Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PumpkinCookie]

…Why does one flaw in Church teaching offend?..

Thanks for your explanation. Let me have a go at this by showing you what my experience in the Church has been like, and why I left.

RCC: Everything we say definitively about faith and morals is 100% free from error. We have never contradicted ourselves, and we are always right, guaranteed.

Me: Well…what about this contradiction? Or that one? Or how about those? Or what about the nasty implications of this? Could you be mistaken? Do you want to change your mind? Maybe walk your positions back a little bit? Maybe admit you don’t know? Maybe admit you are changing your mind and were wrong before? Maybe admit you’re not always right about this kind of thing?

RCC: No, we are always and absolutely correct. We will do absolutely anything to prove we are correct, even if it means re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they meant at the time we defined a doctrine. We cannot err, ever.

Me:

Regarding simplicity, I’d like to share another of my experiences. Psychologists have a technique for those who experience irrational anxieties or fears to help gain control over their minds. It goes like this:

Imagine you are irrationally afraid of something, like a monster under your bed. Ask your self questions about the monster. How did it get under the bed? How did no one notice it getting into the house? What does it normally eat? Is it going to eat me? How? Does it have teeth? Or claws? How many? What do they look like? How did this creature evolve with no one noticing? Is it from another dimension? Has it eaten other children? Why are there are no news reports about it? How old is this monster? Does it have fur? Does it drink water? Etc…

You can destroy the irrational fear with questions. Try to precisely and exactly define your fear, and try to transpose it into the real world. Soon, you will find that the fear and anxiety disappears because the power of your rational mind has overcome your animalistic reflexes and quirks. The questions help you understand that you are afraid of something that is incoherent and doesn’t actually exist. It is a wonderful technique for those suffering from anxiety disorders.

I’ve used this technique on the doctrines of various religions to help me overcome my fear of them. Once we really begin to flesh out the doctrines of original sin, the trinity, transubstantiation, hell, heaven, predestination, infallibility, and many other things, we see that they are incoherent, and we shouldn’t be afraid.

 

[Michael19682]

Thanks for your explanation. Let me have a go at this by showing you what my experience in the Church has been like, and why I left.

RCC: Everything we say definitively about faith and morals is 100% free from error. We have never contradicted ourselves, and we are always right, guaranteed.

Me: Well…what about this contradiction? Or that one? Or how about those? Or what about the nasty implications of this? Could you be mistaken? Do you want to change your mind? Maybe walk your positions back a little bit? Maybe admit you don’t know? Maybe admit you are changing your mind and were wrong before? Maybe admit you’re not always right about this kind of thing?

RCC: No, we are always and absolutely correct. We will do absolutely anything to prove we are correct, even if it means re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they meant at the time we defined a doctrine. We cannot err, ever.

Me:

Regarding simplicity, I’d like to share another of my experiences. Psychologists have a technique for those who experience irrational anxieties or fears to help gain control over their minds. It goes like this:

Imagine you are irrationally afraid of something, like a monster under your bed. Ask your self questions about the monster. How did it get under the bed? How did no one notice it getting into the house? What does it normally eat? Is it going to eat me? How? Does it have teeth? Or claws? How many? What do they look like? How did this creature evolve with no one noticing? Is it from another dimension? Has it eaten other children? Why are there are no news reports about it? How old is this monster? Does it have fur? Does it drink water? Etc…

You can destroy the irrational fear with questions. Try to precisely and exactly define your fear, and try to transpose it into the real world. Soon, you will find that the fear and anxiety disappears because the power of your rational mind has overcome your animalistic reflexes and quirks. The questions help you understand that you are afraid of something that is incoherent and doesn’t actually exist. It is a wonderful technique for those suffering from anxiety disorders.

I’ve used this technique on the doctrines of various religions to help me overcome my fear of them. Once we really begin to flesh out the doctrines of original sin, the trinity, transubstantiation, hell, heaven, predestination, infallibility, and many other things, we see that they are incoherent, and we shouldn’t be afraid.

Very well then, I think I understand your personal quagmire.

Since this is not the place for pure psychological advice, perhaps we could use a variant of the Socratic philosophical method to see if there is an inherent impediment in these fears so far as is concerned walking the path of the true Catholic faith, or of any of its doctrinal matters that may arouse irrational fear?
Surely, if fear impedes religious understanding we need to know in what sense that fear is as the faith of the OT holds “the beginning of wisdom” and also how Jesus our Lord tells us that this same fear is useless when there is “trust”? Mk 5:36. If we don’t understand this impeding fear, then we would be leaving open the possibility that faith is “incoherent”, which sounds like a bad thing for faith to be.

Since Latin is the Roman Catholic Church’s mother tongue, it only seems fair to first define the word “incoherent” in these terms:
not holding together; without consequential (moments, events, etc.); not consistent?

Do you agree?

 

[Good_Fella]

-Genesis 4: 6-7

• ‘And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?’
  Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it.’*

Meaning?

 

[Aloysium]

‘And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?’
Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it.’

:twocents:

It demonstrates the relationship between God, who is eternal and omniscient, and man whom He has created with free will and in time.

God creates this universe that includes man having a finite capacity to create himself from the circumstances and gifts that he has been granted.

God is with us in our journey through time, guiding us back to our eternal Home with Him.

God warns Cain, but Cain persists in fueling his jealousy and hatred of Abel to the point that He murders him. He could have chosen otherwise.

God knows what Cain will do, what he chooses in those moments following God’s intervention that he might choose otherwise.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

• ‘And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?’
  Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it.’*

Meaning?

If we are born under the dominion of satan, in original sin, and unable to perform any good works without the supernatural intervention of grace, why does God specifically tell Cain that he has the power to avoid sin (ie "rule over it)?

Cain would surely have been born in original sin right? Surely he would have been under the domain of satan, as the RCC alleges all human beings are from birth, right? So, why does God tell him that he can become “ruler” over sin?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Very well then, I think I understand your personal quagmire.

Since this is not the place for pure psychological advice, perhaps we could use a variant of the Socratic philosophical method to see if there is an inherent impediment in these fears so far as is concerned walking the path of the true Catholic faith, or of any of its doctrinal matters that may arouse irrational fear?
Surely, if fear impedes religious understanding we need to know in what sense that fear is as the faith of the OT holds “the beginning of wisdom” and also how Jesus our Lord tells us that this same fear is useless when there is “trust”? Mk 5:36. If we don’t understand this impeding fear, then we would be leaving open the possibility that faith is “incoherent”, which sounds like a bad thing for faith to be.

Since Latin is the Roman Catholic Church’s mother tongue, it only seems fair to first define the word “incoherent” in these terms:
not holding together; without consequential (moments, events, etc.); not consistent?

Do you agree?

Yes, sure. I agree that incoherent means “not holding together” or “inconsistent.” My allegation is that the doctrines, liturgy, and practice of the RCC are internally inconsistent. This wouldn’t be a problem, except that they insist they are always right and never contradict themselves or change their minds (about matters of faith and morals).

 

[You]

If we are born under the dominion of satan, in original sin, and unable to perform any good works without the supernatural intervention of grace, why does God specifically tell Cain that he has the power to avoid sin (ie "rule over it)?

Cain would surely have been born in original sin right? Surely he would have been under the domain of satan, as the RCC alleges all human beings are from birth, right? So, why does God tell him that he can become “ruler” over sin?

By the pricking of my thumbs something wicked this way comes…

can I avoid it? that is the question. There was also some question of the law not existing before it existed.

 

[davidv]

If we are born under the dominion of satan, in original sin, and unable to perform any good works without the supernatural intervention of grace, why does God specifically tell Cain that he has the power to avoid sin (ie "rule over it)?/

He said it because is true. Grace is available, in abundance, for those who seek it.

Yes
Yes
Because he can rule over sin. All that is required is self-mastery, with the aid of grace.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Vico]

According to the RCC’s infallible magisterium, eternal hell is the only known alternative to heaven. Therefore: the implied final fate of unbaptized infants (or anyone else) is endless hell. This was obvious to the people who made up these doctrines in the first place.

You mean this? Notice the unequal pains, which allows for infants that are unbaptized to have the state of no Beatific Vision, but otherwise no suffering.

Council of Florence – Session 6 – 6 July 1439

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

 

[Michael19682]

Yes, sure. I agree that incoherent means “not holding together” or “inconsistent.” My allegation is that the doctrines, liturgy, and practice of the RCC are internally inconsistent. This wouldn’t be a problem, except that they insist they are always right and never contradict themselves or change their minds (about matters of faith and morals).

I’m confused a bit. Do you understand the doctrines, etc., to be same thing as the people who profess them? Or are you disturbed that the people are not willing to change their doctrine? On the surface, it looks as though you might be describing the frustration of those who say there is nothing “permanent” or “inherent” in this universe. This would be doubly compounded since essentially, some doctrine is interpretative of the Scriptures. Jesus said in regard to Moses’ law, that scripture cannot be easily set aside – thus he leaves open the possibility for newness. Hence, if what they interpret is substantive, but not scripture, how much more should it be open to newness and change of mind. Do these statements look at least vaguely like the form of your complaint above? So can you revisit: Is it the personalities themselves or the doctrine of these same personalities? Lastly, if it is both, in what sense do you say “this wouldn’t be a problem…” as in bold above?

 

[arte]

Your concept of guilt by association is false.

Definition of the meaning of Guilt by Association
“Guilt ascribed to someone not because of any evidence but because of their association with an offender”.

In the eyes of many people after WW2, all Germans were considered to be Nazis and implicated in the killing of Jews and others in concentration camps. This belief was so strong that German civilians living in the villages and towns in the general region of concentration camps were “forced” to see these horrors in the camps. **The above is guilt by association. **
The overwhelming vast majority of people today no longer hold these views against the German people. It seems us humans can move on over time but God cannot.

Having close family members who are in a terrorist organization and thus being thought of by everyone to also be a part of the terrorist organization **is guilt by association. **

**Therefore, I do understand the concept of guilt by association – do you? **

We are the** victims** of our ancestors’ sins.

You believe we are the **victims **of our ancestors’ sins. Good Fella believes we are **guilty of sin by association **so who is correct – you or Good Fella? Whatever it is; it is absolutely absurd and incredibly unjust to saddle babies/infants (and anyone else) with a sin committed by someone who must have lived about 200,000 years ago. Can’t you see how unjust it is especially as Church doctrine professes that these babies/infants go to hell to be punished for eternity because they have original sin on their soul? Any normal sane person would feel absolute disgust at such a religiously inspired doctrine. The Church should come out and simply say: “All unbaptised babies/infants who die go straight to heaven”. Yes, there will be some flak over a statement like that but we have to be honest to ourselves and moral justice in general.

1. Do you deny that one of our ancestors was the first to commit a serious crime and then realised it was wrong?

I do not deny that **many **of our ancestors likely committed crimes and realised they were wrong. There was likely some form of sense of what was right and wrong in our ancestors **in relation to the morality of the time that was correct for them. ** Their sense of morality may not be correct for the morals of today but as humans evolved over time; morality evolved over time.

1. Were the cavemen aware of the difference between good and evil?

Please see my answer to question 1 especially **in relation to the morality of the time that was correct for them. **

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I’m confused a bit. Do you understand the doctrines, etc., to be same thing as the people who profess them? Or are you disturbed that the people are not willing to change their doctrine? On the surface, it looks as though you might be describing the frustration of those who say there is nothing “permanent” or “inherent” in this universe. This would be doubly compounded since essentially, some doctrine is interpretative of the Scriptures. Jesus said in regard to Moses’ law, that scripture cannot be easily set aside – thus he leaves open the possibility for newness. Hence, if what they interpret is substantive, but not scripture, how much more should it be open to newness and change of mind. Do these statements look at least vaguely like the form of your complaint above? So can you revisit: Is it the personalities themselves or the doctrine of these same personalities? Lastly, if it is both, in what sense do you say “this wouldn’t be a problem…” as in bold above?

I think there must be absolute or intrinsic, unchanging truth. The problem is that the RCC claims to have infallible knowledge in detail of aspects of this truth which are impossible for anyone to know. They say “you must believe that we are absolutely and totally correct, or we curse you to hell.” They’re not open to new evidence, they’re not open to reason, and they have no humility in this regard. If the RCC said, instead, it is our opinion that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus, and you should believe it…then I wouldn’t be so eager to write it off entirely as an organization if they happened to be mistaken. As it is, the RCC envisions itself is an absolutist monarchy. If they instead were more like a group of spiritual judges or philosophers who offered wise and well considered opinions about the things of God, I wouldn’t be able to dismiss them totally for being slightly incorrect, or changing their minds upon a long period of reflection. In fact, I don’t totally reject the wisdom of the Church, but I do reject their self-conception and no longer call myself a Catholic. I also am no longer a Christian for various reasons, but I still believe the RCC offers a wealth of good advice that shouldn’t be disregarded.

Consider how the Church allows Catholics to believe in something like Fatima. I personally think Fatima is a hoax and total nonsense. In fact, I think every single Marian apparition is nonsense. I am open to changing my opinion if I get some new or better evidence. Now, I can be a Catholic and deny Fatima. I’m free to do this, the RCC doesn’t claim to be absolutely right about it. But, no Catholic is free to believe that unbaptized babies go to heaven to be with their families. No Catholic is free to believe that Mary had other children, or that the Eucharist is symbolic. If the Church said, 1000 years ago, we believe that unbaptized babies can’t go to heaven, and then today changed their minds, I would accept it. If the people 1000 years had the freedom to disagree with the Church, and the Church never claimed that they were totally infallible about this kind of thing, then I wouldn’t be so upset if they changed their minds. Does that make sense?

Only God is infallible.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You mean this? Notice the unequal pains, which allows for infants that are unbaptized to have the state of no Beatific Vision, but otherwise no suffering.

Council of Florence – Session 6 – 6 July 1439

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

To me, unequal pains could mean that mortal sinners are flayed and burned while babies are only burned. It could mean that mortal sinners are viciously whipped by demons continuously while babies are merely allowed to starve forever while being miraculously sustained. Remember, the RCC insists that there are bodies in hell, not just spirits.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

He said it because is true. Grace is available, in abundance, for those who seek it.

Yes
Yes
Because he can rule over sin. All that is required is self-mastery, with the aid of grace.

Notice God did not say anything about grace. Curious he left that out. Notice also no mention of original sin.

It would seem that being “ruled over” by satan while also being able to “rule over” sin are mutually exclusive.

Let’s say you were my slave, and I commanded you to clean my house. You are under my “dominion.” If you can say “no” and just walk out of my house, are you really under my dominion? If you were truly under my dominion, wouldn’t I be able to force you to clean my house? Or, maybe if the dominion were voluntary or contractual, wouldn’t you want to stay and clean my house? But, if you can decide not to clean my house, then how are we to understand my dominion over you?

 

[Vico]

To me, unequal pains could mean that mortal sinners are flayed and burned while babies are only burned. It could mean that mortal sinners are viciously whipped by demons continuously while babies are merely allowed to starve forever while being miraculously sustained. Remember, the RCC insists that there are bodies in hell, not just spirits.

The Catholic Church states that there is hope of salvation for unbaptized infants, it does not employ heaven or hell in that. There is no definitive statement that Hell is only Gehenna, however we usually think of it that way.

Yes, the bodies will come to life again. Catechism 990 The “resurrection of the flesh” (the literal formulation of the Apostles’ Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our “mortal body” will come to life again.

When do the dead rise:
****Catechism 1001 When? Definitively “at the last day,” "at the end of the world."557 Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ’s Parousia:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 558
​

The Catechism has this to say about Heaven and Hell:1024 Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness. …

and
1033 This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."and
1035 … The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God,and the Beatific Vision:
1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man’s immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. the Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory “the beatific vision”: How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God’s friends.602
​

 

[You]

Notice God did not say anything about grace. Curious he left that out. Notice also no mention of original sin.

It would seem that being “ruled over” by satan while also being able to “rule over” sin are mutually exclusive.

Let’s say you were my slave, and I commanded you to clean my house. You are under my “dominion.” If you can say “no” and just walk out of my house, are you really under my dominion? If you were truly under my dominion, wouldn’t I be able to force you to clean my house? Or, maybe if the dominion were voluntary or contractual, wouldn’t you want to stay and clean my house? But, if you can decide not to clean my house, then how are we to understand my dominion over you?

Lets say you’re under my dominion.
We live in a bubble no one can enter no one can leave.
Inside the bubble is my kingdom. I am, you know, the dog, the top dog in here.
There is nowhere in my kingdom, my dominion, you can go where you are not in my domain.
I can make you suffer if I want.
I can give you glorious pain, as Doctor Fu Manchu might have said.

But I cannot touch your free will.
I cannot switch it off.
I can press you any way I want.
But. At the end of the day you can say:
No.
And you remain in my dominion.
There is nowhere in my kingdom, my dominion, you can go where you are not in my domain.
I can make you suffer if I want.
I can give you glorious pain, as Doctor Fu Manchu might have said.

But I cannot touch your free will.
I cannot switch it off.
I can press you any way I want.
But. At the end of the day you can say:
No.
And you remain in my dominion.
There is nowhere in my kingdom, my dominion, you can go where you are not in my domain.
I can make you suffer if I want.
I can give you glorious pain, as Doctor Fu Manchu might have said.

But I cannot touch your free will.
I cannot switch it off.
I can press you any way I want.
But. At the end of the day you can say:
No.
And you remain in my dominion.
There is nowhere in my kingdom, my dominion, you can go where you are not in my domain.
I can make you suffer if I want.
I can give you glorious pain, as Doctor Fu Manchu might have said.

But I cannot touch your free will.
I cannot switch it off.
I can press you any way I want.
But. At the end of the day you can say:
No.
And you remain in my dominion.
There is nowhere in my kingdom, my dominion, you can go where you are not in my domain.
I can make you suffer if I want.
I can give you glorious pain, as Doctor Fu Manchu might have said.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Lets say you’re under my dominion.
We live in a bubble no one can enter no one can leave.
Inside the bubble is my kingdom. I am, you know, the dog, the top dog in here.
There is nowhere in my kingdom, my dominion, you can go where you are not in my domain.
I can make you suffer if I want.
I can give you glorious pain, as Doctor Fu Manchu might have said.

But I cannot touch your free will.
I cannot switch it off.
I can press you any way I want.
But. At the end of the day you can say:
No.
And you remain in my dominion.
There is nowhere in my kingdom, my dominion, you can go where you are not in my domain.
I can make you suffer if I want.
I can give you glorious pain, as Doctor Fu Manchu might have said.

If we have the natural power to avoid sin, then what is the necessity of grace? If we don’t have the natural power to avoid sin, then how can it be called sin? “Ought implies can.” If you ought not sin, then you must be able to avoid it. If you can’t avoid it because you are under the domain of satan in original sin, then your actions can’t reasonably be considered to be “wrong.” That which is necessary can’t also be voluntary.

If the dominion of satan is just “glorious pain” and not an impediment to avoid sin and doing good, why does the Church insist that good works are impossible without grace?

What is the consistency of the dominion of satan, if not slavery to sin? After baptism, death, illness, and the tendency to sin remains…so what has baptism removed, if it has broken the domain of satan?

Further, I think it is borderline blasphemous to allege that God has allowed his dominion over the earth to be usurped by a hyper-intelligent demi-godlike evil demon, as if God were a pathetic fool who enthrones the enemies of his own creation!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The Catholic Church states that there is hope of salvation for unbaptized infants, it does not employ heaven or hell in that. There is no definitive statement that Hell is only Gehenna, however we usually think of it that way.

Yes, the bodies will come to life again. Catechism 990 The “resurrection of the flesh” (the literal formulation of the Apostles’ Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our “mortal body” will come to life again.

When do the dead rise:
****Catechism ****1001 When? Definitively “at the last day,” "at the end of the world."557 Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ’s Parousia:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 558
​

The Catechism has this to say about Heaven and Hell:1024 Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness. …

and
1033 This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."and
1035 … The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God,and the Beatific Vision:
1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man’s immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. the Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory “the beatific vision”: How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God’s friends.602
​

Again, I ask: are “those in heaven” merely a subset of “those who are saved?” Where is this place of salvation outside of heaven?

 

[You]

If we have the natural power to avoid sin, then what is the necessity of grace? If we don’t have the natural power to avoid sin, then how can it be called sin? “Ought implies can.” If you ought not sin, then you must be able to avoid it. If you can’t avoid it because you are under the domain of satan in original sin, then your actions can’t reasonably be considered to be “wrong.” That which is necessary can’t also be voluntary.

If the dominion of satan is just “glorious pain” and not an impediment to avoid sin and doing good, why does the Church insist that good works are impossible without grace?

What is the consistency of the dominion of satan, if not slavery to sin? After baptism, death, illness, and the tendency to sin remains…so what has baptism removed, if it has broken the domain of satan?

Further, I think it is borderline blasphemous to allege that God has allowed his dominion over the earth to be usurped by a hyper-intelligent demi-godlike evil demon, as if God were a pathetic fool who enthrones the enemies of his own creation!

You will have to tell me who exactly it is you are talking about.

Lets say it is a caveman, one of Noah’s descendants. But before Moses. Or someone before Noah maybe.

Before the law, before Moses, did you have to obey the law. And were you judged by the law.

Before Noah, what was the situation?

If we go just post Adam and Eve, were they living in a different domain. One of sweat and tears, suffering and labour?

Was "God a pathetic fool who enthrones the enemies of his own creation! ".

Unless you think there was no enemy outside the Garden of Eden.

 

[Michael19682]

I think there must be absolute or intrinsic, unchanging truth. The problem is that the RCC claims to have infallible knowledge in detail of aspects of this truth which are impossible for anyone to know. They say “you must believe that we are absolutely and totally correct, or we curse you to hell.” They’re not open to new evidence, they’re not open to reason, and they have no humility in this regard. If the RCC said, instead, it is our opinion that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus, and you should believe it…then I wouldn’t be so eager to write it off entirely as an organization if they happened to be mistaken. As it is, the RCC envisions itself is an absolutist monarchy. If they instead were more like a group of spiritual judges or philosophers who offered wise and well considered opinions about the things of God, I wouldn’t be able to dismiss them totally for being slightly incorrect, or changing their minds upon a long period of reflection. In fact, I don’t totally reject the wisdom of the Church, but I do reject their self-conception and no longer call myself a Catholic. I also am no longer a Christian for various reasons, but I still believe the RCC offers a wealth of good advice that shouldn’t be disregarded.

Consider how the Church allows Catholics to believe in something like Fatima. I personally think Fatima is a hoax and total nonsense. In fact, I think every single Marian apparition is nonsense. I am open to changing my opinion if I get some new or better evidence. Now, I can be a Catholic and deny Fatima. I’m free to do this, the RCC doesn’t claim to be absolutely right about it. But, no Catholic is free to believe that unbaptized babies go to heaven to be with their families. No Catholic is free to believe that Mary had other children, or that the Eucharist is symbolic. If the Church said, 1000 years ago, we believe that unbaptized babies can’t go to heaven, and then today changed their minds, I would accept it. If the people 1000 years had the freedom to disagree with the Church, and the Church never claimed that they were totally infallible about this kind of thing, then I wouldn’t be so upset if they changed their minds. Does that make sense?

Only God is infallible.

What you say might make sense, but I’m not sure of what use that sense is when the absolute intrinsic truth that is unchangeable is also posited unknowable.
It really looks like you have applied the psychological technique you described to the Church and to her dogma or doctrines both.
My response to you on the freedom of Catholics is that we are free to believe as we choose. At least I believe I am. The issue is that this truth you describe as immutable is not my truth created by me, but the truth of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, his expression is a safe expression in full truth, whereas mine is flawed always. Even should I repeat exactly what he said in nearly an exact situation to which it is applied, say, “Don’t cast your pearly before swine,” I would still be flawed and incorrect because of my little faith. He knows all and is the measure of truth.
PumpkinCookie, in life people like you and me, the church also, must defend their truth because it is part of who they are. This truth called named by God Jesus is so close to the human heart that it can’t be separated from the heart. This truth is intrinsic to that very faculty you called Knowing. It is also based on faith, and this very activity can be called faith building.
I may profess to know the truth through Jesus, and you can deny that, or him, or both. In the end, the situation could be just the opposite. Only God knows.
Your strategy of questioning to dissimulate your anxiety is working I presume. If such is your reason for questioning and provoking thought to go deeper into your rebuttals, then you are not sinning really. If not sinning, why the fear? Certainly that is a question for your religion also?