Do you belive other gods exist?

[Cider]

The Catholic Church does not teach that people who act in good faith are going to hell. It teaches that people who reject Christianity in general and/or Catholicism in particular,** knowing it to be true**, cannot be saved.

Edwin

But it’s very rare for people to reject something that they “know to be true”. And in fact this idea opens up the concept of everyone pretty much being saved regardless of religious affiliation or practice since they clearly didn’t know it to be true so they didn’t have the full understanding to actually reject it.

But this subject has been debated to death on CAF and this isn’t really the topic of the thread.

 

[Lokadottir]

But it’s very rare for people to reject something that they “know to be true”. And in fact this idea opens up the concept of everyone pretty much being saved regardless of religious affiliation or practice since they clearly didn’t know it to be true so they didn’t have the full understanding to actually reject it.

But this subject has been debated to death on CAF and this isn’t really the topic of the thread.

No I left something similar on Philosophy and it kept going without me. And I most DEFINITELY don’t “know Catholicism to be true”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your approach is awesome but you can look through some of the threads to know its not always shared. And the flaw in your analogy is similar to if there was a law against hijabs (did I spell that right?) if there was no punishment I guarantee plenty of Muslim women would still wear them.

Your point presumes that Moslem women, generally, wear the hijab out of fear. Otherwise, I am not sure why it would point to a flaw in my analogy.

 

[Lokadottir]

Your point presumes that Moslem women, generally, wear the hijab out of fear. Otherwise, I am not sure why it would point to a flaw in my analogy.

I said if the law FORBADE wearing them. totally different

 

[LivingWaters7]

That varies across traditions and individuals. I am a hard polytheist so I believe the gods are all separate and I think the other gods exist but they don’t concern me.

Interesting. I think what I’ve never understood about “hard polytheism” that allows for the existence of other deities outside of its own pantheon is how all of these Gods co-exist. Like, do they have separate abodes, only concern themselves with their worshippers (when you say “they don’t concern me”, is that what you mean?), etc.

 

[Contarini]

No I believe we were both told those who haven’t heard the good news can be spared. But we were both once Catholics and we were both confirmed which is a different kettle of fish. We’re basically apostates according to doctrine if I’m correct.

Only if you rejected it knowing it to be true.

I admit that your language about what “works for you” bothers me. But I don’t know your specifics. What I do know is that you say that you have never felt a connection with the divine in Christianity, and you have in paganism. I am in no position to judge what that actually means in your own spiritual life. It is possible that given your perspective and circumstances, becoming a pagan was a move toward God. I am of course not speaking for the Catholic Church (I am myself not yet fully united to the Church, although I have been moving that direction in fits and starts for years and am now convinced that I cannot refuse union with the Church in good conscience), but my position is well within what I’ve read and understood to be the spectrum of orthodox opinion. For instance, one of the most conservative, traditional Catholics I know was very alarmed some years ago when I said that I basically believed what Vatican II taught about the Church. He had known me for years, had known that I knew a lot about the Church, and had known that I frequently considered union with the Church. And yet he obviously had not really worried about my soul very much until that moment. Only when he had reason to think that I was convinced the Church’s teachings about itself were true did he become concerned that I was putting my soul in danger by failing to become Catholic. And that’s pretty typical of the conservative , orthodox Catholics I’ve known. (Liberal Catholics tend to think that no one will go to hell at all.) I don’t know who all these Catholics are that Skadi has been talking to, but they aren’t representative of my experience.

The position that you and Skadi ascribe to Catholics is certainly held by some–it’s the most conservative possible reading of the Church’s teaching, it seems to me. But the learned, orthodox, well-informed Catholics I know take a more generous view.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

You know what I thought so but I wasn’t sure.

See Post #282.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I said if the law FORBADE wearing them. totally different

Then I don’t understand how your point shows a flaw in my analogy.

I said:

You might, likewise, claim that fear of fine or imprisonment is the #1 political tool to keep citizens law abiding, but that seems to presuppose a rather cynical view of humanity. Likewise, it would seem, a rather jaundiced view of Christianity is presupposed when scary stories are thought to be its main missionary tool.

…And the flaw in your analogy is similar to if there was a law against hijabs (did I spell that right?) if there was no punishment I guarantee plenty of Muslim women would still wear them. Trying to get someone to convert is getting someone to abandon part of who they are. Not everyone will come when you play nicely so some Christians don’t.

If the law forbade Moslem women from wearing hijabs and they still did, their reasons would obviously override fear of or respect for the state law and be either because:

1. Their fear of supernatural law which supersedes natural law or
2. Their respect for what they perceive as supernatural law.

If you suggest 1) as their motive, that presumes something about Moslem women in the same way that someone (like Skadi, perhaps) assumes Christians act out of fear of hell and that the average citizen acts from fear of punishment. The point I was trying to dispel.

If you suggest 2) then it I would agree that people can and most often do act from motives having to do with truth, rightness or goodness rather than out of fear, which was my point.

 

[Contarini]

But it’s very rare for people to reject something that they “know to be true”

Let’s hope that this is indeed the case. But I have a somewhat more jaundiced view of the human capacity for self-deception than you do. Again, we’re talking about conscience and not just intellect. Hence the Church’s language about “no fault of their own.” You can persuade yourself to believe all sorts of things. You can sear your conscience. Indeed, one way to understand the “fires of hell” is that it’s the reality of God confronting the self-delusion of those who have irrevocably fixed their will in evil. When death and hell are cast into the lake of fire, it will no longer be possible for the Nazi to believe that he is a hero saving the world from the cancer of Jewishness.

And in fact this idea opens up the concept of everyone pretty much being saved regardless of religious affiliation or practice since they clearly didn’t know it to be true so they didn’t have the full understanding to actually reject it.

Yes. That is surely something for which we should hope. But not something of which, given the human capacity for culpable self-deception, we may be certain.

But this subject has been debated to death on CAF and this isn’t really the topic of the thread.

I will obey the moderators if they decree so, but I think it’s relevant and important, given the impressions that our pagan friends appear to have of what Christians believe.

Edwin

 

[Cider]

You seem to have totally missed my point, but whatever.

I can’t speak for the other posters, but reconstructionist religions aren’t based on orthodoxy but orthopraxy. It’s about acting correctly, not about believing the right things. Which is why it’s so difficult to find common ground. Christianity and recon religions speak a totally different language, have different values on what’s important religiously. It’s pretty obvious to me reading this thread that it’s happening.

 

[marydaze]

Let’s see how you treat people you actually think are evil. Then I’ll be impressed . . . .

Edwin

In reference to a post of mine about wicca that you replied to, and apparently reported me for,
How is saying that Wiccans do not ascribe to Christian love worth reporting? that is a no brainer. Wiccans do not worship Jesus nor do they believe in the devil. They go by the Wiccan rede. Trust me I know. And I know because I was a practicing Wiccan for 13 years and over the past 5 years have converted back to my original Christian beliefs with the exception of the newly added Catholic beliefs. Why in the world would someone report me for saying what I think some Catholics believe about Wiccans in general being fooled by the Devil into their wrong beliefs? That was not a judgement. I don’t judge Wiccans, especially because I used to be one. I am sorry this entire post has caused so much discord, and being that it is comprised of opinions and that my heart was in the right place, my opinion probably shouldnt have been reported.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You seem to have totally missed my point, but whatever.

I can’t speak for the other posters, but reconstructionist religions aren’t based on orthodoxy but orthopraxy. It’s about acting correctly, not about believing the right things. Which is why it’s so difficult to find common ground. Christianity and recon religions speak a totally different language, have different values on what’s important religiously. It’s pretty obvious to me reading this thread that it’s happening.

To clarify:

In order to act correctly it would seem necessary to believe the right things. Orthopraxy would presume orthodoxy.

Christianity, at least in the Catholic understanding, does not stop at merely believing the right things since that would be insufficient. On the other hand, Protestant denominations that subscribe to salvation by faith alone would seem to hold precisely that.

The concept of sanctification as a process involving cooperation with grace that leads to right action, but more importantly right being (sanctity) would seem integral to Catholicism.

 

[Cider]

I came back to say, but thanks for this discussion because it gave me the epiphany of why my orthopraxic mind struggles so hard with Catholicism.

 

[Cider]

To clarify:

In order to act correctly it would seem necessary to believe the right things. Orthopraxy would presume orthodoxy.

Christianity, at least in the Catholic understanding, does not stop at merely believing the right things since that would be insufficient. On the other hand, Protestant denominations that subscribe to salvation by faith alone would seem to hold precisely that.

The concept of sanctification as a process involving cooperation with grace that leads to right action, but more importantly right being (sanctity) would seem integral to Catholicism.

To Christians yes, not so for other religions though. You are assuming the two are dependent on each other and they aren’t for everyone. Probably because you are equating my use of the word act with acting morally, when actually I meant right practice as performing ritual in the correct way. Sorry I’m not used to discussing the subject of recon religion on a Catholic forum, I haven’t discussed it in quite some time and when I did it was with people that already shared the same background so I didn’t have to define every single term.

I should probably bow out of this thread now anyway. I get what you guys are trying to do, but I think that many of the posts here have been very uncharitable and your lack of understanding of the differences between the two world views is a hinderance to your attempts at conversion. The condescension sure hasn’t helped either.

But thanks for helping me figure out why I’m struggling so much with the Catholic faith and helping me find my way to where I should be.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To Christians yes, not so for other religions though. You are assuming the two are dependent on each other and they aren’t for everyone. Probably because you are equating my use of the word act with acting morally, when actually I meant right practice as performing ritual in the correct way. Sorry I’m not used to discussing the subject of recon religion on a Catholic forum, I haven’t discussed it in quite some time and when I did it was with people that already shared the same background so I didn’t have to define every single term.

I should probably bow out of this thread now anyway. I get what you guys are trying to do, but I think that many of the posts here have been very uncharitable and your lack of understanding of the differences between the two world views is a hinderance to your attempts at conversion. The condescension sure hasn’t helped either.

But thanks for helping me figure out why I’m struggling so much with the Catholic faith and helping me find my way to where I should be.

My apologies for being offensive or condescending. I wasn’t intending to be.

Neither was I making “attempts at conversion,” I was expressing or attempting to clarify a point of view where I perceived some discrepancy between the views of others and my own concerning Christianity.

Fundamentally, I don’t even think anyone can be “converted” in any meaningful way. I view the process as more a journey towards truth, goodness and reality rather than a distinct event.

 

[Cider]

I wasn’t referring to you personally or about posts made to me I was talking about the tone of others posts in this thread.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I wasn’t referring to you personally or about posts made to me I was talking about the tone of others posts in this thread.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Contarini]

In reference to a post of mine about wicca that you replied to, and apparently reported me for

I did not report you. The only person I have reported on this thread is “Ecclesiasticus,” and I told him that I was doing so. I do not report people behind their backs–I dislike having to do it at all, but in that case his ill manners were so extreme that I thought it necessary. I assure you that in the unlikely event that I ever report you I will tell you. I disagreed with what you said and thought it unfairly harsh, but as you said it consisted of the sincere expression of an opinion, not of pointless insult. If things are as you believe, then you expressed yourself rightly.

One of my most strongly held but (on this forum) least popular opinions is that former members of anything are generally less suited, if anything, to understand it than those who have never belonged to the tradition in question. I have trouble understanding why Catholics reject this principle when applied to other religions, since they all (rightly) appeal to it when speaking of ex-Catholics. I certainly want to hear your insights as a former Wiccan, but I also recognize that the act of converting generally causes one to remember the bad stuff primarily, just as happens in the breakup of a romantic relationship. (This is one of the reasons I find it so hard to convert to Catholicism, actually–I fear that the same thing will happen to me.) It may well be, of course, that the causation is the other way round–that the people who have bad experiences in a religion or belong to it for the wrong reasons are more likely to leave it. But I’m not going to discount what people who are now Wiccans tell me on the strength of what you and other ex-Wiccans tell me. Their experience is theirs, and yours is yours.

The experience I described with my grandmother (in my earlier post) has shaped my understanding of these things, just as your experience with Wicca has shaped you.

As a former Wiccan, what exactly do you mean when you say that Wiccans don’t practice Christian love?

Once again, I assure you that I did not report you and unless you start spewing random insults as Ecclesiasticus did, I am not going to do so.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You seem to have totally missed my point, but whatever.

It’s not “whatever.” I would like to hear your point, if I missed it.

We got off on the wrong foot in the earlier exchange about Judaism. Of course I didn’t know that you had personal experience, but I’m still puzzled by your statement about Jews explicitly worshiping a “tribal god.” Possibly you meant something different by it than I understood. I wish you would clarify your meaning and provide support instead of taking offense. Same here. I understand that you have issues with Catholicism and that a doctrine-based approach frustrates you, and that makes me understand your posts better.

I can’t speak for the other posters, but reconstructionist religions aren’t based on orthodoxy but orthopraxy. It’s about acting correctly, not about believing the right things. Which is why it’s so difficult to find common ground. Christianity and recon religions speak a totally different language, have different values on what’s important religiously. It’s pretty obvious to me reading this thread that it’s happening.

Yes, but everyone surely has beliefs about how the universe is. I think that the union of piety and philosophy is one of the strengths of Christianity, particularly of Catholicism. That certainly existed at one time in Judaism as well (with figures like Maimonides or for that matter some of Maimonides’ critics as well).

The question in the OP was “do you believe other gods exist”? It was a question about belief. Is it unreasonable to answer it by discussing beliefs, and inviting others to clarify their beliefs?

Edwin

 

[followingtheway]

No but I have the Scrupulous/Obsessive-Compulsive thing where I sort of avoid insulting other religions out of fear of offending their God or gods.