A Christian challenge

[KarenNC]

**You were not so clear in stating the spiritual gains out of joining your religion. **

Do you have a better idea now of why I am where I am?

That’s actually what I wanted to ask you first but did not put it that way.

There are many kinds of truth–literal, moral, historical, religious, etc. Which one would you like to discuss and about what particular subject?

Fortunately or unfortunately, by joining this blog, do you realize that you have exposed yourself under the scrutiny of others? Once you start shooting paintballs at others, you have to be ready with paints all over your suit, don’t you realize that?

I understand that fully. You seem to misunderstand why I am here–it was covered in the “speak up to correct misinformation about my religion” part of that sentence.

I am not here to “shoot paintballs at others” or to try to convert anyone. I am here to inform and (hopefully) introduce others on this site to someone who follows a Neopagan religion who does not fit their stereotype. Looks like I have at least accomplished that on this thread. I am also here because I think theological debate is fun and beneficial to both sides.

I came here in December after I learned about it from an online acquaintance. This Rock had published an article called “Anti-Neopagan Apologetics.” This article was moderately ignorant of what Neopagans actually are, so he wrote a response and posted it on the forum (you can find it in the Apologetics section, called “Neopagan Apologetics” I believe I referenced it above). I am weird enough to consider comparative theology a hobby, so I came over to see what I could do to help educate. I have ended up staying and trying to pursue that goal.

Basically, if not for an attempt by somone in your organization to instruct people (badly) in how to proselytize to those in my religious community, I would never have known you existed, never sought you out nor ever posted here. I was invited.

That’s a tall order if you go to a Catholic site like this.

Why? In what way?

** It’s a bit puzzling how we can help you worship your “Gods” by talking to people like us. **

You can’t. I don’t expect you to, have never asked you to do so and it is not why I am here. I have plenty of other sites where I can discuss such matters with my co-religionists.

I am getting rather tired of seeing quotation marks around terms associated with my Gods, however. You would be hard-pressed, even though I do not accept monotheism as an adequate expression of spiritual reality, to find a place where I have referred to “Jesus,” the Chrisitan “Savior” or the Christian “God.” I try to be aware of capitalizing pronouns related to your deity, etc, even though I do not believe in Him, as a mark of respect and civility because you do so. That doesn’t mean that by doing so I think I risk misrepresenting my own beliefs, any more than capitalizing “Pope” or “Reverend.” It is merely politeness and hospitality–being a good guest or host–which is one of the tenets of my religion.

Do you also do this to the followers of other religions? If you do, you should be aware that it is not helping your argument. Basic respect is appreciated and will get you much farther than insults.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”–
Aristotle

You will note that I post on the “Non-Catholic Religions” part of the forum, whose stated purpose is as a place to compare and contrast religions and, hopefully, to learn from each other. Every Catholic, and indeed every Christian who believes that their religion instructs them to spread the Gospel, on these boards should consider the presence of non-Christians willing to share accurate information about their religions with you a gift. I suppose it might be entertaining to have a group sit around and reinforce each other’s stereotypes of what someone else believes, but I hardly see it as useful if one’s goal is to actually gain an understanding of the other’s position. It has certainly affected my impression of Catholics.

If your goal is to convert someone to your religion, you will get much farther if you understand something accurate about what they already believe. Were such my purpose (and it is not), I would hardly be likely to win lots of converts from the Catholic Church, for instance, if I were to go to you and tell you you should convert to my religion because our God does not require us to be cannibals, worship statues or to tie blue ducks to our heads and dance the hornpipe on the lawn of the church on alternate Tuesdays. You would, rightfully, consider me ill-informed at best, a nut job at worst, and do your best to avoid not only me, but everyone else who identified themselves as part of my religion, as you would be likely to assume that they would be similar.

 

[Chancellare]

Do you have a better idea now of why I am where I am?

That you are a better person?

There are many kinds of truth–literal, moral, historical, religious, etc. Which one would you like to discuss and about what particular subject?

Does your concept of truth depend on which of the subjects you mentioned is discussed?

I am here to inform and (hopefully) introduce others on this site to someone who follows a Neopagan religion who does not fit their stereotype. Looks like I have at least accomplished that on this thread. I am also here because I think theological debate is fun and beneficial to both sides.

Good luck

Basically, if not for an attempt by somone in your organization to instruct people (badly) in how to proselytize to those in my religious community, I would never have known you existed, never sought you out nor ever posted here. I was invited.

Did anybody here proselytize on you? (I’m not aware)

I am getting rather tired of seeing quotation marks around terms associated with my Gods,

As for the Capitalizations and quoted words, they are standard ways to identify words as quoted. Nothing more than that. No disrespect. This is the first time I see somebody taking umbrage on someone else’s use of diacritical marks in the english alphabet.
Besides:
Whenever I go to other countries and get into other people’s homes there they offer me strange foods and call me names I cannot even recognize, etc. But I don’t complain because I came uninvited and that’s their prerogatives as residents. I don’t complain as you do. But then I also observed other foreigners who complained about the lousy hospitality and he got what he deserved.
You’re still lucky at this point in time. Hey, count your blessings!

Do you also do this to the followers of other religions? If you do, you should be aware that it is not helping your argument. Basic respect is appreciated and will get you much farther than insults.

Nope. If ever, I’m the one now feeling insulted by an over-sensitive guest. But my experience tells me that guests are guests.

You will note that I post on the “Non-Catholic Religions” part of the forum, whose stated purpose is as a place to compare and contrast religions and, hopefully, to learn from each other. … one’s goal is to actually gain an understanding of the other’s position. It has certainly affected my impression of Catholics.

Let’s get on to business then:
What would you like to learn from the Catholic Church?

I would hardly be likely to win lots of converts from the Catholic Church, for instance, if I were to go to you and tell you you should convert to my religion because our God does not require us to be cannibals, worship statues or to tie blue ducks to our heads and dance the hornpipe on the lawn of the church on alternate Tuesdays. You would, rightfully, consider me ill-informed at best, a nut job at worst, and do your best to avoid not only me, but everyone else who identified themselves as part of my religion, as you would be likely to assume that they would be similar.

If I replace the underlined words with Neopagan practices, will you not be insulted?

 

[KarenNC]

That you are a better person?

I have included a lot of other information than just that, but, would you not consider that enough in and of itself?

Does your concept of truth depend on which of the subjects you mentioned is discussed?

The sense in which the word “truth” is meant in a particular context, certainly. To take for example something from the New Testament—the parables of Jesus.

There is the sense of literal, time travel truth—did these things in the story actually occur, in such a way that if a time machine existed and we could visit a certain spot on a certain day at a certain time we would see exactly these actions from these people?

There is the meaning of truth in does the story illuminate some underlying reality of the human condition or the relationship between humanity and the divine as seen in this culture?

Just because the story does not meet the criteria for the first sense of the word does not mean it does not meet the second.

For another example, look at George Washington and the cherry tree. Is it literally, documentably true that it was cherry tree, or that the event even happened? No. It does, however, illustrate the truth that the American culture values (at least ideally and in abstract) honesty in political leaders (though unfortunately this is most often honored in the breach). If one were to discover that it was a pear tree or that the incident never actually happened does not invalidate the deeper truth of the story.

**Did anybody here proselytize on you? **

Yes, here and IRL on a very regular basis.

As for the Capitalizations and quoted words, they are standard ways to identify words as quoted. Nothing more than that. No disrespect. This is the first time I see somebody taking umbrage on someone else’s use of diacritical marks in the english alphabet.

If that is the way in which you intend them, as a simple quotation, okay. However, it might help you to know that that is not the way in which you are using them comes across. It is also a common practice to use quotation marks to indicate an unbelieving or sarcastic tone. Your usage looked much more like that than simply using words as quoted (as I did with the word “truth” above).

Examine the following:
It’s a bit puzzling how we can help you worship your “Gods” by talking to people like us.

If you are not comfortable capitalizing the name, fine, use lowercase, but to do so and put it in quotation marks conveys an entirely different message than “I am quoting a word you used.”

**Whenever I go to other countries and get into other people’s homes there they offer me strange foods and call me names I cannot even recognize, etc. But I don’t complain because I came uninvited and that’s their prerogatives as residents. I don’t complain as you do. **

Sorry, but yes, this site does invite outsiders, at least into this particular section of the forum, for the explicit purpose of comparing and contrasting religious beliefs. The description reads “explore the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths, dialogue with their adherents.”

But then I also observed other foreigners who complained about the lousy hospitality and he got what he deserved. You’re still lucky at this point in time. Hey, count your blessings!

Excuse me? Would you care to clarify that, in case you did not mean it in an entirely insulting, snarky way?

What would you like to learn from the Catholic Church?

Actually, I think I have a fairly good understanding of the theology at this point. If a specific question comes up, I will be sure to ask it, as I have done in the past.

I have a bit of an advantage in that I do not come to Christianity or to Catholicism with no or little prior practical knowledge. That is usually not the case with someone who is encountering a Neopagan religion for the first time.

If I replace the underlined words with Neopagan practices, will you not be insulted?

Yes, and that was exactly the point. If I come to you spouting such absurdities (whether they are commonly accepted as accurate by some groups or not), you will dismiss me out of hand as someone with whom you can not, or are not willing to, have an actual theological discussion. The same is true for anyone of any religion.

I am encouraging folks to look on dialogues with those who are not Catholic and, further, those who are not Christian, as an opportunity to become better informed about what the others actually do and believe so that they will not insult, wittingly or unwittingly, in attempts to communicate with someone of another religion, ending the conversation before it can begin. There is a plethora of misinformation, often based on very outmoded scholarship, out there about Neopaganism, just as there is about Catholicism. It benefits neither group.

 

[Chancellare]

This is from the link you posted, would to be fair to think most Hellenic polytheists base their faith on resentment/anger against the failings of individuals within Christian coummunities? and it is an act of rebellion because of past hurts, hang ups or even misunderstandings of Christianity or what Chirst taught?

"How do Hellenes view Christianity? Most Hellenic polytheists were raised as members of one of the dominant monotheistic faiths (if we had any religious upbringing at all). It must be admitted that some individual Hellenes harbor lingering anger toward their birth religions, usually as a result of abuse at the hands of religious leaders or well-meaning family members. But most would agree that, from a more objective standpoint, Christianity is simply irrelevant to our traditional beliefs and practices—as are Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.
On the whole, we take a live-and-let-live position regarding those of other faiths. Only when Christians try to convert us, slander our gods, or try to impose their beliefs as the “one true way” do we oppose their efforts."

Just to learn more from each other. I noticed the ichthos sign in your signature. What does that stand for for your belief?

 

[Chancellare]

Actually, I think I have a fairly good understanding of the theology at this point.

Like what?

 

[KarenNC]

Like what?

If you would like to discuss my understanding of a particular point of Catholic theology and how I view it with me , I would be glad to do so, but you will need to be a little more specific. If you are asking what the Catholic Church teaches, I will refer you to
newadvent.org/cathen/index.html or
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html
as it may be of more use to you to see what Catholics think about it.

 

[Bennie_P]

Just to learn more from each other. I noticed the ichthos sign in your signature. What does that stand for for your belief?

This is the question I was asking KarenNC about her Neopagan beliefs, the other part of the post was from her link.

This is from the link you posted, would to be fair to think most Hellenic polytheists base their faith on resentment/anger against the failings of individuals within Christian coummunities? and it is an act of rebellion because of past hurts, hang ups or even misunderstandings of Christianity or what Chirst taught?

And yes the ichthos sign represents my belief, in Christ, not KarenNC’s.
might try reading all the posts.
No, I’m not a Neopagan, I’m Latin Rite Catholic. ><>**T **T T<><

 

[Chancellare]

If you would like to discuss my understanding of a particular point of Catholic theology and how I view it with me , I would be glad to do so, but you will need to be a little more specific. If you are asking what the Catholic Church teaches, I will refer you to
newadvent.org/cathen/index.html or
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html
as it may be of more use to you to see what Catholics think about it.

As Catholic I read those sites, thank you. But that is not what I was asking.

You said to the effect that you have a “fairly good understanding” of Catholic faith.

I asked: “Like what?” = means “What do you understand about Catholic faith”?

 

[KarenNC]

I asked: “Like what?” = means “What do you understand about Catholic faith”?

And I asked you to pick a specific topic if you want to explore this. This list is about dialogue, not monologue, so we both get to work here . I don’t consider any religion to be able to be summed up in a bumper sticker, and I really have neither the time nor inclination to do a core dump of what I understand about Catholicism, nor do I see a point in it.

If you have sufficient interest to see what I might understand about Christianity (and Catholicsism) but don’t want to narrow it down to specific questions that we might reasonably discuss, you are welcome to read my other posts from my public profile and see what you can glean from them as a starting point, and then see if questions come to mind. I have talked about my background before.

 

[sublime13]

I have read a good deal of this topic (will finish the rest later), and to be honest, many of reborn_pagan’s arguments are not very compelling or convincing enough for me to take him seriously. On the other hand, I have not seen any evidence to prove that Christianity is the “one true faith” other than basing a lot of it on faith.

One argument I saw was that Christianity has been around since the time of Jesus and that the neo-paganism movement has been around for only about half a century. By that logic, Judaism would be a much more valid religion than Christianity because it’s been around even longer. Christianity was only half a century old at some point as well.

It was said that neo-pagan religions were “made up” and loosely based on ancient religions. All religions are “made up” - they all had to start somewhere. And many religions draw from religions older than them. There are many similarities between Christianity and Zoroastrianism.

But then there’s the argument that Jesus said Christianity is the truth and he was the son of God. Now, I fully believe that Jesus lived and died and was a very good person, with wonderful teachings. But, that doesn’t make him the son of God. The fact that it is in the Bible doesn’t even necessarily mean that he said he was. I could gather a group of followers and they may some day believe that I was God and pass it down to their childrne and so forth, and one day a holy book could be written about me. Now, I may have some very good lessons that would be good to live by, but just because my followers think and say I am God, does not make me so. Christianity obviously had a rough start, and what better way to convince people to follow the teachings of your beloved teacher than to pass down the word that he was the son of God himself?

So, from what I can see, there are plenty of good reasons to follow the teachings of Jesus, but without faith, there is no way to prove that Christianity, or any religion, is the “one true faith”. Which, in my opinion, does not make Christianity or any other religion less valid, but there is just no way to prove that any religion is the only “right” one.

 

[Spirithound]

I have read a good deal of this topic (will finish the rest later), and to be honest, many of reborn_pagan’s arguments are not very compelling or convincing enough for me to take him seriously. On the other hand, I have not seen any evidence to prove that Christianity is the “one true faith” other than basing a lot of it on faith.
…
So, from what I can see, there are plenty of good reasons to follow the teachings of Jesus, but without faith, there is no way to prove that Christianity, or any religion, is the “one true faith”. Which, in my opinion, does not make Christianity or any other religion less valid, but there is just no way to prove that any religion is the only “right” one.

Sublime, what do you think of this attempt at a proof? The thread for this runs from post 100-131, (with other stuff interspersed).

Step 1. The Gospels of today contains the same words as the original copies.
Step 2. The original copies were accurate historically.
Step 3. Jesus claimed to be God. Therefore, he was either Lord, liar, or lunatic.
Step 4. He was not a lunatic or a liar, therefore he was Lord.

 

[sublime13]

Sublime, what do you think of this attempt at a proof? The thread for this runs from post 100-131, (with other stuff interspersed).

Step 1. The Gospels of today contains the same words as the original copies.
Step 2. The original copies were accurate historically.
Step 3. Jesus claimed to be God. Therefore, he was either Lord, liar, or lunatic.
Step 4. He was not a lunatic or a liar, therefore he was Lord.

Step 1 and 2 are fine. But, what proof is there that Jesus even claimed to be God? As I said in my first post, his followers could very well have written that to give more validity to their teacher’s lessons. Again, if my [hypothetical] followers decide to write a book about my teachings and in there include that I proclaimed to be/was God in order to “prove” that my way is the right way, that does not prove that I am God, regardless of how good my lessons may be.

Of course this leads to…were Jesus’s followers liars? Well, humans aren’t perfect, and with the rough start Christianity was having, to pass on that their teacher was God, was a good way to help give their new religion a boost, because of course, if it came from God, it must be true.

 

[Keikiolu]

If you would like to discuss my understanding of a particular point of Catholic theology and how I view it with me , I would be glad to do so, but you will need to be a little more specific.
…{snip}…

Is God just another god, or is He God?

Why is it not important for non-monotheists to explain the creation of the universe?

Is your “religion” as valid as any other non-monotheistic “religion”?

If a religion claims that their god, or God, is the only god, or only God, is that religion automatically invalid?

Always interesting to talk to you, K…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[sublime13]

No, religion is something we use to clothe our ideas and beliefs in…religion has really little to do with “Truth”…it is a package with bows and wrapping.

The Truth of a religion is how it calls it’s adherants to treat others…to care for the “least of these” among us…and if one’s “faith” makes the day better, the sun brighter, the rain fall more gently, the wind more refreshing and if it causes to see the face of the Eternal in our neighbor…those are the “Truths” of religion.

Everything else is just trappings.

Just have to say that I definately appreciate and agree with your viewpoint here.

 

[Keikiolu]

No, religion is something we use to clothe our ideas and beliefs in…religion has really little to do with “Truth”…it is a package with bows and wrapping.

I must disagree.

Truth, as seen by the adherent, is always the basis of a religion.

The question is whether the observed “truth” is actual TRUTH, or some fiction that looks like truth.

The Truth of a religion is how it calls it’s adherants to treat others…to care for the “least of these” among us…and if one’s “faith” makes the day better, the sun brighter, the rain fall more gently, the wind more refreshing and if it causes to see the face of the Eternal in our neighbor…those are the “Truths” of religion.

Everything else is just trappings.

How does one “do” faith, because that’s the only “verb” you specified that determines the “truth” of religion?

…Oh,… not quite true,… You also used the verb “to care”.

So how does one “care”?

Do you consider what others do in the way of “doing faith” and “caring” to be worthless if they are not your ways?

…or more pointedly, if they are what you consider bows and wrapping?

Are bows and wrapping acceptable on “gifts”, or not?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Spirithound]

Step 1 and 2 are fine. But, what proof is there that Jesus even claimed to be God? As I said in my first post, his followers could very well have written that to give more validity to their teacher’s lessons. Again, if my [hypothetical] followers decide to write a book about my teachings and in there include that I proclaimed to be/was God in order to “prove” that my way is the right way, that does not prove that I am God, regardless of how good my lessons may be.

Of course this leads to…were Jesus’s followers liars? Well, humans aren’t perfect, and with the rough start Christianity was having, to pass on that their teacher was God, was a good way to help give their new religion a boost, because of course, if it came from God, it must be true.

Jesus claimed to be God in Luke 5:20-26, Mark 14:61-64, John 5:21-23, John 8:51-59, among others (post 128).
If you dispute that the writers of the NT accurately wrote stuff down, then you have a problem with Step 2.
So, were Jesus’s followers liars? Not likely. If your followers were to start a new religion deifying you, in America today, not much would happen to them. In the 1st century, 11 of the 12 Apostles were martyred. According to the sites i’ve checked, there were 3 crucifixions, 2 beheadings, a stoning, one piercing with spears, and a couple beatings to death (there were a couple Apostles for whom I couldn’t find a method of death).
There are only a few reasons why anyone would start a new religion: money, fame, fame leading to sex, or truth. Options 1, 2, and 3 ideally don’t include execution, particularly crucifixion as part of the deal.

 

[KarenNC]

I am presuming that, contrary to the original question you quoted, that you are seeking my view on these, so here goes… again

Is God just another god, or is He God?

Presuming that the Christian God exists (and I have no compelling reason to say that He does not exist in some form), then He is one of many Gods.

Why is it not important for non-monotheists to explain the creation of the universe?

The universe exists, how and why it got here is less important than dealing with things as they are. I would presume that there are likely non-monotheists who are concerned with this, but I am not one of them.

Is your “religion” as valid as any other non-monotheistic “religion”?

If you mean do I find them interchangable, no, they do not all do an equally effective job of reflecting the spiritual reality that I have experienced. If you mean do I think that other non-monotheistic religions can be valid, certainly their followers report that they are so. I am not sure why anyone would continue to follow a religion they did not find valid. I didn’t.

**If a religion claims that their god, or God, is the only god, or only God, is that religion automatically invalid? **

I would say that it certainly makes them much less accurate descriptions of the spiritual reality that I have experienced. Are they valid (do they do what they claim to do, are they effective)? You will have to ask their followers. I do not find them so.

 

[KarenNC]

. In the 1st century, 11 of the 12 Apostles were martyred.

This would be a more compelling argument if no religions other than Christianity had members who were viewed by their co-religionists as martyrs.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I think there is a key difference that people often overlook. The Apostles all saw the Risen Jesus. They all proclaimed and taught this. And they died for it, never renouncing their claim. Do any other religions have martyrs who died for those claims? I am not aware of any. Instead, Muslim martyrs and the like die for hearsay. Someone else told them that Mohammed was a prophet. Do you see the major difference? I’ll try to explain it better if you want. Peace.

 

[Spirithound]

This would be a more compelling argument if no religions other than Christianity had members who were viewed by their co-religionists as martyrs.

My last post only serves to show that the Apostles were not liars. Taken on its own, their martyrdom leaves open the possibility that they were mistaken.
However, in the 4-step program I enjoy talking about so much, Steps 1 and 2 address and negate the possibility of the writers of the Gospels being mistaken.