A question for those who were raised Catholic

[crazzeto]

Of course not. I object to being called a fool, corrupt, or have my ways labelled as ‘abominable’. Do you believe that no atheist in the history of the world has done any good? Talk about extremism! (And another reason atheists don’t put much stock in the morality of the Bible).

Anymore extreme than suggesting that believers are ‘brainwashed’?

 

[Tomster]

Anymore extreme than suggesting that believers are ‘brainwashed’?

And, if I may add craz, a positive atheist is always guilty, at least initially, for a lack of prudence, of careful consideraton, and of more accurate and dispassionate investigation. An atheist really convinced and in perfect good faith is a hypothesis bordering on the absurd.

 

[Tomster]

Funny, I might say the same about “faith”.

Interesting.

You do believe in atheism. You do have a certain type of “faith” in atheism. Can we, then, say that you have been brainwashed by your "faith’ in atheism? Are we allowed to make the same judgments regarding your belief system as you make on ours? Or are atheists the only ones allowed to make these judgments? And, if so, where do you get the authority to pass your judgments on our Divine Faith?

 

[Tomster]

Of course. I question everything I’ve been told by society. I’m naturally skeptical that way.

However, I was not raised in a secular society. I was raised Baptist in England in the '60’s. Everyone I knew believed in God. I went to church every Sunday. My school, although not a religious institution, forced us to pray at assembly and our teachers often taught Christianity. It was only after moving to Canada as a twelve-year-old that I started to have doubts, and passed through the stages from believer to doubter, to skeptic, to agnostic and eventually, in my 20’s, to atheism. And the more I study religion, the more convinced I am of my current beliefs (and yes, I have read the Bible – many times).

In St.Thomas’ treatment of injustice done to God by sins against religion he makes no mention of atheism. As often happens in St. Thomas, what he does not say is as important as what he says; in this case the very omission has profound significance. On the face of it, there is a direct opposition between religion and atheism. One gives reverence and subjection to the first and last Cause, while the other denies and ignores a first and last Cause. But look a little deeper and you will see that Thomas’ omission of atheism was due to his hard common sense, the common sense that kept him from chasing figments of the imagination when there were things to get done.

As a matter of fact, there cannot be atheism. Man may vociferously deny that he had any first cause, though his very existence reveals the falseness of his claim; but he cannot even deny that he has a last cause, a final end, without paralyzing action and reducing it to the spasmodic twitchings of madness. Man must go somewhere, for his life is a motion and every act is a step toward a goal. Man’s goal is his god - an odd god, perhaps, represented by the figures on a bank statement, the sweetnes of pleasure, the exhilaration of power, the oblivion of a party, a state, a nation, or even man’s puny self -whatever it is that the atheist aims at, to that thing he pays the tribute of religion. That is his false god; more hideous, more ludicrous, more pathetic, more calamitous than the ugly idol of a savage.

 

[Tomster]

Have you ever considered that you may have been brainwashed?

Consider the fact that children raised in Saudi Arabia become … Muslims. Those raised in most of India become Hindus. Children raised by practicing Jews in Israel tend to become practicing Jews. And kids raised by evangelical Protestants usually turn out to be Protestants. Why do you suppose this is? Do you believe that upon becoming free-willed adults they carefully consider all religious creeds and come to the conclusion that (fill in the blank) is really the best and truest religion?

Of course not. We can see that they’ve merely been indoctrinated into their religious creed without the benefit of a balanced exposure to other religions. So are you really any different?

Now you may have been raised in the west, where a more pluralistic society prevails. Certainly while growing up you would have encountered other religious sects. But is a child who goes to a Catholic school five days a week, and to mass every week, and has Catholic parents and relatives, really any different than a Saudi Muslim – except in the degree of the indoctrination?

Look at it another way. If you had children, would you take them to a Jewish synagogue, a Muslim mosque, a Protestant church, and a Hindu temple – as well as a Catholic church – and say to them: “Okay, my child, it’s now up to you to decide which of these religions – if any – is the true one”?

If you answer ‘no’ to this question, perhaps you can begin to see where the question at the top of this post comes from.

I have always believed and still believe the holy Catholic faith to be the one true and infallible religion. In this Faith I recognize a pure gift of God, a supernatural grace. But I have not neglected those human means which confirm belief and overthrow such doubts as may arise to tempt me. I have given attentive study to the foundations of my Faith. I have read in the works both of defenders and assailants of the Faith arguments for and against it, and have derived arguments in its favor which render it most acceptable even to the purely natural reason and prove it to be such that any mind unperverted by sin and passion, any healthy and generous mind, cannot but accept and love it.

 

[antroji]

So, Tomster, you said you “have derived arguments in its favor which render it most acceptable even to the purely natural reason and prove it to be such that any mind unperverted by sin and passion, any healthy and generous mind, cannot but accept and love it.” (bold mine) And it is your contention then that anyone having considered cargo cults, non-dualism, Christadelphianism, nature worship, Zen, Pocomaniacism, solipsism, the other main line Abrahamics, etc, and and, etc, yet not accepting Catholicism is mentally unhealthy and stingy?

 

[Erbey]

I think the person asking this question is brainwashed not to be Catholic.

 

[steve_b]

Have you ever considered that you may have been brainwashed?

Paul answered your question directly

1 Cor 15:

13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

EVERYTHING that Jesus promised and His apostles taught, hinges on Jesus being who He is. Everything He promised will come true, else what Paul said, if it’s not true, we are of all men most to be pitied.

All that Jesus did is provable from eyewitness accounts.

JOB:

Consider the fact that children raised in Saudi Arabia become … Muslims. Those raised in most of India become Hindus. Children raised by practicing Jews in Israel tend to become practicing Jews. And kids raised by evangelical Protestants usually turn out to be Protestants. Why do you suppose this is?

Do you believe that upon becoming free-willed adults they carefully consider all religious creeds and come to the conclusion that (fill in the blank) is really the best and truest religion?

Of course not. We can see that they’ve merely been indoctrinated into their religious creed without the benefit of a balanced exposure to other religions. So are you really any different?

Now you may have been raised in the west, where a more pluralistic society prevails. Certainly while growing up you would have encountered other religious sects. But is a child who goes to a Catholic school five days a week, and to mass every week, and has Catholic parents and relatives, really any different than a Saudi Muslim – except in the degree of the indoctrination?

Look at it another way. If you had children, would you take them to a Jewish synagogue, a Muslim mosque, a Protestant church, and a Hindu temple – as well as a Catholic church – and say to them: “Okay, my child, it’s now up to you to decide which of these religions – if any – is the true one”?

If you answer ‘no’ to this question, perhaps you can begin to see where the question at the top of this post comes from.

How are YOU going to find out which one is true?

 

[Monica4316]

Have you ever considered that you may have been brainwashed?

Consider the fact that children raised in Saudi Arabia become … Muslims. Those raised in most of India become Hindus. Children raised by practicing Jews in Israel tend to become practicing Jews. And kids raised by evangelical Protestants usually turn out to be Protestants. Why do you suppose this is? Do you believe that upon becoming free-willed adults they carefully consider all religious creeds and come to the conclusion that (fill in the blank) is really the best and truest religion?

Of course not. We can see that they’ve merely been indoctrinated into their religious creed without the benefit of a balanced exposure to other religions. So are you really any different?

Now you may have been raised in the west, where a more pluralistic society prevails. Certainly while growing up you would have encountered other religious sects. But is a child who goes to a Catholic school five days a week, and to mass every week, and has Catholic parents and relatives, really any different than a Saudi Muslim – except in the degree of the indoctrination?

Look at it another way. If you had children, would you take them to a Jewish synagogue, a Muslim mosque, a Protestant church, and a Hindu temple – as well as a Catholic church – and say to them: “Okay, my child, it’s now up to you to decide which of these religions – if any – is the true one”?

If you answer ‘no’ to this question, perhaps you can begin to see where the question at the top of this post comes from.

I was raised agnostic and am now Catholic.

 

[antroji]

In light of this thread and some of it’s diversions, it would be interesting to hear how you made that transition, Monica, if you wish to share. What you might say could be informative. Thanks for sharing.

M

 

[Benadam]

Interesting topic. Interesting thread, I’ve enjoyed the postings and the direction of the thread offers me an opportunity to interject briefly a personal experience with my son.

I was curious about this very topic and asked my son, who was 10 years old at the time," why do you believe there is a God". He shrugged and answered, " because you taught me and I believe it". I didn’t know if I would be able to express the deeper meaning of my question to him because i could only repeat the question with emphasis," no, why dou YOU believe there is a God" He looked at me a litt;e sideways and then he got it. His eyes got big and he looked at me like he was confused that he had to tell me something about knowing God and said " how could I be here if there was no God? How could I even breath if there was no God? " It was my turn to be wide eyed. I had not even remotely expected an answer that deep about belief in God. His was an answer that one would think is the fruit of deep meditation but it wasn’t. He responded off the cuff having never considered the question. I felt I had heard words that flesh and blood hadn’t taught and from a place within where things are known that one doesn’t know are known.

 

[antroji]

Hi Benadam,

That is a very moving story; I couldn’t agree more with your son. However, If I didn’t look up in your profile that you are Catholic, I would have no clue as to your religion, even though you are on a Catholic forum. Actually I still don’t know, because your son might be being brought up in your spouse’s religion if it is different than yours.

And I have heard similar stories from/about children in other faiths. Exactly the same. And not necessarily from the Abraham religions. So the question before us is "What then makes what goes with that faith so acquired (better) (more complete) (more accurate) (more Divinely ordained) (Truer) (etc) (etc) (etc) than any other faith, or even possibly non-faith, if we acknowledge that the form of testament is the same, and the contents, ie particular faith expressions, are not?

In other words, if I was from outer space and a number of people of even radically different faiths stood before me and with equal enthusiasm declared that they knew that their Muslim, Shintoist, naturalist religion, Cargo Cult, Zoroastrianist, solipsist, and and and and was the one and only true God as taught them by Mom & Dad, what would convince me that one of them was THE one? Remember, I would have no stake in an outcome, Catholic or whatever. I’d just be listening to what to my ears semantically amounted to exactly the same dynamic: “I know God IS because my religion, tradition and scriptures tell me so and I believe, therefor I know.”

Sincerity, fervor and conviction being the same across the board, what really distinguishes one from the other? Certainly not foundation and lineage; we have Pharaohs and Emperors who were thought to be Gods, and traditions of revelation and divine incarnation–even death and resurrection–in traditions way older than our own Faith. So what is really going on? What is really relevant? Is that equal conviction simply, as it seems to be, an adjunct of the circumstance of one’s birth? If we put them all on the table and admit that we all learned ours the same way, where then do we go from there? Argue our own tradition? Does that not immediately entrench everyone else in theirs? and if we were open to duologue, what would be the solvent that allowed impartiality? And then, what would be a Universal criterion? Remember, we are at a table that has reps from every age and place, including the future and any number religions from any number of exoplanets.

If you had to say something to all those folks, what would it be? Would it be the “Mine’s right because I know it to be so through faith” that anyone there in all their sincerely convinced diversity could say? Or would it be something else? Is there perhaps a Soul factor that is primordial to religion? And if there is such, if that is where your Son’s and other’s conviction stems from, while it is wonderful to have such a Faith as ours, why is it then so important for humans to convince others of the rightness of a particular “way,” whatever it is?

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Hi there Joan,
I’ve been reading over this thread and find it very interesting.
Forgive me for zoning in on one aspect but here goes.
I found it very telling that you replied in one post that you were delighted to see how many people related personal histories, how they “tried” other faiths and then came back to Catholicism. I was reminded of a discussion I had recently with a woman here in Irelan about her atheism. I asked her where she got her ideas about eternal damnation. She then listed off a string of biblical references. I then asked her why, if she is a non-believer, she gets her notions from the Bible?

I can’t speak for that woman, but if I were asked I would say that Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God, so IF God exists, the Bible would be where I’d look to find out about Him. Well, that and prayer.

She did not reply and I did not pursue it. But I was left with trying to formulate an answer for her myself. My answers are irrelevant to the current debate and would of course be grossly presumptious. Yet, can I be brazen and ask if you are seeking a way to the Catholic faith? I hope you are not slighted by this question and it is asked with due respect.
I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

No, I’m not looking for a way, but the reasons are too numerous to mention here. Let’s just say that if I became convinced of the existence of God, I probably wouldn’t join any form of organized religion. And that’s all I’ll say here because, as you say, it’s irrelevant to the current debate.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Nice try at changing the subject. I’ve never asked an atheist to prove a negative. I readily admit the burden of proof is on the theist.

Then you are unusual as a theist. The one’s I come across do ask me to prove the negative.

You threw out the implication. Implications color people’s attitudes. Weren’t you arguing against attitudes being colored?

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Could you rephrase the question?

You question it “all the time”? Do you question your current beliefs all the time too?

Absolutely. Of course there are levels of questioning. I’m pretty certain that I know why airplanes fly, and those reasons are bound up with the laws of physics. I’m not so sure about what I believe about macroeconomics.

But have you read the book I suggested? If not, how do you know you’ve heard all the arguments? Sounds to me like you’re dismissing this book (which is based on logic, not people’s opinions) without giving it a chance. I thought you were arguing for being objective, which would mean looking at all arguments from a logical point of view.

Do you have the time to read every book that has been recommended to you? I have a reading list a mile long, a full time job, and, like you, I have a life. Let’s just generalize and say that after four decades of hearing and reading the arguments, I haven’t seen an original one in a long time. Oh, BTW, I also post on an skeptics board, where we have some believers who produce arguments for God all the time. They’re not original, either.

Honestly, for someone who says we should question things, you don’t seem willing to question your current beliefs. If you were, you would embrace the opportunity to be shown all logical arguments. Instead, you dismiss them without even bothering to look at them. Why are you insisting we question our beliefs without checking out all the arguments that question yours?

I think I’ve answered this.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Anymore extreme than suggesting that believers are ‘brainwashed’?

If you look again, you’ll notice that I did frame it as a question, although with an implication. Many posters on this thread have seen it as a question, not an accusation, and have responded in kind.

… and I’ve already apologized for using the loaded term brainwashed.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

And, if I may add craz, a positive atheist is always guilty, at least initially, for a lack of prudence, of careful consideraton, and of more accurate and dispassionate investigation. An atheist really convinced and in perfect good faith is a hypothesis bordering on the absurd.

In the matter of human beings and their beliefs, I don’t believe in absolutes, as I’ve already pointed out.

 

[colmcille1]

Hi there Joan,
Thank you for your reply. You mentioned that you would not be a part of “organized” religion if you were convinced of the existence of God. I won’t question your reasons for this but here is what I know of this general line of argument: organized religion is somewhat constricting; it does not “fit in” with my career, friends, lifestyle; a bad experience of religious teaching at school/home/college/personal relationship has turned me right off.
I only mention these as I know people who would lay claim to these “reasons”.
My response is, and always will be, ever thus: you are still immeasurably Loved by Him.
This fact is as immutable as the very air we breathe. It is always there and the route of organized religion is the human way of ordering our faith for the process of its celebration and dissemination. I am not, btw, being judgemental in identifying the above “reasons”. What I am saying, I suppose, is that all believers must work hard at their faith. The rewards are incredible and the joy to be had within the Church(as community) is immense.
I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Interesting.

You do believe in atheism. You do have a certain type of “faith” in atheism. Can we, then, say that you have been brainwashed by your "faith’ in atheism? Are we allowed to make the same judgments regarding your belief system as you make on ours? Or are atheists the only ones allowed to make these judgments? And, if so, where do you get the authority to pass your judgments on our Divine Faith?

You’ll have to define “faith” for me to answer your first question. I’ll just point out again that in the OP I referred to how a person is raised. I was not raised an atheist. In fact, I didn’t even know it was possible to be an atheist until I was a teenager. I just assumed everybody believed in God.

And of course you are allowed to make the same judgments about atheists’ beliefs. I believe in freedom of questioning on all subjects. Surely you realize that atheists’ beliefs, or lack of beliefs, are questioned constantly in western countries?

And incidentally, putting capital letters on the words ‘divine faith’ does not make it any more factual. A Muslim or Mormon can do the same thing.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

In St.Thomas’ treatment of injustice done to God by sins against religion he makes no mention of atheism. As often happens in St. Thomas, what he does not say is as important as what he says; in this case the very omission has profound significance. On the face of it, there is a direct opposition between religion and atheism. One gives reverence and subjection to the first and last Cause, while the other denies and ignores a first and last Cause. But look a little deeper and you will see that Thomas’ omission of atheism was due to his hard common sense, the common sense that kept him from chasing figments of the imagination when there were things to get done.

Or maybe he was afraid to acknowledge such a thing, in case someone takes it seriously? Just a hypothesis. When someone refrains from saying something, I try not to read too much into it.

As a matter of fact, there cannot be atheism. Man may vociferously deny that he had any first cause, though his very existence reveals the falseness of his claim; but he cannot even deny that he has a last cause, a final end, without paralyzing action and reducing it to the spasmodic twitchings of madness. Man must go somewhere, for his life is a motion and every act is a step toward a goal. Man’s goal is his god - an odd god, perhaps, represented by the figures on a bank statement, the sweetnes of pleasure, the exhilaration of power, the oblivion of a party, a state, a nation, or even man’s puny self -whatever it is that the atheist aims at, to that thing he pays the tribute of religion. That is his false god; more hideous, more ludicrous, more pathetic, more calamitous than the ugly idol of a savage.

Oooooooh, so now we’re resorting to insults. Perhaps you would like to address the OP? If not, I have no more comment.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

I have always believed and still believe the holy Catholic faith to be the one true and infallible religion. In this Faith I recognize a pure gift of God, a supernatural grace. But I have not neglected those human means which confirm belief and overthrow such doubts as may arise to tempt me. I have given attentive study to the foundations of my Faith. I have read in the works both of defenders and assailants of the Faith arguments for and against it, and have derived arguments in its favor which render it most acceptable even to the purely natural reason and prove it to be such that any mind unperverted by sin and passion, any healthy and generous mind, cannot but accept and love it.

Okay, this more what I had in mind for a response.

I’m confused by the highlighted portion, though. I thought Christians believed that no man, with the exception of Jesus, is ''unperverted by sin and passion"?