Ask a Pagan

[joe371]

A little uncharitable, and a little muddled in interpretation.

The Catholic viewpoint seems to uphold the idea that their faith can be rationally expressed and is commensurate with the dictates of a person’s reasoning abilities…to a point.

There are however, acknowledged sets of “mysteries” within their religion which essentially lay outside the realm of human understanding. Their conception of the Trinity for instance is a strong example of this.

However, there is a “positive” sense about the human mind’s ability to rationally comprehend the commandments of their deity and extend the principles (thou shall not kill) on to issues that did not exist at the time that those statements were made (medically assisted suicide, abortion et al.)

I suppose the viewpoint can be encapsulated in Anselm of Canterbury’s statement about “Faith seeking Understanding.”

Reason isn’t the starting point, but rather the acceptance of certain revealed truths that are essentially non-negotiable. The “methodology” if you want to call it that is a bit like deriving truths from a set of concrete first principles.

How do we know those first principles are “concrete?” Well, that’s what all the fuss is about when you really think about it.

The specific Catholic “hobby horses” if you will, generally point in directions related to tradition and authority and historic foundation. Ergo, those who feel engaged to take an eristic approach toward interfaith affairs (ie: debate), generally launch into criticisms based on those 3 pillars if you will.

There is of course debate within the Christian tradition about what constitutes correct tradition, the use/misuse of authority, and the historic accuracy of the development of their Church(es). At the very least though, there exist some commonalities about what the believe in, although the role of Reason tends to fluctuate depending on which sect that one speaks of.

Nicely stated…

 

[mek42]

Nicely stated…

Yes, thank you. The explanation helps my understanding. It wasn’t my intent to be offensive, in other threads people have just about commanded others to not interpret Scripture and this thread seems to have become the ‘‘Challenge your beliefs’’ thread.

I still have some difficulty putting the two assertions together as a logically coherent whole, but the rey helped quite a bit and my lingering issues are beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[TheAtheist]

Yes, thank you. The explanation helps my understanding. It wasn’t my intent to be offensive,** in other threads people have just about commanded others to not interpret Scripture and this thread seems to have become the ‘‘Challenge your beliefs’’ thread.**

I still have some difficulty putting the two assertions together as a logically coherent whole, but the rey helped quite a bit and my lingering issues are beyond the scope of this thread.

Ah, well herein lies the difficulty, IMHO.

What is the objective of the person interacting with you?

For some, an interfaith dialogue is simply just that, a dialogue - a chance to inquire about another point of view and answer any possible lingering questions that one might have.

I suppose, and i’m willing to take correction about this from a Moderator, that this was the formal intent of the Non-Catholic forum.

However, others have decided to use this forum as an opportunity to “out-debate” those who might have differing viewpoints. I believe, they believe that this fulfills the commandment of going to spread the “Good News.”

Other Catholics would see their actions as… ineffective given the medium (the Internet is not exactly an intimate place) at best. Or an “exercise in Pride” to quote a lay Franciscan i know.

As for the whole, not interpreting Scripture business, that can fall into a couple different categories:

1.) In the midst of verbal exchange between a Catholic and Non-Catholic Christian, debating about the meaning of certain passage in their holy text.

2.) Someone who is part of their religious tradition who is perhaps interpreting their scripture in a rather idiosyncratic manner…or what the other person feels is an idiosyncratic manner.

In both cases it links back to the idea of that praxis of tradition/authority. Its not that their holy book can’t be interpreted, it just has to be interpreted in a manner which aligns with their traditional understanding of the faith.

Of course what constitutes a “traditional understanding of the faith” is itself a subject of debate…

 

[joe371]

In both cases it links back to the idea of that praxis of tradition/authority. Its not that their holy book can’t be interpreted, it just has to be interpreted in a manner which aligns with their traditional understanding of the faith.

I think this is a common practice wherever you go, at least in terms of Christianity.

 

[Micosil]

Well, Buddhism for one, and pretty much all of the schools of Yogic thought, as well. These are not blind religions but very old (Yoga is about 3,000+ years old), pre-Christian schools of philosophy. If you study them in any depth at all, you will easily see this.

I see. Let me be a bit more specific: I know of no mainstream religion (other than Catholicism) that explicitly declares that God exists and emphasizes the use of both faith and reason.

“The non-adherence[4] to the notion of an omnipotent creator deity or a prime mover is seen by many as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

Today the vast majority of magical practitioners are very against using magic to harm others. there are of course those Satanists out there who would try to so otherwise, and others, but they are outliers. Damm Warlocks giving new age folks a bad name.

That is another point of contention between “magical” practitioners, “white” or “black”, and traditional Catholicism. Ask many Catholics and they’ll tell you that if there is such a thing as “magic”, it comes from demons, which in the long run, is bad.

 

[jerry_joseph]

This may be a hair off topic, but is related to some recent posts in this thread. It seems like Catholics place a great value on applying reason to faith, but then also assert that the Bible is not to be interpreted by said reason, but, rather, established Church interpretations are to accepted seemingly blindly. These two charges seem to be mutually exclusive. Can anyone clarify?

Without reason one cannot believe. An animal cannot, believe or not to believe, in God , because it is not gifted with reasoning skill. An atheist is a believer who strongly believes that God does not exists , because his reasoning skill let him to think so. Believing in Christ also requires reasoning skill. To identify the uniqueness of Christ from other faiths requires reason.

Human reason can varies. If you read some verses in bible , you will get various ideas. You explains that verse on the basis of that idea. But it may not be what author of bible actually mean. May be there is chance for misleading the believers. All that thoughts originating into your mind while reading bible may not be giving by holy spirit. But revealed truth is only one.

It is revealed to that author by holy spirit. It is through church , holy spirit teaches the humanity. So church only have the authority to interpret the bible.

 

[jerry_joseph]

Is there any contradictions in truth?.

Most of pagans say this is my version of truth and that is your version of truth and all are true. Imagine , one person believes that God does not exists and another person believes that God exists, is both of them are true?. How come it possible?.

As a christian I would like to call them as not versions of truths but to call them as their faiths. There are different faiths. But not different versions of truths. Truth is only One. A pagan believes that tolerance means accepting what they believe as true by others without making any objections.In return they will accept that christians are also true. Can they consider christ as one true God , as it is believed by christians?. No?.Why?. They can believe based on their faith only. They can edit christian faith and then believe . But they cannot fully believe in christian faith as it is believed by Christians.

A christian believes that religious tolerance means to accept that others have right to believe in their faith and practice their faith . It does not mean that accepting everything they believe. May be there are lot of things in their faith that can be acceptable to christians and there are also lot of things in their faith that cannot be acceptable to christians.

 

[rinnie]

This may be a hair off topic, but is related to some recent posts in this thread. It seems like Catholics place a great value on applying reason to faith, but then also assert that the Bible is not to be interpreted by said reason, but, rather, established Church interpretations are to accepted seemingly blindly. These two charges seem to be mutually exclusive. Can anyone clarify?

Actually thats what Christ left us. Only 3 thing. Faith reason and what you forgot is history.

Jesus came here to lead us into the truth. If you read the history of our faith, you will remember how Jesus got angry because the Jews were turning his Fathers house into a marketplace.

As stated here earlier. There is Almighty God to some people. And the Almighty dollar to others. Kinda like history repeating itself once more.

But Jesus not only left us the word, he left us teachers.

See when a Priest takes the oath it is a calling from God. Think about it you would have to admit it has to be a special spiritual connection to our Lord.

I mean to give up everything, have no material things for yourself in this world you are on call 24 7.

Jesus said upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hades will never prevail.

Well look at the RCC. It was started by Peter and his here today. Sure it will go through many trials many will try to tear down the RCC. It is the most hated Church today and will always be.

As Jesus said it they hated me they will hate you.

Look how many Judas’s you could say entered the RCC and betrayed God. Its nothing new to God. Why he lets this happen is a mystery. I guess free will and all.

But he promised us the Church would be here until he comes again in glory and the truth would be taught by the power of the Holy Spirit.

And look thousands years later the Church is still here.

History what Jesus said still stands, reason our ability to look up history and teachings and make sure they continue to match up. ANd faith given to us at Baptism.

 

[mlamg]

Wrong Not a book. This teaching was around long before the Holy Bible came into print.

I’m pretty sure the bible is a book.

 

[mlamg]

So you are not open to the possibility that someone may mistakenly believe that he is experiencing God, when actually he is not? Or no possibility that someone may mistakenly interpret what he believes he has experienced? No concrete right or wrong actions, it’s all down to individual experience and interpretation?

That’s it with most pagans though isn’t it? No really firm foundations for their faith, no real commonality of belief, just what they, personally, think things to be. Very much based on the individual rather than on a community of believers. No wonder then that it’s hard to actually find two pagans who believe the same things (which was very much my experience of paganism). Each man is his own religious sect.

Peter Sutcliffe, the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’, claimed God told him to kill prostitutes. Would you tell him that his experience of ‘God’ was wrong?

Well, seeing as my answer was removed and I was given an infraction for trying to answer this question, I guess I’m not allowed to give one. Funny, I copied and pasted the exact wording for my answer from a Catholic poster here, but MY language was deemed to be inappropriate. However, the original post and wording are still here, I see. Must be that pagans aren’t allowed to use such language, but Catholics are.

I’m done here, guys. Enjoy your discussion. I don’t go in for discrimination in any form. If I can’t use your wording back to you to show how insulting it is, then my hands are tied and it’s worthless even trying to teach or debate here.

Love and light to all.

 

[mlamg]

I see. Let me be a bit more specific: I know of no mainstream religion (other than Catholicism) that explicitly declares that God exists and emphasizes the use of both faith and reason.

The Yogic tradition and all its schools of philosophy, including Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma.

 

[Lochias]

A little uncharitable, and a little muddled in interpretation.

The Catholic viewpoint seems to uphold the idea that their faith can be rationally expressed and is commensurate with the dictates of a person’s reasoning abilities…to a point.

There are however, acknowledged sets of “mysteries” within their religion which essentially lay outside the realm of human understanding. Their conception of the Trinity for instance is a strong example of this.

However, there is a “positive” sense about the human mind’s ability to rationally comprehend the commandments of their deity and extend the principles (thou shall not kill) on to issues that did not exist at the time that those statements were made (medically assisted suicide, abortion et al.)

I suppose the viewpoint can be encapsulated in Anselm of Canterbury’s statement about “Faith seeking Understanding.”

Reason isn’t the starting point, but rather the acceptance of certain revealed truths that are essentially non-negotiable. The “methodology” if you want to call it that is a bit like deriving truths from a set of concrete first principles.

How do we know those first principles are “concrete?” Well, that’s what all the fuss is about when you really think about it.

The specific Catholic “hobby horses” if you will, generally point in directions related to tradition and authority and historic foundation. Ergo, those who feel engaged to take an eristic approach toward interfaith affairs (ie: debate), generally launch into criticisms based on those 3 pillars if you will.

There is of course debate within the Christian tradition about what constitutes correct tradition, the use/misuse of authority, and the historic accuracy of the development of their Church(es). At the very least though, there exist some commonalities about what the believe in, although the role of Reason tends to fluctuate depending on which sect that one speaks of.

Very well put, thank you. It’s good to know folks are listening out there, even if they believe otherwise. Makes dialogue a thing to look forward to, not dread. Much obliged.

 

[mlamg]

Truth is only One.

No, religious truth is only one, in the confines of that religion.

In actual truth, which is also called fact or reality, and must be proven, there is one answer. Like in math, there’s one final answer. Or in science, there’s one answer. What is the weight of 1 mole of hydrogen? There’s only one answer.

Religious truth is an oxymoron. What one perceives as God’s word, no matter what holy book or tradition you go by, is still unable to be proven in scientific ways. No one has actually confirmed with God, talking to him face to face, that the beliefs and practices of ANY religion are actually true. Your beliefs based on the bible and your church tradition lead you to believe it’s true. But as far as I know, you don’t have God’s phone number.

OK, now I’m done. Bye all.

 

[Micosil]

I’m pretty sure the bible is a book.

Actually, rather than just a book, as Fr. Robert Barron says, it is more appropriately described as a library, each book belonging to a different literary genre.

 

[Lochias]

I’m pretty sure the bible is a book.

It’s actually a collection of books, each based on long-standing history and tradition before they were ever bound together in a volume.

To so casually dismiss it otherwise does a grave disservice to history and tradition that even non-believers acknowledge, and makes one’s position look a little foolish, to be frank.

 

[Captain_America]

No, religious truth is only one, in the confines of that religion.

In actual truth, which is also called fact or reality, and must be proven, there is one answer. Like in math, there’s one final answer. Or in science, there’s one answer. What is the weight of 1 mole of hydrogen? There’s only one answer.

Religious truth is an oxymoron. What one perceives as God’s word, no matter what holy book or tradition you go by, is still unable to be proven in scientific ways. No one has actually confirmed with God, talking to him face to face, that the beliefs and practices of ANY religion are actually true. Your beliefs based on the bible and your church tradition lead you to believe it’s true. But as far as I know, you don’t have God’s phone number.

OK, now I’m done. Bye all.

sounds doctrinaire.

 

[Captain_America]

This may be a hair off topic, but is related to some recent posts in this thread. It seems like Catholics place a great value on applying reason to faith, but then also assert that the Bible is not to be interpreted by said reason, but, rather, established Church interpretations are to accepted seemingly blindly. These two charges seem to be mutually exclusive. Can anyone clarify?

I think the Bible is a very difficult book for people—particularly people without serious study—to read for themselves and understand. Some portions are blindingly clear; others, with weight as well, are opaque.

The great virtue of the Catholic approach is that we recognize the challenges here. The Catholic interpretation rests upon substantial analysis by theological experts. Much better than letting old Uncle Bob run wild with whatever he thinks the Bible’s telling him. That’s what the church meetings do; the Vatican today has theologians exploring issues. It permits better analysis.

 

[Lochias]

I think the Bible is a very difficult book for people—particularly people without serious study—to read for themselves and understand. Some portions are blindingly clear; others, with weight as well, are opaque.

The great virtue of the Catholic approach is that we recognize the challenges here. The Catholic interpretation rests upon substantial analysis by theological experts. Much better than letting old Uncle Bob run wild with whatever he thinks the Bible’s telling him. That’s what the church meetings do; the Vatican today has theologians exploring issues. It permits better analysis.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Well said, Cap.

 

[Kallisto]

I think he is merely pointing out the believability of the Jesus story, and the fact that the eventual change of heart the apostles experienced during Pentecost is very persuasive, in terms of belief.

In terms of a person’s belief, yes. But the same can be said of others’ religions. The fact that one finds his religion to make sense and another not to does not prove that one religion is true and another is not. It does mean the person has found a religion that makes sense to him.

I respect all religious beliefs but am drawn to Christ for the very same reasons. Surely you would admit that Jesus could be who he claims to be? You cannot know for sure that he is not…

I cannot know for certain either way, nor can anyone else, and the same holds true regarding other gods. I think it’s you who pointed out before, we’ll all find out what’s what eventually. But until then, one might have strong belief, but no one knows with any certainty.

I did not know that. Who is doing the persecuting?

Depends on the country. Generally it’s hard right conservatives, fundamentalists and the predictable gamut of social ignorance to greed to spite and lack of compassion for other human beings.

 

[Kallisto]

Since there’s some unfamiliarity with discrimination and atrocities still be committed upon Pagans, with one person believing such no longer exists in the West, I gathered some examples of what’s happening not only in the US but around the world:

There is enough discrimination against Pagans that it merits its own Wikipedia article, which gives a few examples of the more prominent legal cases.

For years ethnic Greeks in Greece have dealt with discrimination and violence because of the Greek Orthodox Church’s status as a state religion. An MSNBC segment gives a basic idea (youtube video): youtube.com/watch?v=617qc8gmta8

In 2012 the University of Derby conducted a survey of religious groups that found “substantial” discrimination against religious minorities and movements which includes Pagans in the UK. In part: “The project’s initial findings have identified …] substantial reporting of unfair treatment on the basis of religion or belief continuing across key areas of people’s lives …] reports of unfair treatment indicate that it continues to particularly affect certain sectors (employment, education and the media) and religious groups (Muslims, Pagans and New Religious Movements).”

The Huffington Post interviewed Paul Weller, Professor of Inter-Religious Relations at the University of Derby, who told Huffington Post UK: a “particular frequency and severity in the complaints relating to” Pagans and new religious movements. “There are many instances of discrimination against Christians, but the discrimination against new religions is more ‘in-your-face’, verging on hatred. For Pagans, many of them have kept their religion secret, for fear it would be misunderstood.”

A few examples of discrimination in the US:

Attacks at Pagan Author’s Home Raise Concerns (Florida)

Google Sued For Sexual, Religious Discrimination

Missouri Library Sued for Barring Wiccan Websites

Whistle-blowing witch grounded by TSA
Wiccan is fired after complaint about casting spells — and after she complained about lax security at the airport

Christians Desecrate Wiccan Religious Site at Air Force Academy

What Happens to Real Pagan Politicians
[Kennebec County Democrat Chair Harassed Because Of Her Paganism]

Being pagan in Georgia: Do schools promote some religions while denigrating others?

Teenager convicted for harassing Pagan (UK)

[continued]