Following rules problematic? (Edited Title)

[carn]

To be honest, some things in Church teaching look stupid in my eyes. Even some rules or customs i should follow look stupid. We could discuss them in detail and maybe someone can offer explanations, why they arent stupid, but i am fairly confident that a lot of from my point of view questionable things remain.

As far as i can wrap my mind around Genesis and Original Sin, there was some rule not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now personally that rule doesnt make any sense for me. If i lack knowledge of what is good and evil, i might do evil things due to lack of knowledge and doing evil things unknowing should also be avoided, so having knowledge of good and evil is advantageous over having no knowledge. Even the choice of dying or not knowing good and evil is not a clear choice, because i would value not commiting unknowingly some specific evil acts higher than my own live.

But i also note, that eating from that tree caused all the entire mess. So my personal conclusion:
Some of the rules might be stupid, but the ability to follow from a personal point of view stupid and senseless rules is very important, so training it by following some stupid Church rules is sensible.

But the question is, is there any problem with considering some things to be stupid, as long as they are nonetheless adhered to?

Is there any requirement to attempt to understand and appreciate everything, even if the sucess is bound to be limited?

 

[patrick457]

Is there any requirement to attempt to understand and appreciate everything, even if the sucess is bound to be limited?

A big no. I know we humans have a thirst for knowledge since we are born, but I am of the opinion that the human mind is not too big enough to grasp as much as it would like. Then again, I’m the guy who thinks ambiguity is something that is natural and positive.

 

[Delaine75]

All I can say is, keep learning WHY things are the way they are. The more effort you put into it and the more knowledgeable you are, the less “stupid” things may seem. Hope you find the answers you seek.

 

[UpUpAndAway]

A big no. I know we humans have a thirst for knowledge since we are born, but I am of the opinion that the human mind is not too big enough to grasp as much as it would like.

Agreed. I do seek the reasoning behind every rule, teaching or practice, but that is my nature. (Just ask my priest, who is frequently hounded by my inane inquiries. ) In doing so I have reached the limit of my capacity to understand many times. At that point, I choose to accept what I don’t understand because I trust that God’s Church will not steer me wrong.

Don’t misunderstand me: this is very often much more difficult than I make it sound. And there are a lot of things I accept by default because I don’t have the time to research everything at once.

Also, I avoid calling any Church rule, teaching or practice “stupid.” Things are not necessarily stupid just because I don’t understand the reasoning behind them.

 

[Dorothy]

To be honest, some things in Church teaching look stupid in my eyes. Even some rules or customs i should follow look stupid. We could discuss them in detail and maybe someone can offer explanations, why they arent stupid, but i am fairly confident that a lot of from my point of view questionable things remain.

As far as i can wrap my mind around Genesis and Original Sin, there was some rule not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now personally that rule doesnt make any sense for me. If i lack knowledge of what is good and evil, i might do evil things due to lack of knowledge and doing evil things unknowing should also be avoided, so having knowledge of good and evil is advantageous over having no knowledge. Even the choice of dying or not knowing good and evil is not a clear choice, because i would value not commiting unknowingly some specific evil acts higher than my own live.

But i also note, that eating from that tree caused all the entire mess. So my personal conclusion:
Some of the rules might be stupid, but the ability to follow from a personal point of view stupid and senseless rules is very important, so training it by following some stupid Church rules is sensible.

But the question is, is there any problem with considering some things to be stupid, as long as they are nonetheless adhered to?

Is there any requirement to attempt to understand and appreciate everything, even if the sucess is bound to be limited?

We are finite and God is infinite. We do not have full understanding, faith and trust is required.

Adam and Eve “walked with God”, they had the gift of sanctifying grace. That is what they fell from and lost when God was disobeyed. We don’t understand all the implications of those simple words in Genesis.

Through prayer and sacraments we can get to know the Lord better and to more appreciate what He did for us.
We can learn to trust Him more, and surrender our wills to His.

 

[carn]

The more effort you put into it and the more knowledgeable you are, the less “stupid” things may seem.

From my experience, the more i ponder an issue, the more holes and weaknesses i find. So i would expect some things too look even more stupid or at least arbitrary. For example by thinking more closely about human rights declaration, children rights declaration and the constitution of my country, i found them even more contradictory and problematic than prior thinking closely about them.

Of course this should not happen with Church teaching as far as it is from God. But part of Church rules are manmade or at least man-influenced (e.g. the way mass is celebrated is in some part decided by man and therefore prone to errors). I would run risk to categorize Church teachings into “from God” and “from Man”. Apart from the risk of then starting to put my own judgement above that of the Bishops (who mostly are responsible for the manmade parts) and following Martin Luthers line of thinking (whose main goal was separating the manmade parts from Christianity), i cannot see much benefit and still time lost.

All I can say is, keep learning WHY things are the way they are.

Am i required, if i think it would be not fruitful?

 

[akka]

I think it has something to do with “more knowledge, more responsibility”. And also the “dangerous” curiosity.

Mortal sin - You know it’s wrong, yet you do it.

“Dangerous” curiosity - Present time example is, Like a teenager who wants to try how drugs taste like or trying out crime because you played it in the game and looks cool.

The Serpent and Eve, for today’s world example is like a girl and adult movie producer, the producer try to convince the girl to work for him. Maybe the serpent said to Eve, if you eat …] , you get wings! And the producer would say to the girl, if you do …] , you get wings like drinking redbull, and money too.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m sure there’s an answer if you keep searching for it.

 

[Dorothy]

From my experience, the more i ponder an issue, the more holes and weaknesses i find. So i would expect some things too look even more stupid or at least arbitrary. For example by thinking more closely about human rights declaration, children rights declaration and the constitution of my country, i found them even more contradictory and problematic than prior thinking closely about them.

Of course this should not happen with Church teaching as far as it is from God. But part of Church rules are manmade or at least man-influenced (e.g. the way mass is celebrated is in some part decided by man and therefore prone to errors). I would run risk to categorize Church teachings into “from God” and “from Man”. Apart from the risk of then starting to put my own judgement above that of the Bishops (who mostly are responsible for the manmade parts) and following Martin Luthers line of thinking (whose main goal was separating the manmade parts from Christianity), i cannot see much benefit and still time lost.

Am i required, if i think it would be not fruitful?

If you determine it would not be fruitful for you, then don’t do it.

With regard to “man-made” laws, it requires humility and surrender to follow them. For instance, we used to abstain from meat every Friday, out of obedience to the Church that we believe Christ founded! If I had refused to follow that disciplinary rule it is rebelling in some way. Did the rule inconvenience me? Yes, at times. Was it a sacrifice? Yes, at times. I needed to do it for the Lord, for the sake of obedience and to show my love to Him.
It truly was minor rule, but it helped to shape my attitude.

I would like to change certain things about how the Mass is celebrated in my parish, but I do not have the jurisdiction to do so. I need to focus more on what the Mass is for me, and to appreciate it. (I do not like the bongo drums at all!)

 

[Gorgias]

But part of Church rules are manmade or at least man-influenced

Yes, that they are. Yet, Christ gave that authority to the apostles (i.e., what they bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven). So, at the very least, “man-made” or “man-influenced” decisions – at least the ones that are made by the leaders whom Christ gave authority – have the mandate of heaven.

(e.g. the way mass is celebrated is in some part decided by man and therefore prone to errors).

“Prone to errors”? But, if what is decided is “bound in heaven”, can you really say that it’s in error? That would imply that Christ was in error in his act of giving authority to the Church! Are you certain that’s what you believe?

All I can say is, keep learning WHY things are the way they are.

Am i required, if i think it would be not fruitful?

‘Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’ (Mt 25:24)

I guess, if the Lord gave you the talent to reason things through, using your mind, you could tell him, “no thanks – here’s your talent back”. I’m not certain that this is the most fruitful approach, though…

 

[sllhouette]

The more I look into this the more it seems to me that the pieces fit. I’d love to have a discussion about this.

I would start with a discussion on virtue. Think of a virtue (faith, hope, love, honesty, responsibility, etc…) and explain why it is good that we should maintain that particular virtue. What we want is a full logical proof that explains why we should maintain virtue and does not resort to assumptions or arbitrary declarations that something is ‘good’.

 

[Gorgias]

As far as i can wrap my mind around Genesis and Original Sin, there was some rule not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now personally that rule doesnt make any sense for me.

OK, then, let’s take a look at it and see if it can make any sense…

If i lack knowledge of what is good and evil, i might do evil things due to lack of knowledge and doing evil things unknowing should also be avoided, so having knowledge of good and evil is advantageous over having no knowledge.

This is absolutely true: since we don’t know, at the time of our birth, everything that there is to know, then we have to gain knowledge of what’s good and what’s evil, in order to know what to avoid. You’re completely right, there.

However, is this what that story is really telling us? That God said, “Hey, you guys, you need to stay dumb and at risk?” I don’t think so. After all, in the story, isn’t eating the fruit of that tree an evil act, and one that puts Adam & Eve at risk? Absolutely! So, what we really have going on is that we see that it’s God who gives us the knowledge of good and evil!

So, what’s the deal with the tree, then? Well, what God is forbidding is that Adam & Eve should take the knowledge for themselves, on their own terms. In other words, what the story is trying to say is that the ‘knowledge of good and evil’ comes from God, not from our own actions. When we try to define good and evil ourselves, then that attempt leads us to “surely die”!

But i also note, that eating from that tree caused all the entire mess. So my personal conclusion:
Some of the rules might be stupid

OK, so here’s my personal conclusion:

• In the story of the Garden, God teaches us that our understanding of morality – of what’s good and what’s evil – comes from God and not from us.
• It teaches me that I shouldn’t make my own rules, since it’ll only lead to bad results.
• This story – this teaching from the Bible – isn’t a “stupid rule”; in fact, it’s the smartest thing that I can use in my daily life!
• If you thought this was just a ‘stupid rule’, then it seems you misunderstood the story. So, should you follow ‘stupid rules’? Well, as UpUpAndAway said, things are not necessarily stupid just because we don’t understand them. I would say that this particular rule just seemed stupid to you…
• and so, yes… I think you should follow the ‘stupid’ rules of the Church, trusting that they’re less ‘stupid’ than you think they are…

Blessings,

G.

 

[St_Francis]

…But the question is, is there any problem with considering some things to be stupid, as long as they are nonetheless adhered to?

This bothers me. It seems like at least some of what you consider “stupid” is from God, like the Tree… and I would be extremely hesitant about calling something God did “stupid.” Who am I to judge something from God?

As to man-made rules, who am I to judge what they decide who know more, pray more, and think more about these things than I do? Again, on a much smaller level, I have a problem with that because it would seem to be overstepping my bounds in a possibly prideful way.

So for those things, I tend to not say that there is something wrong with *them, *but that I myself do not understand them.

BTW, there are times when I have judged things done by bishops or others, only to have God gently correct me

Is there any requirement to attempt to understand and appreciate everything, even if the sucess is bound to be limited?

We are limited; therefore, there can be no requirement to *try *to understand *everything. *Even St. Augustine, a Doctor of the Church, was pulled back by an angel in his attempt to understand the Trinity..

It is good to use some of our free time to learn more about our Faith, but it is not good to try to learn too fast or over our heads, these are indications of at best, excessive curiousity (which can be sinful).

I would also point out that Church teaching is *incredibly complex. *It is interwoven, so that at times one must learn five other things to understand the first question one asks, but in order to understand those 5 things, one must learn several other things, and so on. A couple of years later, one might return to the first question and say, Ah ha! now I understand this. But some questions we will never know the answers to until we meet with God, and maybe not even then.

I periodically go back a read books I had read a couple or more years before, and find that what I have learned in the meantime greatly enhances my understanding of the book, so I learn new things from it.

 

[akka]

The more I look into this the more it seems to me that the pieces fit. I’d love to have a discussion about this.

I would start with a discussion on virtue. Think of a virtue (faith, hope, love, honesty, responsibility, etc…) and explain why it is good that we should maintain that particular virtue. What we want is a full logical proof that explains why we should maintain virtue and does not resort to assumptions or arbitrary declarations that something is ‘good’.

Let us imagine a scenario, a man open a computer shop and lack 2 of the virtue from the example you give, Responsibility & Honesty;

Without Responsibility, the shop will either always be closed because the owner do something else, or the worker skip their work, close the shop and do something else.

Without Honesty, the reputation of the shop will be bad. Maybe because they sell fake Windows OS as original or cheat the price of an item which have a fixed priced. People will spread word about the shop, and where does the money come from? The customer of course! Loyal customer = Consistent profit, Dissapeared Customer = Dissapeared Money.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

carn:

But the question is, is there any problem with considering some things to be stupid, as long as they are nonetheless adhered to?

Is there any requirement to attempt to understand and appreciate everything, even if the sucess is bound to be limited?

The way I would phrase it would be that some things are difficult to understand, but should be adhered to until I can come to a better appreciation. But, in a word, yes, you have the right idea. It is the very fact that something is a difficulty that should incite our interest in uncovering the facts and proper understanding, at least to the extent that our mind is at ease with it. No one can know everything, especially about the mysteries of God. Providentially we have the Church. It is a Divine Religion, founded and headed by Jesus Christ. If there is one teaching body on earth we can trust, it is the Church, notwithstanding her failures and faults in other areas.

 

[sedonaman]

To be honest, some things in Church teaching look stupid in my eyes. Even some rules or customs i should follow look stupid. We could discuss them in detail and maybe someone can offer explanations, why they arent stupid, but i am fairly confident that a lot of from my point of view questionable things remain.

As far as i can wrap my mind around Genesis and Original Sin, there was some rule not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now personally that rule doesnt make any sense for me. If i lack knowledge of what is good and evil, i might do evil things due to lack of knowledge and doing evil things unknowing should also be avoided, so having knowledge of good and evil is advantageous over having no knowledge. Even the choice of dying or not knowing good and evil is not a clear choice, because i would value not commiting unknowingly some specific evil acts higher than my own live.

But i also note, that eating from that tree caused all the entire mess. So my personal conclusion:
Some of the rules might be stupid, but the ability to follow from a personal point of view stupid and senseless rules is very important, so training it by following some stupid Church rules is sensible.

But the question is, is there any problem with considering some things to be stupid, as long as they are nonetheless adhered to?

Is there any requirement to attempt to understand and appreciate everything, even if the sucess is bound to be limited?

Did it ever occur to you that “not eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil” might mean that God, not man, decides what the rules are?

---

“Never tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” ~ Old African proverb

 

[Holly3278]

Perhaps you should trust that the leaders of the Church and the Magisterium is far more wise than most lay people and therefore they do know what they are talking about? After all, the Church is guided by God.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Is it possible to change the title of this thread? The use of the words “stupid” and “senseless” in regards to the teachings of Holy Mother Church is quite offensive. This is our Lord’s Church and to refer to Her teachings in such a way is wrong. Maybe the word choice was simply meant to be provocative to promote conversation, but I find the title (and continued use of the word “stupid”) completely offensive.

 

[Joe_5859]

To be honest, some things in Church teaching look stupid in my eyes. Even some rules or customs i should follow look stupid. We could discuss them in detail and maybe someone can offer explanations, why they arent stupid, but i am fairly confident that a lot of from my point of view questionable things remain.

As far as i can wrap my mind around Genesis and Original Sin, there was some rule not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now personally that rule doesnt make any sense for me. If i lack knowledge of what is good and evil, i might do evil things due to lack of knowledge and doing evil things unknowing should also be avoided, so having knowledge of good and evil is advantageous over having no knowledge. Even the choice of dying or not knowing good and evil is not a clear choice, because i would value not commiting unknowingly some specific evil acts higher than my own live.

But i also note, that eating from that tree caused all the entire mess. So my personal conclusion:
Some of the rules might be stupid, but the ability to follow from a personal point of view stupid and senseless rules is very important, so training it by following some stupid Church rules is sensible.

But the question is, is there any problem with considering some things to be stupid, as long as they are nonetheless adhered to?

Is there any requirement to attempt to understand and appreciate everything, even if the sucess is bound to be limited?

I’m not sure what other issues you might have, but regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you might want to look at this thread about it.

Basically, God is not just arbitrarily picking some random tree and saying “Don’t eat from…hmmmm, let me think…that one.” The one thing Adam and Eve were not free to do is to define for themselves what is good and evil. That is the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that we cannot take for ourselves. And isn’t that what all sin comes down to? We say that this evil act is not really evil. We know better than God does.

It’s okay to have questions. Not everything makes sense to us at first glance. But, as Catholics, we owe it to the Church – we owe it to ourselves – to seek answers and clarifications. People have been wrestling with these questions for 2,000 years. There are very few new questions. Most were asked and answered before 500 AD.

 

[patrick457]

I’m not sure what other issues you might have, but regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you might want to look at this thread about it.

Basically, God is not just arbitrarily picking some random tree and saying “Don’t eat from…hmmmm, let me think…that one.” The one thing Adam and Eve were not free to do is to define for themselves what is good and evil. That is the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that we cannot take for ourselves. And isn’t that what all sin comes down to? We say that this evil act is not really evil. We know better than God does.

It’s okay to have questions. Not everything makes sense to us at first glance. But, as Catholics, we owe it to the Church – we owe it to ourselves – to seek answers and clarifications. People have been wrestling with these questions for 2,000 years. There are very few new questions. Most were asked and answered before 500 AD.

You know what one of my favorite quotes from a book is?

God moves in extremely mysterious, not to say, circuitous ways. God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players*, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won’t tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

• ie., everybody.

 

[sedonaman]

… The one thing Adam and Eve were not free to do is to define for themselves what is good and evil. That is the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that we cannot take for ourselves. And isn’t that what all sin comes down to? We say that this evil act is not really evil. We know better than God does.

IOW, human pride was Original Sin.

… There are very few new questions. Most were asked and answered before 500 AD.

The pride of the “me” generations will not let them admit this. Their ideas are new.