A question for those who were raised Catholic

[Joan_of_Bark]

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

I was raised in a Baptist church environment, and I don’t remember anyone denouncing Catholicism in my presence. Still, I was young, and maybe my memory fails me on some of the details.

And again, I’ve apologized for using the term brainwashed. May we move on, or am I never going to be forgiven for this?

 

[raaucoin]

Born into Catholic family and raised as such. “Ran away from the Church” and explored many many avenues of religion and/or spirituality. Didn’t want to be Catholic anymore.
Nothing seemed to fit. I returned to the Church not because I bought into any doctrines or dogma, but because it happens that those doctrines, dogma, and liturgy were affirmed in my experience- my experience affirmed the faith in my heart and the Church is that visible expression of everything that is real to me. Not just because I was taught it, and bought it hook line and sinker, but because as hard as I tried to reject it, I couldn’t. It was always there. My parents and teachers were not the ones who planted my faith in my heart. I know it was the Holy Spirit. They only allowed the seed to grow and gave water to it now and again.

I was looking for TRUTH and only found it in the Catholic Church. Just my experience!

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

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.
steve b;6906424:

Eyewitness accounts? A number of conspiracy buffs use that term to bolster their claim for UFO’s in the desert. Not that I discount such accounts, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But anyway, I specifically asked about Catholicism, not Christianity in general.
steve b;6906424:

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

I’ve studied them all to some degree, and continue to do so, but so far I find none of them very believable.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

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 responded to this nicely, but I assume you know that many societies in history, some that were very successful, believed that multiple gods also explains where we come from. And I can make a good case that the ancient Hebrews (before the second temple) believed in multiple gods, although they were only supposed to worship one.

What did their children think? I don’t know, but it’s possible they thought something quite different and such beliefs had to be programmed out of them. But now I’m speculating. My point is that monotheism is not necessarily the default position for our existence. And I’m getting dangerously close to taking us off topic again …

 

[crazzeto]

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.

Likewise I framed my posting as question… I would suggest that your posting is more offenceisve and extreme Joan.

Your posting contradicts your own doctrine, of being a free thinker, by making the suggestion that beleivers must be brainwashed.

My posting, presents a valid question which was first proposed thousands of years ago by God. The question is quite valid, I submit there is a God, assuming that there is a God Joan, would it not then be the fool that says “there is no God”?

Assuming there is a God Joan, would not their works all be abominal? As the works of Athiests are at the service of evil?

Your posting proposes the question, aren’t all believers brainwashed? This contradicts the position of being a so called “free thinker”. You suggest that one can think freely, unless they think God exists. This is hypocritical, and the suggestion that believers are brainwashed is no less offensive than your posting that I and other believers might be brainwashed.

 

[antroji]

Once again, Crazzeto, the OP apologized for and dropped the “b” word waaaaaay back there. But I know that there are, generally, two kinds of threaders: those who read all the posts so they don’t put their foot in it, and those who just respond to the OP. Fine either way, but it is like re-starting the thread each time that latter happens.

So let’s go back to what the OP’s dynamic is without its emotional load: If I was here from another planet, would it not seem to me that since I have no stake in the matter and no prejudicial background, that ALL the religious people from ANY faith have EXACTLY the SAME scenario going. They learned a faith from their parents and feel that they know it is right based on whatever tradition and scripture is theirs at whatever time and whichever place. And with some exceptions they will maintain the rightness of that faith, whatever it is, in the face of any argument. And if there is a “change,” it is still through the general filters of their original “group” of faiths: switching Christianities or Muslimisms, or Judaisms, or whatever. So no fundamental change even there, only in some particulars, except switches from theism to atheism or v-v.

So we see a general pattern that holds a number of variants that are in disagreement with each other except in form. That form being common, what is advantageous, better, more inclusive, more Real, or whatever about any of those different fillers that make it take precedence over a common container, that container being unversally simialr to near the point of beiong identical?* If A, B, and C each use the same semantic argument, or argument reducible to the same symbolic logic, which of them would be to me, necessarily right, from my impartial viewpoint. How would I decide?

And if any of A, B, or C were to change their stance, what would they change to? another filler of the same form? Or would they step outside the argument and find another common factor that would explain both the sameness and the difference of the stances taken together? And if so, what would that factor be, given that it would have to maintain the stability of the individual and also be cognitively available to all others?

*A more concrete example might be the phenomenon of gangs, such as were in a city I once leved in. To an outsider, a bunch of these from different groups would be indistiguishable. They would, and all did, look the same, to a non-ganger or one not familiar with the distinctions of that culture. So here we see, from a distant perspective, identical people who are at war with one another. The difference was a scarf or a street they lved on or the brand of dope they pushed. Given  another pole, the "brand" of God we adhere to and promote, what, to an impartial visitor, would make any one of a group of sameies stand out, if anything? You know--substitute a cross, star, or crescent, etc, for the color of a scarf or jacket, and where do we stand?

 

[cecilia97]

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.

No…if you only knew how bad my Catholic education and catechisis were, you’d understand how shocking it is that I’m Catholic today. In fact, I’d go as far as to say we have a sad LACK of brainwashing in the American Church.

 

[cecilia97]

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.

Question for you, Joan: If you have kids (or if you will in the future) would you let them choose their own names?

What is more “personal” to us than our first names? We often come to identify with them so closely that they become the one word which is capable of describing us to the fullest. Yet we have zero choice about them while we are children.

 

[crazzeto]

Lets start with this, do you personally believe in God or not?

There is an either or going on here, and this really is an either or, our positions are incompatible (op and mine).

Either there is a God, or there isn’t. If there is no God, then I can agree with your posting. But I happen to beleive there is a God, Trium God… Thus I fundamentally disagree with your anteseptic posting.

Once again, Crazzeto, the OP apologized for and dropped the “b” word waaaaaay back there. But I know that there are, generally, two kinds of threaders: those who read all the posts so they don’t put their foot in it, and those who just respond to the OP. Fine either way, but it is like re-starting the thread each time that latter happens.

So let’s go back to what the OP’s dynamic is without its emotional load: If I was here from another planet, would it not seem to me that since I have no stake in the matter and no prejudicial background, that ALL the religious people from ANY faith have EXACTLY the SAME scenario going. They learned a faith from their parents and feel that they know it is right based on whatever tradition and scripture is theirs at whatever time and whichever place. And with some exceptions they will maintain the rightness of that faith, whatever it is, in the face of any argument. And if there is a “change,” it is still through the general filters of their original “group” of faiths: switching Christianities or Muslimisms, or Judaisms, or whatever. So no fundamental change even there, only in some particulars, except switches from theism to atheism or v-v.

So we see a general pattern that holds a number of variants that are in disagreement with each other except in form. That form being common, what is advantageous, better, more inclusive, more Real, or whatever about any of those different fillers that make it take precedence over a common container, that container being unversally simialr to near the point of beiong identical?* If A, B, and C each use the same semantic argument, or argument reducible to the same symbolic logic, which of them would be to me, necessarily right, from my impartial viewpoint. How would I decide?

And if any of A, B, or C were to change their stance, what would they change to? another filler of the same form? Or would they step outside the argument and find another common factor that would explain both the sameness and the difference of the stances taken together? And if so, what would that factor be, given that it would have to maintain the stability of the individual and also be cognitively available to all others?

*A more concrete example might be the phenomenon of gangs, such as were in a city I once leved in. To an outsider, a bunch of these from different groups would be indistiguishable. They would, and all did, look the same, to a non-ganger or one not familiar with the distinctions of that culture. So here we see, from a distant perspective, identical people who are at war with one another. The difference was a scarf or a street they lved on or the brand of dope they pushed. Given  another pole, the "brand" of God we adhere to and promote, what, to an impartial visitor, would make any one of a group of sameies stand out, if anything?

 

[steve_b]

steve_b:

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:

Eyewitness accounts? A number of conspiracy buffs use that term to bolster their claim for UFO’s in the desert. Not that I discount such accounts, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But anyway, I specifically asked about Catholicism, not Christianity in general.

• Catholicism is the original. Are you interested?
• the resurrection and ascention of Jesus are evidence as extraordinary as one can get. A UFO is merely an unidentified flying object. Nothing extraordinary about that.

JoB:

I’ve studied them all to some degree, and continue to do so, but so far I find none of them very believable.

Then as Paul said, if it’s all a ruse, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. But if it’s NOT a ruse, you need to get busy and busy fast, finding the truth. As a suggestion, 1st get rid of the obsticles in your way, whether they are there of your own making, or the making of others…

 

[antroji]

I guess you are talking to me, Crazzeto. Yes, I believed in God until I had a life-altering spiritual experience. That took my belief up a few orders of magnitude to where “belief” is pretty much an inadequate word.

So, we both agreeing that God IS, then what can we say about this observation about how we come to acquire our faith, or non-faith, whatever each might be, since the pattern for that acquisition is identical from time immemorial and for any place or culture? It is a question about how we work, and if it applies to other faiths, it applies to us as well, as far as how we originally *got *our beliefs, not as to how true or not true they might be. So it is a question about acquisition, not about the verity of any faith, including ours. After all, just because one believes in God, that in itself doesn’t make one a Catholic, Roman, Orthodox, or whatever. So OK then, ask what would make one an Orthodox or Roman, and then distribute that question over the world over time.

 

[crazzeto]

I guess you are talking to me, Crazzeto. Yes, I believed in God until I had a life-altering spiritual experience. That took my belief up a few orders of magnitude to where “belief” is pretty much an inadequate word.

So, we both agreeing that God IS, then what can we say about this observation about how we come to acquire our faith, or non-faith, whatever each might be, since the pattern for that acquisition is identical from time immemorial and for any place or culture? It is a question about how we work, and if it applies to other faiths, it applies to us as well, as far as how we originally *got *our beliefs, not as to how true or not true they might be. So it is a question about acquisition, not about the verity of any faith, including ours. After all, just because one believes in God, that in itself doesn’t make one a Catholic, Roman, Orthodox, or whatever. So OK then, ask what would make one an Orthodox or Roman, and then distribute that question over the world over time.

Ultimitly it’s a question of being called by the father, it would seem that at least some are aboslutly not open to the possibility of God. I can’t quantify the why, because it’s impossible to quanitfy something which is so directly intertwined with an individuals personal experience.

Here’s the thing, what I’ve found is that athiests in particular are quite fond of putting out their own extreme idea’s out there, then claiming some sort of speacial protection from being question regarding the idea’s they put out there. The OP stated “well I put it in the form of a question”, well guess what, I also packaged my idea’s as a question.

If we accept his questioning, which is wrapped up in his idology is valid. Then why would we consider my questioning invalid? More over, I think I make some good points regarding being consitant to ones own beliefs.

 

[steve_b]

I guess you are talking to me, Crazzeto. Yes, I believed in God until I had a life-altering spiritual experience. That took my belief up a few orders of magnitude to where “belief” is pretty much an inadequate word.

So, we both agreeing that God IS, then what can we say about this observation about how we come to acquire our faith, or non-faith, whatever each might be, since the pattern for that acquisition is identical from time immemorial and for any place or culture? It is a question about how we work, and if it applies to other faiths, it applies to us as well, as far as how we originally *got *our beliefs, not as to how true or not true they might be. So it is a question about acquisition, not about the verity of any faith, including ours. After all, just because one believes in God, that in itself doesn’t make one a Catholic, Roman, Orthodox, or whatever. So OK then, ask what would make one an Orthodox or Roman, and then distribute that question over the world over time.

The ONLY reason to believe in ANYTHING is because it’s true. Otherwise, if you can see/prove something is untrue, don’t waste time and effort believing in it…true?

 

[Tomster]

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.

Joan,

Actually, it’s the nature of the beast, if you get my drift.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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. In this day and age we are all raised in a secular society–the best we can hope for is to mitigate it effects on our children. 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. Many people do this in their youth. How old are you now? And the more I study religion, Perhaps you should study each religions various claims and evaluate those–I think you will find that different than studying religion (you’ll need to evaluate different sects–i.e. you can’t just study “Christianity”–you need to evaluate Catholism or the Orthodox or protestants etc.). Study the totality of its claims and theology. the more convinced I am of my current beliefs It’s funny how people can study the same thing and come to diametrically opposite views. The more I evaluate the claims–the more convinced I am that atheism just does not make sense–let alone explain anything. Most often the atheists I know simply do not like what Christianity teaches and so they adopt the atheism and believe whatever makes sense to them. (and yes, I have read the Bible – many times).

 

[MarkInOregon]

@ JRRTFAN, etc: Such a statement as “Well, to answer the question: “really any different than a Saudi Muslim --” In my limited view, most little Catholic kiddies don’t want to finance terrorism or chop non-Catholic heads off because they’re non-Catholics. Have you found a different scanario in your town?” demonstrates reactivity more thatn it does critical reading and thought. The OP’s question seems far less pointed at the comparative correctness of any religion than at the phenomenon of habituation by association. One can expect that if the sins of the father are handed down to the third and fourth generation that such a dynamic is applicable to any handing down of any demeritorius or of any good behaviors. (Help! I’m acting my own mother! )

The OP simply asks why this is so and given that it is, have individuals thus raised actually made a choice, whether they are Catholic, Muslim, Pocomaniac, Christadelphian, Shintoist, or whatever. There are upwards of 700. Take your choice. The question boils down to: “Do we as Catholics acquire our Faith in any way signifficantly different from how anyone else does or ever has?” Can we sincerely and impartially answere that question without running it through our already Catholicly habituated mind sets? I wonder. My opinion is “no.” We will perforce use the criteria we grew up with to assess any system different form our own, as will a member of any other belief system.

So, putting aside our conviction of moral certainty, is our way of learning our Faith in any way significantly distinguishable from how anyone absorbs their faith, social mores, political views, cultural habits, food tastes, etc, etc.

It is a simple question. How do you answer it?

BTW, this is interesting.

Interesting–really? It doesn’t sound like a question but more like a statement of fact–that no one really seems to be challenging. It would seem that we all learn our faith or lack of faith, social mores, political views, cultural habits, food tastes, etc the same way–is anyone questioning that?

Why would we object to someone learning in this way? It is how initial learning occurs–can a child really be given a set of alternative views and asked to decide? What would they base their decision on? The child needs to develop critical thinking skills, research techniques and access to data–that can be a life long process.

What I do object to–are societies that prohibit the freedom to explore what we are taught as children and that prohibit us–under pain of death–from adopting an alternative view based on our study.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I can only speak for myself, but I was definitely not conditioned to be skeptical about my society. In England we were all raised to to believe that our elders – in the church, in parliament, and in our families – knew what was best. It was mainly through reading as a teenager that I began to question things.

Fair enough.

Absolutely. I believe that someone who switches his or her beliefs as a free adult is more objective, because that person has seen more than one side of the argument.

Or perhaps they just don’t want to live in conformance with what they were taught? Maybe they want to spend all night partying and drinking? Maybe that’s as much thought as went into it.

 

[MarkInOregon]

My eyes! Please, Unity, can you stick to a dark colour, I had a hard time reading that.

With regards to the sabbath, the commandment is quite clear.

Exodus 20 (NJB)

Notice the bolded part. It doesn’t say: You may only do some work. It’s an absolute command, which is why practicing Jews take it very seriously. Look up Numbers 15:32.

As for your comments about many people not being real Christians, well, that’s an accusation often made about Catholics by protestants.

And again, I’m being dragged off topic …

Please see Christs comments in the Gospels on the sabbath–when he was accussed of violating the sabbath. I am sorry I can’t give you the verses right now–but I am sure someone else can. This may help provide a Christian perspective.

 

[cecilia97]

I raise the issue of that commandment because I find that some Christians love to wield The Ten Commandments like a blunt instrument when it suits them. I suspect this is more an issue with protestants, but surely you’ve heard of the many attempts in America to plaster the Commandments on public buildings?

Some trivia: The US House and Senate chambers both have “In God We Trust” inscribed in huge letters on their front walls (they hardly ever show it on TV), and there are large paintings of prayer meetings, bible studies, and even a baptism in the Capitol building. At one time, congressmen could attend protestant services and Catholic Mass inside the Capitol building.

Nobody’s attempting to “plaster” anything that ain’t already been there for a long time.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Likewise I framed my posting as question… I would suggest that your posting is more offenceisve and extreme Joan.

Your posting contradicts your own doctrine, of being a free thinker, by making the suggestion that beleivers must be brainwashed.

I DID NOT make the suggestion that believers MUST be brainwashed. You’re doing what a few others have on this thread, and turning my question into an absolute statement. As I’ve written repeatedly, I don’t believe in absolutes when it comes to human thinking.

My posting, presents a valid question which was first proposed thousands of years ago by God. The question is quite valid, I submit there is a God, assuming that there is a God Joan, would it not then be the fool that says “there is no God”?

Huh? Why would I assume there is A God? Why not multiple gods? Why assume a god at all? And even if I did make such an assumption, why would I think someone else is a fool for saying “there is no God?”. Just because I’ve made an assumption, doesn’t mean they need to make the same assumption.

Assuming there is a God Joan, would not their works all be abominal? As the works of Athiests are at the service of evil?

I’ve never met a Christian before who has such an extreme view of atheists. Do you really believe that no atheist has ever done anything good?

Your posting proposes the question, aren’t all believers brainwashed?

Had you actually read my OP, you would have noticed that I asked about those who were raised Catholic. That hardly incorporates “all believers”, now does it?

This contradicts the position of being a so called “free thinker”. You suggest that one can think freely, unless they think God exists.

Hogwash. I never wrote that nor suggested it. You’re putting words in my mouth.