physical manifestation of God. 
| quote: | | Would you agree that your belief in god could conceivably be due to your indoctrination into Catholicism as a child - and a subsequent subconscious desire to confirm this belief? I went close to being indoctrinated as well - and by god I wanted god to exist. i looked into the ID arguments, I tried to convince myself that there really was a sky daddy up there looking down on me - but when it comes down to it, complexity really isn't a valid reason to believe in god in my view. |
I guess you could say it did have a part in it, although it’s very hard for me to give you an accurate answer. As I said earlier, I went through a long period where I considered myself atheist or at least agnostic (maybe I still am a little, in a way). During this time I looked at many religions and philosophies, but I was always drawn back to Catholicism. Maybe it was because it was comfortable or not as foreign, but the non-religious beliefs I developed during this maturation fit most closely with Catholicism, and when it came time for me to start practicing regularly again, I did not feel the need to look elsewhere, as I already had and returned to where I started.
| quote: | | Again, agreed. However, that isn't the view of the RCC (correct me if I'm wrong here) and most of the major Protestant churches. From memory, they hold that the bible is in fact the direct word of god, and is completely uncorrupted. The prophets and scribes who compiled the bible were guided by the holy spirit - god ensured that there were no errors. |
It is true that the church believes that the Bible is the "word of God" written through the apostles under the influence of the Holy Spirit. However, the church also gives itself the task of interpreting what is written in the bible. Again from the Catechism "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." This gives the church the ability to look past scientific and historical inaccuracies as allowing them to be interpreted in a context outside of the factual world...if that makes any sense. So although the bible is the word of God, it also needs to be interpreted and not taken literally and so the inaccuracies contained within it can be negated by the ability of the church to interpret those inaccuracies as not meaning actual factual events.
| quote: | | Here's a thorny one for you: If the Christian god exists, and you hold to biblical errancy - then why hasn't he intervened to fix up the mistakes? |
He doesn't need to. The Catholic church has the power to interpret what is written in the bible, and for all cases I can think of, none of these inaccuracies get away from the core message of the bible. I suppose if all of the sudden we started believing the bible tells us to kill and steal, then maybe he'd have to intervene. But when it comes to a scientific fallacy or a cultural relic, it really plays no role in the overall message it contains.
| quote: | | That's probably the best insight you'll get into my position. Based on the evidence I've seen - I have cut out Jesus. I am left with the OT, and by god, the OT is utterly insane. |
I agree, I see the OT as a relic of the ancient church, and more so the carry over from Judaism to Catholicism. It is an important part of the church from a historical standpoint, but taught no where to the degree that the NT is.
| quote: | | Consider the following statement: "Even if Buddha did or did not exist - it's his example that I'm trying to emulate". Now, presume that Buddha was 'more moral ' than Jesus, or that he proposed a better moral and ethical code (which I believe he did). Should you not be trying to emulate Buddha rather than Jesus? |
I guess this would be a good time to fill you in on another tenant of my religious philosophy. That is, you don't have to be Catholic or even "Christian" to be "saved" (if that possibility exists). You merely have to be a good person. I think Buddhism is a perfectly fine way of living in the way Jesus did, and it really makes no matter if you're worshipping him or Buddha, as long as you live in the manner I talked about before. What religion you profess to (or to none at all) to me has no relevancy, it is merely how you live your life. If you chose to do so as a Buddhist or Catholic or Atheist, in the end it makes no difference. Catholicism was just the way I chose to make sure I was continuing on this path, after my stint as an atheist/agnostic.
| quote: | | One last thing before I head off. Do you think that you could behave in an ethical fashion without Catholicism? Do you really like the history that much? Do you consider it essential to your life? |
No, I don't think I would change if I denounced Catholicism. I did not become an amoral person when I was not a practicing Catholic. Religion just makes me feel good about myself, among the other things I listed above. I do not think religion is mandatory for a person to live a moral life, although I do think in some situations it does help.
|
