God is not dead!

[Betterave]

In summary, how do the posters here who think they have won this one feel we should remember and learn from this? And why?

And which are the posters here who you suppose think they “won this one” (and what does that mean)? The points I would wish to be remembered and perhaps developed/discussed are the ones that I made in my first post in this thread. I think they get at what Nietzsche actually meant and at an important part of what Nietzsche (and his spiritual descendants) signify for today’s world.

 

[Betterave]

All your “exhibits” are after you first called me a bigot. In other words you have no evidence why you called me a bigot, you called me a bigot without any cause whatsoever, and you’ve repeated it several times since without any cause.

So you at least recognize that you’ve been acting the bigot ever since I first “called you a bigot”? That’s progress… Now with that in mind, you should go back to where I first “called you a bigot” (not that I did that, if we were being completely honest), and make the choice NOT to react in a bigoted way that confirms my observation, but instead to try to understand the grounds for my comment, which I laid out rather clearly! That would be progress indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

From what I’ve seen, the theology must be continuously reinterpreted as society changes, and so there’s always a lot of room for differences.

This is a great explanation of development of doctrine, a Catholic concept to be sure.

However, it does not mean that doctrine changes.

Take this analogy:

It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the girls come home from school they are to do certain things: put their school supplies away, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.

Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 3-13 years every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms *and *hang them up!” )

At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “reinterpreting the rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family.

And an example of “development of doctrine”: initially, none of the girls had backpacks. However, at about the 3rd grade it became necessary to declare, “All backpacks must be hung up before eating your snack!”.

Now, was this a new rule that we just made up? Or was it simply an application of the rule: all school supplies musts be put away?

For the first 4 years of schooling it wasn’t necessary to address backpacks. However, as the need developed, we made the necessary applications.

 

[PRmerger]

I meant if every Catholic really did have the same view on everything only one would need to show up, you could sign in on a rota system.

Best response to this is from Cardinal John Henry Newman:

“Catholicism does not oppress us with an irrational bigotry, prescribing to us the very minutest details of thought, so that a man can never have an opinion of his own.”

 

[inocente]

Best response to this is from Cardinal John Henry Newman:

“Catholicism does not oppress us with an irrational bigotry, prescribing to us the very minutest details of thought, so that a man can never have an opinion of his own.”

That’s far from true across the board in practice, it doesn’t seem at all that I can have an opinion of my own without being irrationally oppressed. Another poster calls me a bigot, says I’m dishonest yet has no evidence, just waffles, even tries to pretend he doesn’t call me a bigot while repeatedly calling me a bigot. And when things had calmed down, he posts a further personal attack in a blatant attempt to bait me and inflame the situation.

*Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity – CAF home page

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks – CAF conduct rules

Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost – Philosophy sticky

Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited – Philosophy sticky*

I joined CAF just over a year ago after seeing a thread trying to blame predatory pedophile priests on “homosexualists”. The RCC recruited, trained and employed the predators but even so some irrationally concluded nothing was wrong with its command and control, it was blameless and powerless, and in throwing the blame around forgot there were victims. It’s even been suggested elsewhere that the victims tempted the predators, a grossly immoral blaming of minors that violates them again. Here’s my post which stopped the thread.

CAF wouldn’t be worth the time if it prohibited free speech, much as a few of its members seem to want. The RCC has problems just like all organizations but issues don’t magically disappear when whitewashed, the reverse tends to happen when we start down that road (Matt 23:27-28). I’m now opened up for another round of irrational personal attacks of course, the juvenile polarization that says we can’t ever criticize without being totally against.

Changing the subject a little, I have this habit of going back to the source of quotes, and imho this one was by no means Newman’s finest hour. For starters he’s engaging in a turf war (let’s not join him), in the very same paragraph we have [Catholicism] opposes the intolerance of what are called “sensible Protestants.” It is shocked at the tyranny of those who will not let a man do anything out of the way without stamping him with the name of fanatic. - newmanreader.org/works/historical/volume2/fathers/chapter5.html

Newman could sorely have done with an editor here, some of what he writes is floppy nonsense - Dreams are another department of our present state of being, through which, as Scripture informs us, the Supernatural sometimes acts; and in the same general way; i.e. not always :whacky:, and by ascertainable rules, but by the virtue of occasional, though real , connexion with them.

In other words don’t worry about common sense, just believe whatever makes you happy. Very New Age.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s far from true across the board in practice, it doesn’t seem at all that I can have an opinion of my own without being irrationally oppressed.

Perhaps it’s because the opinion of your own is, well, irrational?

But you are correct, inocente, and you ought to be able to propose your opinions here without being irrationally oppressed.

However, you ought not take refutations to your opinion as being uncharitable or *ad hominems, *simply because they are refutations. The fact that you are refuted does not mean that you are being oppressed.

Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited – Philosophy sticky

Yes, sadly there are some Catholic posters here who cannot chew the religious-dialogue fat without derogatory remarks. 'Tis a shame, indeed. :sad_yes:

Best is to ignore and/or report to the mods. I do.

I joined CAF just over a year ago after seeing a thread trying to blame predatory pedophile priests on “homosexualists”. The RCC** recruited,**trained and employed the predators but even so some irrationally concluded nothing was wrong with its command and control, it was blameless and powerless, and in throwing the blame around forgot there were victims.

Ay! NO! The CC did not recruit predatory pedophiles.

It’s even been suggested elsewhere that the victims tempted the predators, a grossly immoral blaming of minors that violates them again. Here’s my post which stopped the thread.

I read the thread (thankfully, only 2 pages long) and did not see any reference to the victims tempting the predators. Could you cite exactly what post you feel supported this?

 

[PRmerger]

Changing the subject a little, I have this habit of going back to the source of quotes, and imho this one was by no means Newman’s finest hour.

Perhaps. You are certainly free to express this opinion here and I will not challenge it.

For starters he’s engaging in a turf war (let’s not join him), in the very same paragraph we have [Catholicism] opposes the intolerance of what are called “sensible Protestants.” It is shocked at the tyranny of those who will not let a man do anything out of the way without stamping him with the name of fanatic. - newmanreader.org/works/historical/volume2/fathers/chapter5.html

Not seeing the turf war ideology you do here…

He is arguing that Catholicism allows for more liberal theological positions, while Protestantism attempts at “moulding all minds upon his one small model”.

Newman could sorely have done with an editor here, some of what he writes is floppy nonsense - Dreams are another department of our present state of being, through which, as Scripture informs us, the Supernatural sometimes acts; and in the same general way; i.e. not always :whacky:, and by ascertainable rules, but by the virtue of occasional, though real , connexion with them.

Not going to argue with you here. Dreams are just dreams–neurological circuitry exercising random bursts of activity, IMHO.

In other words don’t worry about common sense, just believe whatever makes you happy. Very New Age.

Didn’t see that at all in Newman’s writing. How so you?

 

[inocente]

Perhaps it’s because the opinion of your own is, well, irrational?

How so?

*However, you ought not take refutations to your opinion as being uncharitable or *ad hominems, **simply because they are refutations. The fact that you are refuted does not mean that you are being oppressed.

Agreed - refutations made with integrity are what make debate interesting in exactly the way personal attacks don’t.

Best is to ignore and/or report to the mods. I do.

Tried to ignore but it becomes impossible after a point.

Ay! NO! The CC did not recruit predatory pedophiles.

Don’t get all defensive on me, you know what I meant - something went wrong in recruitment, training, management and support. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

I read the thread (thankfully, only 2 pages long) and did not see any reference to the victims tempting the predators. Could you cite exactly what post you feel supported this?

No it wasn’t on that thread, I said it was elsewhere, I would have got banned immediately if it had been . It was an extension to the claims last year that homosexuality was to blame. I wasn’t overly interested in the scandal, it was never a big issue in Spain, and mention it now not to reopen wounds but because it’s an example of Christians not facing up to reality. Looked at coolly now we can see how some folk dug themselves into ever deeper holes by misplaced loyalty.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps. You are certainly free to express this opinion here and I will not challenge it.

Then you’re no fun any more.

Not seeing the turf war ideology you do here…

Not in, for instance, Even looking at the subject in a merely human light, one may pronounce it to be a narrow and shallow system, that Protestant philosophy, which forbids all the higher and more noble impulses of the mind, and forces men to eat, drink, and be merry, whether they will or no?

That seems to be preaching to the choir to make a division, or at least it meant nothing to little old Protestant me.

Didn’t see that at all in Newman’s writing. How so you?

He says sometimes the supernatural acts on dreams, but there are no ascertainable rules, no way of knowing when it does and does not, but even so this occasional connection is real. I mean, give me a break, that just says believe whatever is comforting. He probably has a point of substance and an editor would have got him to make it.

 

[PRmerger]

Tried to ignore but it becomes impossible after a point

Use the “ignore” feature on your Profile Page. It’s under Control Panel.

 

[PRmerger]

How so?

Well, here’s one example of an irrational opinion:

You once proposed that you “don’t believe the whole of scripture is inspired by God …”

I asked you for what criteria you use, then, to discern when a passage is* theopneustos* and when it is not, and, in the end, what you proferred was, “We have a relationship with God. We’re made in God’s image. That’s all we need, we don’t need any outside authority to tell us.”

This is an irrational paradigm of “I just know what’s theopneustos because I am a Christian”. Or “Certain Scripture verses are inspired because I feel them to be inspired.”

It’s similar to the paradigm delineated by apologist Karl Keating (actually referencing Arnold Lunn) regarding “fif”, or “a funny internal feeling”. I know what’s theopneustos if it gives me “fif”.

Now, I don’t really care to re-hash this, but again, if this is where the conversation meanders, that’s ok by me.

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t get all defensive on me, you know what I meant - something went wrong in recruitment, training, management and support. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Indeed. Something went horrifically wrong with recruitment, training, etc.

In my college days I heard rumors from friends in the seminary about sexual escapades that were occurring. In my naivete I simply dismissed these stories as too ridiculous to be true. In retrospect I suppose there’s a greater possibility than not that these things were indeed occurring in our Catholic seminaries.

You will get no argument from me that there is no sin in the Church. :crying:

No it wasn’t on that thread, I said it was elsewhere, I would have got banned immediately if it had been . It was an extension to the claims last year that homosexuality was to blame. I wasn’t overly interested in the scandal, it was never a big issue in Spain, and mention it now not to reopen wounds but because it’s an example of Christians not facing up to reality.** Looked at coolly now we can see how some folk dug themselves into ever deeper holes by misplaced loyalty.**

Indeed. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

Then you’re no fun any more.

I think we’ve got enough disparate viewpoints to continue for a long time, no?

Not in, for instance, Even looking at the subject in a merely human light, one may pronounce it to be a narrow and shallow system, that Protestant philosophy, which forbids all the higher and more noble impulses of the mind, and forces men to eat, drink, and be merry, whether they will or no?

Truly, I see nothing inflammatory in his argument, inocente. He is defending Catholic ascetism/monasticism against Protestant objections that this is not Christian. Nothing wrong with ascetism/monsticsm, IMHO, nor with providing apologia for it.

He says sometimes the supernatural acts on dreams, but there are no ascertainable rules, no way of knowing when it does and does not, but even so this occasional connection is real. I mean, give me a break, that just says believe whatever is comforting. He probably has a point of substance and an editor would have got him to make it.

It would be New Age, I suppose, if one were free to act on these alleged supernatural messages,* in isolation of Magisterial teachings.
*However, it has been the constant teaching of the Church that “private revelation” must be interpreted in light of the Faith of the Church. Anything contrary to this must be rejected.

 

[inocente]

It’s similar to the paradigm delineated by apologist Karl Keating (actually referencing Arnold Lunn) regarding “fif”, or “a funny internal feeling”. I know what’s theopneustos if it gives me “fif”.

Now, I don’t really care to re-hash this, but again, if this is where the conversation meanders, that’s ok by me.

I meandered off to read a bit of that book. Now of course we should tread carefully here as it turns out Señor Keating is the founder of Catholic Answers and a member of CAF.

But having already critiqued Newman, it would seem unfair not to make a few comments.

Despite (or maybe because) the US spends more on arms than Europe, Russia and China combined, some Americans take paranoia to unheard of heights in which everything and everyone is part of a dark conspiracy (Keating recognizes this predilection in chapter 20). I’m wondering how those folk read the first two chapters - in chapter one Protestants take over the world one person at a time, by chapter two it becomes a flood. Unfortunately the next chapters are omitted online, so I never got to find out how the Onslaught Of The Awesome Bible-Thumping Fundi’s turns out.

Keating’s book is about the US, and American readers might want to resist their usual urge to confuse their mere 4.5% of the world population with being the entire universe. His subject, Catholics leaving “Saint Miscellanius’ for Good Book Baptist” would be a non-issue everywhere in Europe. Over here people don’t leave one church to go to another, they leave church never to return. Perhaps part of the trouble on this thread is we don’t recognize each others’ problems.

But even without that, the situation in chapter one is bizarre to me - is it really the case that “You could attend [mass] for years and be recognized as a regular, but no one would know your name”? Yikes!

 

[inocente]

Truly, I see nothing inflammatory in his argument, inocente. He is defending Catholic ascetism/monasticism against Protestant objections that this is not Christian. Nothing wrong with ascetism/monsticsm, IMHO, nor with providing apologia for it.

It’s the fact Newman mentions it at all when he’s writing about St Antony.

It would be New Age, I suppose, if one were free to act on these alleged supernatural messages, in isolation of Magisterial teachings.
**However, it has been the constant teaching of the Church that “private revelation” must be interpreted in light of the Faith of the Church. Anything contrary to this must be rejected.

If that was his point, it would have been handy for him to say so.

 

[PRmerger]

INow of course we should tread carefully here as it turns out Señor Keating is the founder of Catholic Answers and a member of CAF.

Yes, he is.

But, like all things on the CAFs, one can certainly debate and dialogue–even about Karl Keating–as long as the discussion is erudite, elegant and eloquent.

Despite (or maybe because) the US spends more on arms than Europe, Russia and China combined, some Americans take paranoia to unheard of heights in which everything and everyone is part of a dark conspiracy (Keating recognizes this predilection in chapter 20). I’m wondering how those folk read the first two chapters - in chapter one Protestants take over the world one person at a time, by chapter two it becomes a flood. Unfortunately the next chapters are omitted online, so I never got to find out how the Onslaught Of The Awesome Bible-Thumping Fundi’s turns out.

Sorry…I couldn’t tell you the answer:shrug:

Keating’s book is about the US, and American readers might want to resist their usual urge to confuse their mere 4.5% of the world population with being the entire universe. His subject, Catholics leaving “Saint Miscellanius’ for Good Book Baptist” would be a non-issue everywhere in Europe. Over here people don’t leave one church to go to another, they leave church never to return. Perhaps part of the trouble on this thread is we don’t recognize each others’ problems

Fair enough.

But even without that, the situation in chapter one is bizarre to me - is it really the case that “You could attend [mass] for years and be recognized as a regular, but no one would know your name”? Yikes!

I suppose that’s true. If one went to Mass and did not participate in any of the voluminous activities that exist in most parishes.

Not sure if you are critiquing the particular Mass-goer, or the Catholic Church here?

 

[PRmerger]

If that was his point, it would have been handy for him to say so.

Well, the fact that I know this is because I know my faith and I know that Cardinal Newman would not teach something contrary to the deposit of faith.

It’s true that if you read Newman’s quote on dreams in isolation, without knowing the body of teaching of the Catholic Faith, that you could interpret it to be a bit New-Age-ish.

 

[inocente]

But, like all things on the CAFs, one can certainly debate and dialogue–even about Karl Keating–as long as the discussion is erudite, elegant and eloquent.

Rats, that rules me out then.

*I suppose that’s true. If one went to Mass and did not participate in any of the voluminous activities that exist in most parishes.

Not sure if you are critiquing the particular Mass-goer, or the Catholic Church here?*

It’s not me, it’s what Keating writes, chapter one, it’s only five pages. He imagines a friendly Protestant church where everyone knows your name and a cold Catholic church where you walk alone. He writes “Such is my reconstruction … Decide for yourself whether it is a likely scenario. What is sure is that it is a common one”. The friendly church part is true in Europe at least but I’ve no experience of US Catholic churches - is it likely and common in your own experience?

 

[PRmerger]

Rats, that rules me out then.

Heh.

It’s not me, it’s what Keating writes, chapter one, it’s only five pages. He imagines a friendly Protestant church where everyone knows your name and a cold Catholic church where you walk alone. He writes “Such is my reconstruction … Decide for yourself whether it is a likely scenario. What is sure is that it is a common one”. The friendly church part is true in Europe at least but I’ve no experience of US Catholic churches - is it likely and common in your own experience?

Sadly, what Keating writes is a very accurate imagined accounting of a realistic and common occurrence in the US Catholic Church.

There is no doubt that the Catholic Church has done an abysmal job in catechizing its flock. And that the majority of Catholics are your average lump-in-the-pews folks. And that the local evangelical church does a FANTASTIC job welcoming its members and feeding them with the Word and providing nourishing praise and worship services.

Doesn’t matter. The fullness of truth lies in the Catholic Church. That she has failed to feed her flock with this truth and that its members are mainly clueless about the treasury within her walls, is, essentially irrelevant.

I say go where the Truth is, and conform your views to this Truth, not find a church that conforms to your own truth.

Doesn’t it stand to reason that God would have something to say which we find unpalatable?

 

[Betterave]

That’s far from true across the board in practice, it doesn’t seem at all that I can have an opinion of my own without being irrationally oppressed.

Irrationally oppressed? (YOU calling ME irrational?? ) Do you say that to make yourself feel better, or would you care to substantiate your implied claim here?

Another poster calls me a bigot, says I’m dishonest yet has no evidence, just waffles, even tries to pretend he doesn’t call me a bigot [that never happened] while repeatedly calling me a bigot.

You claim I have no evidence? After all of the explicit evidence I’ve very explicitly provided?? At this point how could any remotely reasonable or honest person still be asking for evidence, and pretending I haven’t offered any?? I don’t get it.

And when things had calmed down, he posts a further personal attack in a blatant attempt to bait me and inflame the situation.

Further personal attack? You obviously just ignored everything I wrote again and are obstinately clinging to your opinion. (Nothing ‘personal,’ but please see the definition of ‘bigotry.’)

I’m now opened up for another round of irrational personal attacks of course, the juvenile polarization that says we can’t ever criticize without being totally against.

So dishonest, so head stuck in sand! (So sad.)