• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

I converted to Catholicism after many years deep in the drug culture, AMA

If you want to talk about Islam, start your own thread. This thread is about Catholicism m8. :)

SKL, what appeals to you about Catholicism over Protestantism?

No fan of Luther?

What appeals to me is two things: historical continuity, which, in Catholicism, reaches back to "time immemorial." Protestantism was a historical reaction to certain unfortunate trends in Christian society at the time, but in it's justified reaction to these abuses, went to great excess by not treating the wound, but by amputating the limb. This is a famous cartoon from the leadup to the American Civil War that I think is very applicable:



Instead of providing a justified critique of certain excesses of the Church at the time, Protestantism severed it's connection with Christian history, and, more importantly, made every man, or at least every minister of the Gospel, a final interpretor of history and of Scripture, i.e. his own pope. The fruits of this are obvious: the thousands of Protestant denominations with wildly variegated theologies. Further iterations, in almost every generation, of Protestanism, have proved to create only more fractures in terms of both doctrine and community. Which is not to say there are not differences with in the Church, but this brings us to the second question, much connected with that of historical continuity, that of authority. Protestantism urges us to develop our own understanding of theology and of Christian history by virtue of our own interpretations of Scripture, but this necessarily leads us to chaos. What Catholicism offers us is an "unbroken chain," from time immemorial to the present day, about how we interpret the Bible and history. Has this developed over time? Absolutely. But as I quoted Cardinal Newman before, "to become deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." By contradiction, to unmoor oneself from history is to become Protestant, functionally at least, even if not in name. I think it the height of arrogance to suppose that we, our our own interpretation of Scripture and ecclesiastical history within our lifetimes, is equivalent to the two millenia of history which have lead to the formation of the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) churches (which John Paul II called "two lungs" breathing in the same body: "the body of Christ," by which name the Church has always been called, I Cor 12:27, etc.)

-=SS-= said:
I agree with all of this. Though I don't belong to any faith as I follow my own moral code and intuition, I do find resonance with principles in Christianity (and other faiths). To think that thousands of years of observation of human behavior, at times when there was no TV or anything else besides each other and a bit of alcohol, which gave rise to moral principles in modern religions, can simply be discarded in the space of a couple of decades is arrogance of the highest order. All we did was substitute our faith in religion for faith in science, science that is based primarily on reductionist and materialist principles.. which automatically did away with the idea of any non-local or invisible elements in our existence, which IMO was a big mistake.

This guy gets it, even if he doesn't subscribe to my specific beliefs. Especially with regard to Protestantism. We don't just get to interpret history (or Scripture passed down to us through history) as we want to ...

As Chesterton said,

But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to understand. I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob. It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad. Those who urge against tradition that men in the past were ignorant may go and urge it at the Carlton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant. It will not do for us. If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.

More later, with the next posts, give me some time :) ... been quite busy lately and want to give these questions a little time. I realize my answers may have raised more questions than they have settled and I'm open to engaging that too.
 
Last edited:
One thing I'm wondering about is, if you don't believe god is "an old man in the sky with a beard", why do you still use the capitalized (and gendered) Him? Is it just out of ritual/tradition or do you have some deeper reason for it? I suppose I have the same question about the other traditionally capitalized words (God, Church, etc), but primarily about "Him/He".

"Living the truth of God as Jesus did" is impossible, as Jesus was the truth of God personified

I can only back this up with feelings of course, but I always thought it made more sense, after reading the NT, that Jesus was trying to say, look, you CAN be like me, I'm doing it, so can you. Rather than saying, no one can be as perfect as me but you can try. Also the idea that Jesus, as a human, was perfect always felt like a device put in place after he had been deified within the hundred or hundreds of years between his actual life and when the NT books were written. A great man, yes, a great example, but a man even so.

I think the cultural happenings of the time during which the books were written and the adoption of Catholicism is crucial to take into account. Rome was in trouble because Christianity was catching on and they were losing their hold over the population. In adopting this new religion, it seems to me their goal was certainly, at least in part of not in total, to gain control over the population again. Besides that, it had already been hundreds of years since Jesus's life when these things we take as gospel were actually written. How could there be a fully accurate account of what actually went down, especially given the ultimate motive of adopting the religion in the first place? And what is the reason for accepting some writing and discarding others, especially when some have a pretty different implication (for example, the gnostic books, which were written closer to his life)?

Mary, his mother, also lead a blameless life, from her immaculate conception onwards, was also without sin

Does this mean that you believe in the idea of sex as a sin? And that conception that is non-immaculate is a sinful thing?

This is why we need the sacraments, baptism (to wash away our sins prior to joining the Church), confession/reconciliation (to reconcile, with our honest contrition, our sins with God), and, above all, the Eucharist, which is to impart God's grace into our persons and lives (I'm sure that I will speak more on this later.)

Why should a ritualized object or action be necessary for these things? Or is the ritual just the means of connecting to that spiritual idea (of reconciling, washing away previous sin, etc)?

I think it the height of arrogance to suppose that we, our our own interpretation of Scripture and ecclesiastical history within our lifetimes, is equivalent to the two millenia of history which have lead to the formation of the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) churches (which John Paul II called "two lungs" breathing in the same body.)

I always thought of it as more of a realization that there was corruption in that 2000 years of history of the formation of the Catholic church, and an attempt to move away from that and re-establish the core of what Christianity was meant to be by Jesus. The good Protestant churches I've been a part of (which include Methodist which I was raised as as well as Prebyterian) emphasize the love and service elements of the religion and put less focus on the ritual and sin elements which I see as social control devices (the hard emphasis on sin and unworthiness being the core of that).
 
The world would be a much better place without catholicism. And christianity in general. But especially catholicism.
 
I would be interested in what Catholics, or traditional Christians in general, think of the Essene Gospel.

http://home.netcom.com/~mokeeffe/AquarianGospel1-15.htm

When it comes to Christianity I've always liked Essenism/Gnosticism/Catharism more. It seems more uncorrupted by politics and human matters in general and like it would be closer to the pure teachings of Christ.


"2) And Jesus greatly loved the Vedic hymns and the Avesta; but more than all he loved to read the Psalms of David and the pungent words of Solomon.
3) The Jewish books of prophecy were his delight; and when he reached his seventh year he needed not the books to read, for he had fixed in memory every word.

5) And Jesus stood before the guests and said,
I had a dream, and in my dream I stood before a sea, upon a sandy beach.
6) The waves upon the sea were high; a storm was raging on the deep.
7) Someone above gave me a wand. I took the wand and touched the sand, and every grain of sand became a living thing; the beach was all a mass of beauty and of song.
8 ) I touched the waters at my feet, and they were changed to trees, and flowers, and singing birds, and every thing was praising God.
9) And someone spoke, I did not see the one who spoke, I heard the voice, which said,
There is no death."

15) Joachim said,
My son, today you pass the seventh milestone of your way of life, for you are seven years of age, and we will give to you, as a remembrance of this day, whatever you desire; choose that which will afford you most delight.
16) And Jesus said,
I do not want a gift, for I am satisfied. If I could make a multitude of children glad upon this day I would be greatly pleased.
17) Now, there are many hungry boys and girls in Nazareth who would be pleased to eat with us this feast and share with us the pleasures of this day.
18 ) The richest gift that you can give to me is your permission to go out and find these needy ones and bring them here that they may feast with us.
 
Last edited:
Why do you feel the need to identify as a Catholic, and not just a follower, student, practitioner of the Bible/ Jesus' teachings?
 
The world would be a much better place without catholicism. And christianity in general. But especially catholicism.

A most meaningful contribution to the thread ... and, to the Catholic, a sign of contradiction, see above.

Why do you feel the need to identify as a Catholic, and not just a follower, student, practitioner of the Bible/ Jesus' teachings?

This is a pretty easy one for me. The teachings of Christ and the Scriptures are of course laudable and indeed, taken in totality, the most perfect moral system devised, in fact this perfection of morality is to me one of the proofs of it's divinity; however, this doesn't mean that we can just take the words that we approve of and run with it.

II Peter 1:20 said:
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

Historical-critical approaches to Scripture are not unimportant and they do give us important background and context, but what is important to the Catholic, and what draws me to the Church perhaps more than anything else, is as I've said above, historical continuity. In the Church Fathers all the way to the present day I can draw upon a community of people of faith who sustained a living relationship with Scripture, Tradition, and Sacraments.

The individualistic, subjectivist, Protestant tendency to interpret Scripture with the hermeneutic of "what does it mean to me?" feels presumptuous in the extreme; if we agree that these teachings and writings are of great importance, who are we to, ourselves, interpret them as we see fit? Every man is not his own Pope, and ever reader of Scripture does not have access to the totality of Tradition or context within which to interpret this Scripture. This is one of the great functions of the Church on Earth.

Since some of the questions are in a similar vein, the next post I'll answer is

Foreigner said:
What I don't get about Catholicism and Christianity in general is the notion that anyone, whether a Priest, Bishop, or Pope, can interpret God's will on societal levels.

First, since this will probably come up, the Church is a hierarchical organization and the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) is endowed specifically with the charism (spiritual gift) of infallability although this is often misunderstood, it does not mean that the Pope cannot sin or that every word that he says must needs be true, but rather that when he is speaking, ex cathedra, i.e. in solemn and official pronunciation of doctrine, that he, by the Grace of God, cannot err.

What I am talking about is emphatically not about blindly trusting leaders, but immersing oneself in history, and seeing in that history not only traditions which ought not to be disturbed but a line of authority that reaches out to our present day. A great deal of our modern problems stem from a lack of this authority, outside of the authority of the State enforced by violence. We no longer share a common spiritual, communal, ethnic or otherwise values, we're increasingly atomised as individuals. This is part of the whole Modernist project, but standing in opposition to this is the traditions of the Church and other value-systems (if we are to go outside the Church we could make mention of Islam and even Confucianism), in that we admit that there is something above us and who can guide us in our understanding of the world, not because of coercion by violence (although, as you will point out below, that has been part of the process in the past), but because of our acceptance, our faith in a system of hierarchy and of interpretation of spiritual and ecclesiastical history. It provides a frame of reference for interpreting the spiritual world as laid forth in Scripture and Tradition, which otherwise is fairly impossible to do ... look at the massive proliferation of Protestant sects, or even more so, the degeneration of Modernist (or, "liberal") Christianity into what is called by some moralistic therapeutic deism.

This is also a response relevant to
Xorkoth said:
The good Protestant churches I've been a part of (which include Methodist which I was raised as as well as Prebyterian) emphasize the love and service elements of the religion and put less focus on the ritual and sin elements which I see as social control devices (the hard emphasis on sin and unworthiness being the core of that).

Moralistic therapeutic deism is described thus:
1. A God exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

God as a feel-good moralist, and as a Heavenly butler to answer one's prayers, this is pretty much what we're talking about. We see this in various places, in the "blab it and grab it" prosperity gospel ("name it and claim it", "word of faith," &c.) Pentecostal sects and their more telegenic proteges like Joel Osteen, as well as in those "mainline" churches which become more venues for social action and leftist politics than places to preach redemption and the cross.

And it is redemption and the cross which in today's society is the great sign of contradiction. People do not want to be told they are sinful or that their sins are a problem with very real spiritual consequences for both themselves and for society in general. People do not want to hear that society's problems today are a result of spiritual decay. People do not want to hear that they need spiritual redemption. And yet it is the position of the believing Christian, not only the Catholic, position that all of these things are true. The moralistic therapeutic deist, however, doesn't dwell on these issues, but would rather seek an atomised spirituality which prioritizes his own needs, happiness, and ideals of good will towards others (which is not to be degraded, but is only a part of the whole package.)

A sermon, made to converts to Catholicism, on "moralistic therapeutic deism," is here.

I mean, we can all agree upon certain laws (whether we agree they are also "sins" or not), such as murder, etc... but there is a lot more subjective material in there than just the obvious universal laws (laws, which by the way, were first codified by Hammurabi of ancient Bablyonia and Sumer). I'm thinking now of the times of the Inquisition, which I only bring up for one purpose. Modern people look at this period as a time when corrupt religion was stamping out its rivals, but I do believe that there were also people in power who genuinely believed they were saving souls by purifying people by the flame, or torturing them; but again, I ask, how can common man determine God's will, and therefore carry out reward or punishment based on that?

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Kill them all, God will know His own, is what history records a certain abbot as having proclaimed before the massacre of the town of Béziers, a stronghold of practicioners of the Albigensian heresy, in 1209. Centuries later, the "Spanish Inquisition" of much ill repute took place, and certainly had it's excesses, but some of these are exaggerated as la leyenda negra, the Black Legend, which was spread by Spain's religious and political opponents mainly in the English speaking world. This brings us to another point - in terms of the administration of justice at the time, the Inquisition was actually relatively lenient, and the massacre of the Albigensians in line with contemporary geopolitics. Things have to understood in context. The church, taken as a whole, is neither infallabile (incapable of being wrong) nor impeccable (incapable of sinning.) The human element of the church, as it is called in Catholicism, is liable or even prone to both. Much of what was done in God's name in those days, and these days too, no matter how God is invoked, has been baleful ... and, keep in mind, in the time period we're referencing, not even a loaf of bread would be made without signing the cross over it, religion or at least popular piety and religious language was a part of every day life. We can't take these actions to represent the Church, as a spiritual entity, as a whole, especially taking into account that various parts of the human element of the church, up to and including the Pope (who, remember, is infallable only when speaking in particular circumstances on points of religious doctrine, and is never impeccable), were also political entities of equal or greater power to the kinghdoms and other powers which made up our pre-Bismarckian/pre-nation-state system. Some of these actions were about political expediency (which in turn, in chaotic days, i.e. when the Church was threatened by Albigensian/Cathar/various gnostic heresies and then by the Protestant revolt, were necessary to preserve the Faith), some were part of corruption of the human part of the Church. The Catholic church has a long and complicated history, as does the Middle East, Europe and the rest of the world where the Church has established itself. The complication is because as I've spoken about before, it is not just about one soul's subjective ideas, but about a system of salvation for all people

It is not the place of common man to take out God's judgment on others, but it is the place of the Church hierarchy to maintain order within the Church and within the social and moral lives of the faithful. Today, that mission is in a very different context than it was in the Middle Ages, but the mission is the same, to preserve and protect Holy Tradtion and the message and teachings of Christ and His Church.

Likewise, and I know this is taking material from elsewhere, how can you be sure you're carrying out God's will and not just your own selfish ego? There seems to be no built-in mechanism in all of Christianity that prevents this fatal error from happening.

The Tradition and Hierarchy of the Catholic Church are exactly this built-in mechanism, and this is what drew me away finally and unequivocally from Protestantism.

I mean, in the United States, there are many Christians against meditation and yoga because they seriously believe if they let down their guard even for a second, the devil will get in; there's also this creepy American Jesus who loves you more than anything but secretly hates you and wants you to suffer if you don't do what he says. If there's a fear of questioning the system built into the system, then how can its proponents be sure they are even relating to God? I know there is the overriding view that humanity is "outside" of God, due to our sin in the garden. So then how can we look to Priests, Bishops, and the Pope to be the middle-men messengers for us, when they too are part of the same sinful view? In short, if we're all blind, then how can the blind lead the blind to salvation?

No priest nor even the Pope will tell you he is sinless, he is more likely to refer himself as Paul did to Timothy, as "the chief of sinners." The blind do lead the blind, but by the Grace of God and the Sacraments, people are guided to God. Different people have different missions along the way, thus priests, bishops, Popes, religious brothers and sisters, and so forth.

Foreigner, I'll deal more with your questions about Greek and Roman science (the persecution of Hypatia?), although here I'd have to point out, and will in the later post, the role of the Church in preserving the same; furthermore, the liturgy, suffering, and, of course, as I knew would come up, transubstantiation, in a later post, as it is getting late and I am getting tired.

I would like to take the time to point out, again, that I am a great sinner, and have no business judging anyone's morality. I have spent a lot of time with my nose in a lot of books about theology and history but that makes no moral exemplar, I'm an alcoholic, a generally unpleasant person, a covetous, lazy individual with a lot of issues and who's done a lot of wrong to a lot of people, a sometime drug addict and sometime crook who by the Grace of God found something to hold onto in the Catholic Church, our only connection 2,000 years back to the past and the only institution to go on for so long and with such continuity. In our modern world I felt cast aside, atomised, utterly alone, I tried other spiritual systems to connect myself to God or their conception of God or some other spiritual higher power, even in some of those systems that being something as vague as the Self, or the Universe, but all that made sense was the faith of my forefathers, the faith of so many saints and so many scientists, the faith of Aquinas, who is so logical that moderns can't understand him, the faith of Francis, who was such a warrior for social justice that social justice warriors can't hear half of what he has to say, and so many more. The great Catholic doctrine of the communion of saints holds that we, those in Heaven, and even those in Purgatory are united spiritually (thus we may pray to, or rather through, the Saints, and pray for the souls in Purgatory), just as much as we are with one another.

Hebrews 12:1 said:
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us ...

... this is how I am finding straight to endure the race in our crazy world of today. (@noone1, promise to address your question about modern vs. ancient degeneracy in another post, but most of my answer has to do with media and reach/scope of popular culture.)

Enjoying our dialogue so far.

I will try to respond to everyone but it may be days late or out of order. Please feel free to ask any questions or engage me in anything, here or via PM. As I've said I am very willing to talk about the Catholic position on various social issues but don't want to get drawn in to any lengthy dialogues about them here, maybe in another thread, but here I think we're doing best discussing history and theology.

Thanks to all who turned in and are participating.
 
A quick one:

Xorkoth said:
One thing I'm wondering about is, if you don't believe god is "an old man in the sky with a beard", why do you still use the capitalized (and gendered) Him? Is it just out of ritual/tradition or do you have some deeper reason for it? I suppose I have the same question about the other traditionally capitalized words (God, Church, etc), but primarily about "Him/He".

First, with regards to the masculine gender of the term, I do not believe God is ontologically male, or that He has a gender, specifically; this is grammatical tradition. God is usually referred to as masculine, and as Father, but you will find occasional passages in Scripture in which feminine metaphors are used for Him. The gendered pronoun is much more an artefact of grammar than anything relevant to modern identity politics. God (and, indeed, the angels of heaven; presumably, the resurrected dead, but this is not made clear), is pure Spirit, and although He is a person, He is not a person in the human sense and not being a human being He has no gender. Here we're already getting into the idea of apothatic, or negative theology, i.e. developing a concept of God through statements about God that are false i.e., God does not exist ... in the sense that we exist, while at the same time God does not not exist, as He has personality and agency. God is not in space in time, God is not good or evil (or rather, good and evil derive from God), God is no created (but rather the Creator of all things, the prime mover.)

The traditional capitalized words I use just because it is the traditional way to use them to refer to the divine. It's meant as a mark of respect, but certainly not the most important thing in the world.
 
as to the 'sign of contradiction', am i understanding that is right where, if your faith is challenged by someone else, it strengthens your resolve to follow it. basically if you receive criticism for your beliefs then it validates your view that you should be in the world but not of the world.

is it really worth dismissing everything that doesn't align with your current belief system? i understand blanket statements like "the world would be better off without catholicism" are not worth giving any thought to, but do you ever find new information in regards to your relationship to god that doesn't fit in your paradigm, and listen to it?
 
Interesting Thread!

You said that you prefer the latin mass, right? Do you mean that in the sense that every mass should be held in latin? I mean I could (kind of) understand if you want to go to a latin mass every once in a while, because you want to honor the tradition and maybe find it aesthetically pleasing. But isn't it rather important to understand what the priest has to tell you? What do you gain exactly that is worth trading it in for the understanding of what is spoken about in mass? I assume you are not fluent in latin, are you?
Does it bother you that the tradition of the latin mass has a lot to do with keeping people unable to question the content or do you disagree with that interpretation?

Another question that goes to the core of christian theology, if you don't mind I'd like to hear your take on it: There is a german (protestant) theologian, Horst Gorski, who recently has been catching a lot of heat for going against dogma and claiming that Jesus death on the cross was not actually necessary in order for god to forgive the people for their sins. (And this guy is not a fringe lunatic, he is president of the Church Office of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany and the vicepresident of the Church Office of the Evangelical Church in Germany.)
If god had decided that he wanted to forgive mankind, why couldn't he have just done it? What kind of god requires that blood be shed (even if it's "only" his own/his sons) when he has already made up his mind and has come to the conclusion that he wants to forgive the people?


SKL said:
We don't just get to interpret history (or Scripture passed down to us through history) as we want to ...

Do you mean we don't get to interpret history at all? Because the way I understand it, if you don't interpret "as you want to" (= making your own conclusions, claiming the right to call bullshit, if something doesn't make sense to you, and being aware that the knowledge that has been accumulated by mankind up until now puts you in a position where it might be possible to understand things that couldn't be understood before) you're not interpreting anything, but following someone elses interpretation.

Edit: What is your position on the good friday prayer for the jews?
 
Last edited:
Do you believe in heaven and hell, and eternal damnation or bliss based on acceptance of Jesus and confessing sins, SKL? That's a concept I have never been able to get behind; to me it looks exactly like a social control mechanism and the idea that God would create that setup (why, for kicks?) really never jived with me at all. So I'm curious about your thoughts on it.
 
What I cannot understand about Catholicism and on a wider scale religion is the need to determine things as sinful when they do not effect others. For example, I believe in the inherent right for one to commit suicide, or to have an abortion, or to do drugs, or to have whatever sexuality one desires, because these things do not effect anyone except the individual taking part in them. Murder, rape, infidelity... these things effect others, and so obviously I can agree that they're wrong and sinful... but why are any of the individual-centric sins even sins in the first place? Do people truly believe God wants them to force their​ will upon others? To me, that sounds all to similar to murder, rape, and all the other sins of harming others. Did God not give us free will because he wants us to have to choose to follow his teachings and not to be forced to follow them?

God did give us free will. Without it, life would be rather meaningless (there was a thread in this forum that I skimmed recently on this subject.) This touches on the idea of predestination, which is more of an issue in, e.g., Calvinistic thought (or it's Catholic equivalent, Jansenism, deemed a heresy), which, in it's deviant formulation, holds that we lack free will and our actions and our salvation are predetermined before our birth; the authentic doctrine is more along the lines of this: we have our free will, but God, being outside of space and time (see my first post here), knows beforehand how we will exercise it. This does not diminish the fact that we have choices to make and we will be judged for it. God did not create us as automatons or puppets but as wholly independent moral agents, but this does not diminish the fact that He has established standards of right and wrong (as the omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator, His will is, eo ipso, the moral standard.) We have the ability to choose or reject God and His teachings, and may exercise it as we see fit, but we must face the eternal consequences. Free will does not mean the ability to anything we please without recompense. If it were so, how would we determine in any objective sense what is wrong and what is right?

As far as the "individual-centric" sins, as far as abortion goes, the only meaningful question is "when does human life begin?" and both Scripture and science seem to agree that it begins at, or soon after, conception. Suicide, as the saying goes, is a "permanent solution to a temporary problem," and in theological terms, represents giving up hope in God's plan for one's life, and taking matters into one's own hands, instead of putting one's trust in the Almighty, it is a sort of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," which is called the unpardonable sin, cf. Luke 12:10 and others, which, in context, was attributing the miracles of Christ to the devil, but, by extension, could mean rejecting God's jurisdiction over one's life, and in favor if it receiving something else, however, the Catechism of the Catholic church states,

CCC 3§2(2) said:
2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

Honestly, most cases of suicide would fall under the section that is in bold above, and are subject to God's forgiveness. A sort of wilfull exit to the world coupled with a wilful rejection of God's agency in one's life and the possibility of salvation, might be a different matter altogether. The specifics are mysteries known only to God, however. But as has been said here, our body is a temple, and our lives are guided by God, it is indeed a sort of blasphemy to cut them short.

As far as drug use goes, let's look again at the Catechism, at 2291, first in the Latin, because I see some issues in the standard English translation:

Stupefactivorum medicamentorum usus gravissimas infligit valetudini et vitae humanae destructiones. Extra indicationes stricte therapeuticas, gravis est culpa. Clandestina stupefactivorum medicamentorum productio et mercatura operationes sunt scandalosae; cooperationem constituunt directam, quoniam ad usus legi morali incitant graviter contrarios.

The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Stupefactivorum mediacmentorum is translated rather inadequately in the English to "drugs," the better translation is rather obvious even if you don't have any Latin. "Stupefying," or "intoxicating" drugs, the rest of it discusses use or production without strictly therapeutic purpose, I think we can safely interpret this in the broadest possible sense despite the language (stricte), and even in a harm reduction sense (OST, for instance), but certainly to include the positive use of drugs in terms of therapy and personal growth, of course not to include the soi disant "spiritual" use of drugs to contact spiritual entities, etc., which in spiritual terms is extremely dangerous (viz. the danger of possession by malevolent preternatural forces, something which I'll be willing to discuss here also in terms of experiences of acquaintances of mine in the drug scene), see the use of the word φαρμακεία (pharmakeia, from which our "pharmacy," etc.) in Rev. 18:23, usually translated as "sorcery," but better as "divination through potions," which sound an awful lot like ayahuasca. But anyways, here in the CCC, what's really being condemned here is senseless hedonism, which goes together with the condemnation of senseless hedonism at the cost of the destruction of the body elsewhere. Clandestine manufacture of drugs being "scandalous" is in reference to their use and distribution outside of appropraite grounds, and in terms of the promotion of sin (i.e., scandal), that is to say, their manufacture and distribution simply to profit from people's addiction and hedonism.

(This is as good a point as any to point out that I am a seriously problematic alcoholic, and have in the past had serious issues with addiction to ther drugs, and this is both a spiritual and physical disease of mine but also a great sin, which requires both a spiritual and physical cure, both of which I aspire to.)

What I'm really wanting to know is, where in God's teachings does it give man the right to effect another man's life? Did Jesus preach homophobia (legit question, is there anything about that in the new testament)? Is it truly necessary to try and force one's will upon others in order to be a true Christian?

In the Gospel of Matthew (19:3), discussing marriage, Jesus says: "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female” Paul, more well-known, in Romans 1, states: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another..."

Homophobia is a problematic term, there is no fear (phobia) in the Christian interpretation of same sex affection, rather, it is seen as propensio objective inordinata, that is, "intrinsically disordered," as the official translation has it, but better, "objectively contrary to the natural order," which points to the fact that the natural purpose of sexual intercourse is for procreation, not recreation. Only since the "Sexual Revolution" has it been seen in the mainstream as any other way. Of course, homosexuality has existed long before this, in varying contexts and with varying degrees of social acceptance.

Keep in mind that homosexuality, as an inclination or "orientation," that is, same-sex attraction, or as a desire, is not a sin, it is a challenge given to some (such as is the predisposition to alcoholism or drug addiction), but homosexual acts are seen as contrary to the natural order, and the identification with "gay" culture in the promotion of these acts is considered an occasion to scandal, that is, the promotion of sin, particularly with regards to the young, "... but he that shall scandalize (i.e., lead into sin) one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Mt. 18:6)

The Catechism on homosexuality:

CCC 2357 et seq. said:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

However, this does not change the fact that homosexuality is in this sense seen as a deviation from God's plan for the dignified use of human sexuality, which is not for mere pleasure, but for the achievement of a higher goal, i.e. one of God's very first commandments to mankind, "be fruitful and multiply." John Paul II promulgated some very deep teachings on the theology of the body, and, incidentally, on the dignity and vocation of women.

I realize this touches on topics of heavy debate, and so I don't want anything more than an explanation for what gives Christians the right to effect their fellow man. I just want to know where in God's teachings it says to effect others, to force your will upon others, when so many major sins are sins because they effect others.

Nowhere is it stated to force one's will upon others. This gets into the territory of the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, Luke 18:9 et seq.

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Sexual sins are not more grave than other sins, but they are more talked about as we are, as a society, very preoccupied with sex. We, as Paul says, have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sin cannot be legislated against, although efforts are made in the interests of a liveable civil society, but rather, approached with Christian love and understanding and evangelism.

One thing I'm wondering about is, if you don't believe god is "an old man in the sky with a beard", why do you still use the capitalized (and gendered) Him? Is it just out of ritual/tradition or do you have some deeper reason for it? I suppose I have the same question about the other traditionally capitalized words (God, Church, etc), but primarily about "Him/He".

God is not ontologically male, He is beyond male, female, or any other human category. The use of the capitalized & gendered pronoun is only traditional.

I can only back this up with feelings of course, but I always thought it made more sense, after reading the NT, that Jesus was trying to say, look, you CAN be like me, I'm doing it, so can you. Rather than saying, no one can be as perfect as me but you can try. Also the idea that Jesus, as a human, was perfect always felt like a device put in place after he had been deified within the hundred or hundreds of years between his actual life and when the NT books were written. A great man, yes, a great example, but a man even so.

We are called to perfection (Matthew 5:48, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,") Christ was perfect, thus this is our goal, but we inevitably fall short, thus the need for salvation.

Not believing, of course, in the divinity of Christ, one sees him only as "a great man," or as the Muslims and some New Age types believe, the final prophet, or such, but the Church teaches the incarnation, which I will be glad to address somewhat later, but it's getting late and my time at the moment is limited ...

I think the cultural happenings of the time during which the books were written and the adoption of Catholicism is crucial to take into account. Rome was in trouble because Christianity was catching on and they were losing their hold over the population. In adopting this new religion, it seems to me their goal was certainly, at least in part of not in total, to gain control over the population again.

Christianity in Rome was, before it's official acceptance, wholly a persecuted outsider movement, although it began to gain considerable ground. Constantine's acceptance of Christianity (incidentally, he was only baptized on his death-bed, which would seem to indicate that he truly believed it would benefit him in the afterlife, versus it being only politically expedient) was according to tradition related to divine intervention at the Bridge of Milvia, but even if this is not believed, came from the gradual ascent of Christianity over Roman Paganism as it better suited the spiritual needs of the people at this time. St Augustine, almost contemporary, wrote an entire lengthy book (The City of God) on these quite complex questions.

Besides that, it had already been hundreds of years since Jesus's life when these things we take as gospel were actually written. How could there be a fully accurate account of what actually went down, especially given the ultimate motive of adopting the religion in the first place? And what is the reason for accepting some writing and discarding others, especially when some have a pretty different implication (for example, the gnostic books, which were written closer to his life)?

Will address this later and in greater detail as it is a question which deserves more attention and I don't have time now.

Does this mean that you believe in the idea of sex as a sin? And that conception that is non-immaculate is a sinful thing?

Sex, as I've mentioned above, directed towards it's intended purpose, is no sin but rather a beautiful thing and a gift of God. The immaculate conception as a technical theological term refers to the idea that by God's grace the taint of original sin was not passed on to Mary; afterwards, she is by Church doctrine held to have lived a blameless life, thus to have been an appropriate vessel for the birth of Christ. It does not refer per se to sexuality.

Why should a ritualized object or action be necessary for these things? Or is the ritual just the means of connecting to that spiritual idea (of reconciling, washing away previous sin, etc)?

Also will address later when I have more time, along with the balance of @Foreigner's questions and the ones raised later in this thread. Also @tokezu's questions especially about the usus antiquior or the Latin Mass, and several other questions about the liturgy through the centuries and the spiritual importance of liturgy and sacraments ... incredibly important questions, and I want to do them justice.

More later,
SKL.
 
Last edited:
This is a pretty easy one for me. The teachings of Christ and the Scriptures are of course laudable and indeed, taken in totality, the most perfect moral system devised, in fact this perfection of morality is to me one of the proofs of it's divinity; however, this doesn't mean that we can just take the words that we approve of and run with it.


God did give us free will. Without it, life would be rather meaningless (there was a thread in this forum that I skimmed recently on this subject.) This touches on the idea of predestination, which is more of an issue in, e.g., Calvinistic thought (or it's Catholic equivalent, Jansenism, deemed a heresy), which, in it's deviant formulation, holds that we lack free will and our actions and our salvation are predetermined before our birth; the authentic doctrine is more along the lines of this: we have our free will, but God, being outside of space and time (see my first post here), knows beforehand how we will exercise it. This does not diminish the fact that we have choices to make and we will be judged for it. God did not create us as automatons or puppets but as wholly independent moral agents, but this does not diminish the fact that He has established standards of right and wrong (as the omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator, His will is, eo ipso, the moral standard.) We have the ability to choose or reject God and His teachings, and may exercise it as we see fit, but we must face the eternal consequences. Free will does not mean the ability to anything we please without recompense. If it were so, how would we determine in any objective sense what is wrong and what is right?

How do you explain the Book of Job if Catholicism is "perfection of morality" and God's will is the moral standard?

I am not well informed on the bible, but as I understand it the Book of Job is about an extremely pious individual who God inflicts serious suffering upon in order to prove a point to the devil. Assuming I am not mistaken it is hard to see how causing a good person to suffer in order to prove a point is perfect morality.

Doesn't the bible also endorse slavery, or at least fail to condemn it? Again, not seeing the perfect morality thing here.

Also, safe sex by consenting adults hurts nobody. What kind of moral system would condemn people to eternal suffering for engaging in activity which hurts nobody? You say sex isn't about hedonism, it is about reproduction, but why? Why can't it be about both? Safe consensual sex does not stop anyone else from procreating. It certainly seems like an arbitrary thing to condemn people over to me.

I don't think you could outline a coherent metaphysics where omniscience is possible but free will exists. Saying "well he exists outside of space and time" is not even close to a sufficient explanation of foreknowledge, let alone omniscience. One might think that existing outside of space and time may well give a being less insight into what goes on inside it, not more.

Can you offer a better explanation of how God is omniscient and free will exists than this? Just saying "well he exists outside of space and time" doesn't actually explain a single thing. An entity knowing what decisions we will make implies that we can only make the decisions that we do, which is antithetical to free will.

Suicide, as the saying goes, is a "permanent solution to a temporary problem," and in theological terms, represents giving up hope in God's plan for one's life, and taking matters into one's own hands, instead of putting one's trust in the Almighty, it is a sort of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," which is called the unpardonable sin

Doesn't the fact that the unpardonable sin is a refusal to adhere to "God's plan" seem incredibly arrogant to you?

One question I have always had about Abrahamic religions in general has to do with compulsory Church/Synagogue/Mosque attendance. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being have such an ego that it required all its followers to build monuments to them and spend a considerable portion of their lives congregating in these monuments and talking about how great said omnipotent and omniscient being is?

Keep in mind that homosexuality, as an inclination or "orientation," that is, same-sex attraction, or as a desire, is not a sin, it is a challenge given to some (such as is the predisposition to alcoholism or drug addiction)

Why does God give some people these challenges and not others? It doesn't seem like perfect morality to arbitrarily make salvation more difficult for some people than others.
 
Last edited:
SKL, you mentioned the Self earlier. Did you dabble in Buddhism, Hinduism, or both? What did you not understand about the Self?
 
^ I don't think he is coming back.

Unfortunately, I tend to find many religious people disappear quite quickly once you start asking difficult philosophical questions about their doctrine.
 
Do you believe in heaven and hell, and eternal damnation or bliss based on acceptance of Jesus and confessing sins, SKL? That's a concept I have never been able to get behind; to me it looks exactly like a social control mechanism and the idea that God would create that setup (why, for kicks?) really never jived with me at all. So I'm curious about your thoughts on it.

Hey Xorkoth, I hope all is well with you and yours. :)

Listen to the first segment of this podcast for some thoughts on your inquiry:
http://donjohnsonministries.org/on-hell-and-how-to-avoid-it/
 
No I didn't leave/forget about this thread just have been preoccupied with other things. I'll post some more tonight but I'm at work now.
 
Long overdue:

as to the 'sign of contradiction', am i understanding that is right where, if your faith is challenged by someone else, it strengthens your resolve to follow it. basically if you receive criticism for your beliefs then it validates your view that you should be in the world but not of the world.

is it really worth dismissing everything that doesn't align with your current belief system? i understand blanket statements like "the world would be better off without catholicism" are not worth giving any thought to, but do you ever find new information in regards to your relationship to god that doesn't fit in your paradigm, and listen to it?

Part of the reason that I converted to Catholicism as I believe I discussed supra has to deal with questions of authority, and part of being Catholic is submitting to the authority of the Church. Part of the problem with Protestantism, New Age "spirituality," the modern trend of being "spiritual but not religious," etc., etc. is that every man becomes his own Pope. There is no objectivity. Yes, spirituality is a very personal thing, but if there is such a thing as an objective spiritual truth, which I maintain that there is and necessarily must be if there is indeed a spiritual reality, then there has to be a medium for it's interpretation and transmission to ourselves. That, for the Catholic, is Scripture, Tradition, and Holy Mother Church. Scripture we do not look at as Protestants do: in the terms that we can just read the text and divine for ourselves it's meaning - this is is a sort of bibliotary and approaches the Islamic theological idea of the Qu'ran as the literal Word of God (verbum Dei, which in Christian theology refers to Christ himself, c.f. the prologue to the Gospel of John) - but rather that it is to be interpreted in an organic way throughout the centuries long history of the Church and it's Tradition. Tradition, capitalized, means the authoritative Tradition of the Church that is passed down authoritatively on such matters as Divine Liturgy, Scriptural interpretation, etc., "tradition," not capitalized, is things like folk religion that do not establish authoritative theological truths per se.

I might as well put a note in here about papal infallability. In contrast to many characterizations this does not mean the Pope cannot be wrong about any given topic or that he cannot sin (that would be impeccability), but rather that when pronouncing a theological truth solemnly, ex cathedra, "from the chair [of Peter]," and doing so explicitly, that he is guided by the Holy Spirit. This is very rarely done, in fact it was last done in 1950 with the final endorsement of the (long-held by most) doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.

Interesting Thread!

You said that you prefer the latin mass, right? Do you mean that in the sense that every mass should be held in latin? I mean I could (kind of) understand if you want to go to a latin mass every once in a while, because you want to honor the tradition and maybe find it aesthetically pleasing. But isn't it rather important to understand what the priest has to tell you? What do you gain exactly that is worth trading it in for the understanding of what is spoken about in mass? I assume you are not fluent in latin, are you?
Does it bother you that the tradition of the latin mass has a lot to do with keeping people unable to question the content or do you disagree with that interpretation?

It is not just about the language. I am not fluent in Latin by any means but I have enough Latin, based on a few classes and Mass attendance, to understand what is going on in Mass. My Latin Missal has English translations whereby we can follow along. The Scripture readings and the Homily are given in English. I prefer the usus antiquior because it connects me with many more centuries of Catholic history than the usus modernus, which while it is just as efficacious as a Sacrament, is somewhat pared down, especially in the way it is often performed (it can still be performed in Latin, but the text is not the same, and the level of elaboration in the ritual is not either) lacks the same context and weight of history. I do not believe, as some more radical traditionalists do, that the New Mass is invalid, but rather that the Old Mass has, for some including myself, a spiritual benefit of connecting us with the faith of our forefathers.

other stuff

This I am going to have to defer for later as it is getting late for me and this is already a long post. The theology of Christ's sacrifice is a complex one but I'll get around to it , probably after doing some reading. Some of it will have been answerd above.

Edit: What is your position on the good friday prayer for the jews?

The earlier and more controversial prayer is pro perfidis judaeis. "Perfidis" and our English "perfidious" are to some extent "false friends." A better translation would be the "faithless Jews," i.e. those Jews who have not accepted Christ as Moschiach (the terms are equivalent, but clearly not to a Jew who does not believe in Jesus as Christ.) In later versions of the Latin liturgy, the word perfidis was removed but the intercession of God was still asked to "remove the veil from [the Jew's] hearts." The Vatican II liturgy asks that Jews "be brought to the fulness of redemption." Really these are asking the same thing in different, and perhaps softer, language. If we are to admit the truth of Catholicism, and the Church as the spiritual perfection of God's promises to Israel, it is only naturally that we should pray for the Jews that they embrace this. This is not anti-Semitic in the sense of being anti-Jewish, but rather expresses a sincere wish that the Jews accept what is in the Catholic view the completion of the Jewish faith in it's Messiah.

How do you explain the Book of Job if Catholicism is "perfection of morality" and God's will is the moral standard?

I am not well informed on the bible, but as I understand it the Book of Job is about an extremely pious individual who God inflicts serious suffering upon in order to prove a point to the devil. Assuming I am not mistaken it is hard to see how causing a good person to suffer in order to prove a point is perfect morality.

I can't possibly do this justice in a forum post, but the message of the Book of Job, whether one looks at it in a literary, allegorical, or literal manner, is about "why good things happen to bad people," and is also one of the great literary works of the ancient world. If only for that reason I'd encourage you and others to read it. Job, who sees himself as blameless, puts the blame on his friends for their suffering, and then, when he suffers himself, accuses God of injustice, and then it is revealed to him that God is beyond Job's conception of justice, and his reasons are inscrutable. God does not offer Job the backstory of "proving a point to the devil," but merely affirms His majesty. This is a sort of answer to the "problem of evil," if not a satisfactory one to the nonbeliever - certain things in God's plan are beyond our ken.

Doesn't the bible also endorse slavery, or at least fail to condemn it? Again, not seeing the perfect morality thing here.

The Bible does not per se endorse slavery but is written in a cultural context in which slavery was a real thing, and thereby enjoins slaves to obey their masters, soldiers their commanders, etc. The Bible was written by men, albeit under the inspiration of God, but was written by and for men in a particular cultural context and this should effect our modern exegesis. However, read the brief epistle of Paul to Philemon, wherein Paul asks that the slave Onesimus be recieved "as a brother beloved."

Also, safe sex by consenting adults hurts nobody. What kind of moral system would condemn people to eternal suffering for engaging in activity which hurts nobody? You say sex isn't about hedonism, it is about reproduction, but why? Why can't it be about both? Safe consensual sex does not stop anyone else from procreating. It certainly seems like an arbitrary thing to condemn people over to me.

More on this later, under the heading "theology of the body," wherein there is a lot of good literature including some texts by the late pope John Paul II.

I don't think you could outline a coherent metaphysics where omniscience is possible but free will exists. Saying "well he exists outside of space and time" is not even close to a sufficient explanation of foreknowledge, let alone omniscience. One might think that existing outside of space and time may well give a being less insight into what goes on inside it, not more.

Can you offer a better explanation of how God is omniscient and free will exists than this? Just saying "well he exists outside of space and time" doesn't actually explain a single thing. An entity knowing what decisions we will make implies that we can only make the decisions that we do, which is antithetical to free will.

More on this later too (it's getting late for me.)

Doesn't the fact that the unpardonable sin is a refusal to adhere to "God's plan" seem incredibly arrogant to you?

No, to the contrary, if we accept God as per the Christian definition, the incredibly arrogant thing is to assume that we would be able to dictate to God what is and is not sin.

One question I have always had about Abrahamic religions in general has to do with compulsory Church/Synagogue/Mosque attendance. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being have such an ego that it required all its followers to build monuments to them and spend a considerable portion of their lives congregating in these monuments and talking about how great said omnipotent and omniscient being is?

(I) On architecture. These physical structures and rituals are not for God's sake, but for man's. The old cathedrals of Europe, some of the most wonderful artistic, technical, and architectural achievements in human history, were made "to glorify God," but that does not mean that God, existing as He does in eternity, needs any glorification, because glory is in His very being. They are made to "glorify God" to man, and to be "a Gospel wrought in stone." They are something for us to observe and to meditate upon, a very slight physical shadow of the glory of God, but something which we can focus our attention upon. Building such structures is a sign of our devotion and a message to future generations (keep in mind that the old cathedrals would take several generation just to construct.) Modern church buildings, however, don't always live up to that standard.

(II) On Liturgy. Again, this is not because God needs us to praise Him, but rather that we need to praise Him, acknowledge our place in the universe relative to His, and make His Word and Sacraments central to our lives, by which we recieve Divine Grace, which is our salvation but also the sustinence of our spiritual lives. Sacraments is not a topic that I've gotten into much in this thread and will try later on especially if anyone has a specific question.

Why does God give some people these challenges and not others? It doesn't seem like perfect morality to arbitrarily make salvation more difficult for some people than others.

This is a great mystery. As in, why do bad things happen to good people? Some are called to greater challenges than others. This is more or less what the Book of Job is about. I may elaborate on this later.

SKL, you mentioned the Self earlier. Did you dabble in Buddhism, Hinduism, or both? What did you not understand about the Self?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. And no, I did not dabble in Eastern religion and my knowledge of both Buddhism and Hinduism is rather superficial, I've read the Bhagavad Gita in English and have a close family member who has converted to Buddhism with whom I've enjoyed many pretty deep conversations, but I can't say I'm well versed in the ontology of either faith.
 
Do you enjoy the rituals of Catholicism, specifically Sunday mass? I was raised Catholic and attended church nearly every Sunday until I was around 13 or so, and even though it has been over 20 years since I was a regular attendee, I can still hear our priests chanting "Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit..." and the church's musicians playing Lamb of God, You Take Away the Sins of the World as if it were yesterday. I admit the whole production of mass always interested me and I would enjoy noticing the slight differences in either the wording, rhythm, or timing of mass at different churches.

But in many ways, the overall consistentcy of Catholic mass is a detriment. Because it is so impersonable, it becomes something like a Sunday errand and many just go through the motions rather than actually wanting to be there and worse, not even bothering to understand the words being spoken as a glorification of God from the whole community and the personal work needs to be done outside of church. This of course makes for a very poor community feeling among many parishioners, something far less noticeable in the other religious communities I have been exposed to through family and friends. Presbyterianism, Judaism, Coptic Orthodoxy, and Jainism (the ones I have seen personally) all seem to do a much better job at either creating a dynamic and varied worship procedure and/or fostering a sense of common ground among their devotees to the point many of the followers of these religions would immediately turn to their house of worship in times of need and know help would be provided. Catholics, for the most part would seek other means first and I feel it is because the monotonous, ritualistic nature of Catholic mass has trivialized faith to a chore.

You also mentioned how cosmology has an element of faith to some of its theories, as does religion. While I do not agree 100%, I will not deny the thought has crossed my mind. I assume you are speaking about the theories of eternal inflation, the multiverse, and perhaps the fine-tuning problem, of which the cosmological constant is the hardest to dismiss as mere chance. I watched a video recently on the subject of the origin of the universe which contained interviews from a broad range of scientists. Physicists, neuroscientists, philosophy of science and others were all represented and gave a nice chronology of both the origin of our universe and how we came to understand it. It started with the Big Bang and gave the evidence for it and proceeded to discuss inflationary cosmology. None of it was particularly new to me until they started talking about how we found out the universe is accelerating, how small the cosmological constant is especially in regards to theorized numbers of its value, and how it lead to the idea of the multiverse as being something other than science fiction. Again, I was aware of all these ideas but the video did a nice job of linking them together.

But what really piqued my attention was when a physicist I have deep respect for talked about how they don't really feel comfortable or even the need to bring design of the universe even in the face of data they have no way of ever explaining and hence the multiverse was born. I immediately thought "why not, it as plausible an explanation of observed data as anything science has and thus should be considered." Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the type of scientific leap of faith you may be talking about.

But what if we could conclusively prove the existence of multiple universes and eternal inflation? What if we solve the problem of quantum gravity and this allows us to build theories and test what happened before the Big Bang and perhaps even create a bubble universe ourselves? Things like this may seem like like either untestable or unfalsifiable hogwash, but there already plans in the work to look for such things via space telescopes, gravitational wave detectors, and the Large Hadron Collider. In the face of incontrovertible scientific evidence that only natural processes created our universe, would you give up your faith in God?

If any of this seems like mumbo-jumbo to you, let me know and I will give a bit more detail that may make it easier to answer. Don't worry, I am not going to write equations as I do not know them, but will fill in gaps to the best of my understanding.
 
Last edited:
Do you enjoy the rituals of Catholicism, specifically Sunday mass? I was raised Catholic and attended church nearly every Sunday until I was around 13 or so, and even though it has been over 20 years since I was a regular attendee, I can still hear our priests chanting "Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit..." and the church's musicians playing Lamb of God, You Take Away the Sins of the World as if it were yesterday. I admit the whole production of mass always interested me and I would enjoy noticing the slight differences in either the wording, rhythm, or timing of mass at different churches.

But in many ways, the overall consistentcy of Catholic mass is a detriment. Because it is so impersonable, it becomes something like a Sunday errand and many just go through the motions rather than actually wanting to be there and worse, not even bothering to understand the words being spoken as a glorification of God from the whole community and the personal work needs to be done outside of church. This of course makes for a very poor community feeling among many parishioners, something far less noticeable in the other religious communities I have been exposed to through family and friends. Presbyterianism, Judaism, Coptic Orthodoxy, and Jainism (the ones I have seen personally) all seem to do a much better job at either creating a dynamic and varied worship procedure and/or fostering a sense of common ground among their devotees to the point many of the followers of these religions would immediately turn to their house of worship in times of need and know help would be provided. Catholics, for the most part would seek other means first and I feel it is because the monotonous, ritualistic nature of Catholic mass has trivialized faith to a chore.

Soundtrack: Palestrina, Missa Papæ Marcelli, which is not what you will encounter in an average Catholic Mass, but which follows the structure entire, this of course in the Extraordinary (Traditional Latin) form of the Mass, although the basic structure remains the same.

I have to very much disagree with you, here. I have travelled through various Christian denominations before finding Holy Mother Church, some of them more, or less, liturgical than others. Most mainline Protestant churches follow some sort of loose liturgical structure that is ultimately derived from Catholic antecedents; the more radically divergent (from the Catholic perspective) Pentecostal/Charismatic/Evangelical/Fundamentalist and similar churches try to do away with this, but, I think, to their detriment.

The Holy Litrugy is a part of Sacred Tradition, which connects us with our ancestors and our forefathers in the faith. The Western Liturgy remained to a certain extent inchoate until the Council of Trent (mid-16th century), although the essential features were the same, which essential features are extremely ancient. The various parts of the liturgy are probably too many to discuss in any degree of detail here, but suffice to say they is definitive structure with a definitive meaning.

I am hardly qualified to get into all the theological and sacramental details here, but the point is, the structure here serves a purpose. There is a general outline which is altered according to the liturgical season which, year by year, repeats the soteriological narrative of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, together with the rest of the Scriptures. The priest's job during the homily is to expound upon the texts of the day as to impart teaching to the congregants, but the texts and the liturgy remain the same, just as they have for our forefathers going back centuries. This, to me, is the most important part of having a liturgy. If I take part in an mass, whether ordinary. i.e., in the local vernacular, in my case, English), I am following the general structure, albeit a simplified one, of the Tridentine Latin Mass, which in the 16th century codified and made into defintive forum the various local uses (or traditional forms of the Mass) throughout Christendom, or if I take part of the traditional, I take part in a ritual which stretches back to my forefathers unto time immemorial. The Scriptural texts have not changed, the lectionary has not changed, the Liturgy has undergone only minimal and essentially cosmetic changes (although for a variety of reasons I prefer 1962 Latin text) ... we, as Catholics, believe that the ritual eo ipso invokes the supernatural, but even discounting matters of faith, I believe there is something essentially important in connecting with something that goes so far back in history.

"Contemporary" worship disconnected from liturgical tradition is often banal and disconnected from our history. Our faith is not lived, existentially, in the moment, but rather in continuity with previous generations, that is part of what makes us Catholic, καθολικός, universal ... we are not just about our individual experience or whether we enjoy a worship service, but rather we are about connecting to a rich history that stretches back to Christ himself and throughout the history of our fathers and forefathers, lived out liturgically in an ever-repeating cycle. We, in a very real sense, are not praying only as and for ourselves, but for and with our forefathers, living and deceased unto time immemorial, and indeed all of the world, this is the meaning of the communion of the saints in the Creed. This is the essence of the liturgy: there is a depth to this that goes beyond our individual histories, and in this is it's very essential appeal, and also here is the fundamental signum contra dicere, the fundamental offence to moderns: why should we look to the past to guide us spiritually, liturgically, morally? Have not the advances of the past century liberated us from these constrictions? The Catholic answer is no, they have not: rather, we are cast adrift in the chaos of modernity, and only by holding fast to tradition, including liturgy, may we find our spiritual mooring the chaos of today.

multiverse, etc.

More later, as well as to the posts above, to which I have promised more later.
 
That's very interesting, what you wrote about the liturgy. Thank you, SKL. But if you find the time, could you write an answer to this?

Does it bother you that the tradition of the latin mass has a lot to do with keeping people unable to question the content or do you disagree with that interpretation?
 
Top