Letter to a Christian Nation

[CatsAndDogs]

It is a way of thinking, fundmentalism and cognitive rigidity, that results in a certain type of behavior. The same mindset that gave us Pol Pot also gave us the witch burnings.

What gave us Pol Pot was his being WRONG, not his being “rigid”!

The relativist will ALWAYS blame that which leaves him an exit to being “flexible”.

How is it a good thing to be flexibly WRONG, instead of inflexibly RIGHT?

…but then, the relativist knows nothing of right and wrong at all, so it’s simply a silly question to him, as it “isn’t the right question” because it questions the dogmatic ultra-virtue of “flexibility”.

To the relativist it’s never WHAT your beliefs are, but only your “way of thinking about them”.

Thus is genocide and other murder (abortion!?) allowable.

“He was a murderer from the beginning.” (Jn-8:44) The very god of the relativist.

:shamrock2:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

please allow me to restate terms, i misused the term “theocracy” i wish for Catholicism to be the official “state religion”. as it is among many other countries.
further i wish all laws to first be in agreement with the church as determined by a pastoral/lay politically non-partisan committee.

though i personally would have no problem with a Catholic theocracy, i don’t know if the subject has been spoken on
ex cathedra. if a “true Catholic” or “bright Catholic” can provide that information that would be great.

frankly if everyone voluntarily lived by the teaching of the Body of Christ then we wouldn’t need anything more than a temporal county government, to provide basic services.

and secularism has failed in its most basic creed, to protect the weakest among us from the strong, as attested to by the murder of no less than fifty million children.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

…

An interesting historical perspective of why a “Catholic Theocracy”, where the Church is the actual temporal governor, is a bad idea is the “Christendom” series of books written by Warren H. Carroll.

Whenever Church administrators get real temporal power, it is always abused in one way or another, and points us back to being only the extra-coercional (extra-governmental) advisors of the temporal powers at the time.

The Church should only “do” persuasion, and that at a maximum
.
The Temporal Powers should only “do” coercion, and that at a minimum.

Due to subsidiarity any so-called Catholic “Theocracy” would quickly devolve into a lovely rather medieval proliferation-of-guilds and city-states type of thingy.

(( Check out, though you most likely have, “Distributist” ideas. ))

THAT I’ll buy into with glee!

:shamrock2:

 

[Leela]

How do you think we are empowered by the Church, or even passively allowed, to impose our beliefs on others?

We evangelize through persuasion, which I personally am VERY bad at, and not through force (of arms).

Theocracy is an absolute oxymoron to an actual Catholic.

How are you prohibited by the church from imposing your beliefs on others. Certainly you are actually prohibited by secular law and just advised not to by the church?

Some Catholics who were not too bright thought that having the Church actually wielding temporal power was a good idea. They were wrong, and the Church qua the Church told them that they were wrong but the Church (qua the Church) was overwhelmed by the actual temporal power held by these people, and just as with any sin with enough “support” to be imposed on people this sin had to be “played out” and been defeated by it’s self-destructive consequences.

The Church is never wrong except when it is, but then its not really the Church?

You are getting very slippery about what you call the Church.
Sometimes the Church refers to Catholics. Sometimes its the hierarchy. Sometimes it’s the body of Christ. Depends on what definition suits your needs at the time.

The Church qua the Church is never wrong. The people within the Church are always sinners, and occasionally the sins of some of the people within the Church are quite grave indeed.

Once again, people who can’t see truth, because “all is relative”, confuse the sin for the sinner, and (usually) vice versa.

To blame the one authority which gives us a clear statement of morals for the fact that those morals are not followed is a bit “odd”, wouldn’t you say?

If authority can be wrong then what good is it’s clear statement of morals?

Best,
Leela

 

[crowonsnow]

Sometimes the Church refers to Catholics. Sometimes its the hierarchy. Sometimes it’s the body of Christ. Depends on what definition suits your needs at the time.

That’s very true and worth a thread of its own.

When people use the phrase “the Church” my mind simply translates that into “my religious group.”

 

[Leela]

You are proposing that you should dictate what “reasonableness” is, with no authority other than “because it works for me”.

Your “standard” that you’ve just given us as, “…conversational pressures of rational discourse”, is meaningful only to you as only you know what “rational” means (as you use the word).

I’ve defined “rational” and “reasonable” only as a word we use to describe good reasons and “true” only as what is good to believe. Everyone must decide for themselves what they think is good to believe. I certainly never claimed to want to be the dictator of what must be considered reasonable. I will make my judgments and you will make yours. Through conversation and swapping stories we may come to agreement about what is good to believe, but I am not at all convinced that some particular people have access to “the Truth” through special revellation.

We have two choices: We can follow the dictates of whomever has enough temporal power to enforce their definition of words, or follow God’s definition of words (interpretations) of those very important words which define morality.

I choose God’s interpretations.

Am I somehow supposed to be convinced that you have access to God’s definitions of words? What do I do with the fact that someone else has different definitionas and also claims that these are God’s definitions?

You choose “your own” (or those you trust) because there is no “God”, as “God” is simply an invention of man, or at best (if HAVING a “god” is deemed relatively “good”) “God” can’t be known and is irrelevant.

So, your choice is amongst various slavemasters, none of whom are worthy of being followed.

Slavemasters? I don’t follow you.

God is utterly worthy of being followed, considering the definition of God qua God, and He has the added benefit of being utterly committed to never violating our free will, which is precisely what all human slavemasters are ultimately committed to doing.

How can you believe that God is both utterly committed to never violating free will and also that God that intervenes occasionaly in human affairs?

I do agree with you that our competing understandings of what “morality” is should be compared in the “conversational pressures of rational discourse”, but when one “side” of the conversation thinks they have the only valid meaning of “rational” they by fiat can come to any conclusion that they please.

I’m sure you aren’ty talking about my side of the conversation because I’ve never suggested that anyone should adopt my standards of what is good justification for belief. As usual you are accusing me of what you are doing. I’ve only ever suggested that people should apply their own usual standards of evidence to their religious beliefs that they would apply in all other facets of their lives. I can’t see why people would hold religious beliefs in a different category of beliefs that do not need to be based on evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
How do you think we are empowered by the Church, or even passively allowed, to impose our beliefs on others?

We evangelize through persuasion, which I personally am VERY bad at, and not through force (of arms).

Theocracy is an absolute oxymoron to an actual Catholic.

How are you prohibited by the church from imposing your beliefs on others?]

The Church persuades people to do things.

I am persuaded that I am not to impose my beliefs by coercion on others.

Therefore, effectively, I am prohibited from imposing my beliefs by coercion on others.

Certainly you are actually prohibited by secular law and just advised not to by the church?

Temporal powers (the state) are allowed, morally (aka permission given by the Church) to use coercion (force) to promote morality.

If it is deemed immoral, by the Church, which it is, that the populace is not to force people to convert to another religion, then coercion is allowable to enforce that rule.

But the determination as to what is moral and immoral is solely the Church’s purview. If the folks in charge of the Temporal Power aren’t convinced that the Church is persuasive enough about some moral ruling, then the Church is out of luck, because it can’t use coercion to change minds, period!

…of course, the Church is still RIGHT, but it has “lost” some of it’s influence.

Occasionally the Church explicitly excuses a state’s populace from it’s obligation to obey state-rules, and I’m not sure what that’s called, which sets up a bit of “persuasive pressure” for the state to “get back in line with moral authority”.

This is one reason why martyrs get created.

:shamrock2:

 

[Leela]

I agree that, with one exception, there is no good that can come from basing an argument on authority.

But there is one authority, and only one, on which to base questions of truth.

He who is not God who gets to define “evidence” is a slavemaster (or at least a wouldbe slavemaster).

He who is not God who gets to define “healthy” or “skepticism” is a slavemaster.

He who is not God who gets to define “authority” is a slavemaster.

It’s fine to say that “God only knows,” but he ain’t talkin’.
What I hear is you claiming to speak for God.

Where has God defined “healthy”, “skepticism”, “evidence”, “authority”?

How is defining words being a slavemaster?

All slavemasters are anti-Christs. Not themselves as persons/sinners, but their behaviors as sin-purveyors/proliferators.

anti-Christs?

We can certainly, and will certainly, because God allows it, argue amongst ourselves about what morality really is, but that doesn’t change what morality actually is.

I agree that arguing about what is moral does not change what is moral or what morality is. But even if I believed in God, why would I believe that you have a better idea of what God thinks than I do?

Best,
Leela

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Some Catholics who were not too bright thought that having the Church actually wielding temporal power was a good idea. They were wrong, and the Church qua the Church told them that they were wrong but the Church (qua the Church) was overwhelmed by the actual temporal power held by these people, and just as with any sin with enough “support” to be imposed on people this sin had to be “played out” and been defeated by it’s self-destructive consequences.

The Church is never wrong except when it is, but then its not really the Church?

Don’t confuse the sinner with the sin.

People sin. The Church doesn’t. The sins of the Church’s people wound the Church, such as by causing people, such as yourself, to see the Church as occasionally evil-doing.

You are getting very slippery about what you call the Church.
Sometimes the Church refers to Catholics. Sometimes its the hierarchy. Sometimes it’s the body of Christ. Depends on what definition suits your needs at the time.

I do actually wish there were separate terms for each of the things referred to as “the Church”. I’ll agree with you wholeheartedly on that!

The Church is only Catholics, but everyone is a Catholic (who isn’t actually in hell) at some distance from being in fullest possible communion with her (the Church) who have various “rights” depending on that “distance”.

The Church hierarchy is “the Church Hierarchy”, the “administrators” as it were.

The Church as the Body of Christ are those persons who are not “sufficiently cut off” from it to be a part of it, both in heaven, in purgatory and militant (having earthly-life).

Yeah, it does get a bit confusing: Church

…but, hey, that’s the fun of it!

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
The Church qua the Church is never wrong. The people within the Church are always sinners, and occasionally the sins of some of the people within the Church are quite grave indeed.

Once again, people who can’t see truth, because “all is relative”, confuse the sin for the sinner, and (usually) vice versa.

To blame the one authority which gives us a clear statement of morals for the fact that those morals are not followed is a bit “odd”, wouldn’t you say?

If authority can be wrong then what good is it’s clear statement of morals?

The authority is God. The authority can’t be wrong.

A person who is not “following the will” of that authority can certainly be wrong, and can be mistaken for one speaking for the actual authority.

The Pope, by the way, is prohibited from speaking untruth in the areas of faith and morals. (One of those miraculous things! )

But the clearly stated morals are used to expose any evil-doer who supposedly speaks for the Church (or in any other situation, actually), so that they can be “dealt with”.

:shamrock2:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

leela,

the Body of Christ, the Church, and Catholics are all the same thing.

i know of no restraint in secular law that cant be changed with a vote

the Church is never wrong in matters ex cathedra, faith and morals

nor did i see catsanddogs claim different.

when G-d intervenes it is never a violation of our free will, it is the operation of his free will

there is plenty of evidence it just doesn’t fit your arguments, but it does fit the other 97% of humanity

so either your wrong, or you are way more intelligent than everyone else on the planet, not just the ones who live now but also any of those that have held a religious belief in all of human history.

your either one or the other

and by the way why don’t you argue from a common dictionary about the meaning of words?

if not, its just so much dancing in the dark

i have never seen you post a practical, reasonable argument, backed with evidence, that you didn’t mis interpret, or was a mathematical impossibility,

in short you keep talking but never seem to say anything,

which, frankly doesn’t lend any weight to your arguments,

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
You are proposing that you should dictate what “reasonableness” is, with no authority other than “because it works for me”.

Your “standard” that you’ve just given us as, “…conversational pressures of rational discourse”, is meaningful only to you as only you know what “rational” means (as you use the word).

I’ve defined “rational” and “reasonable” only as a word we use to describe good reasons and “true” only as what is good to believe. Everyone must decide for themselves what they think is good to believe.

Relativism

Relativism

I certainly never claimed to want to be the dictator of what must be considered reasonable. I will make my judgments and you will make yours. Through conversation and swapping stories we may come to agreement about what is good to believe, but I am not at all convinced that some particular people have access to “the Truth” through special revelation.

Your initial question was:

“Can we ever have peace when one group of people believes in the Koran and another believes in the Bible?”

The answer is no. And that has nothing to do with “the Koran” and “the Bible” being the subjects of belief.

Peace is relative, while “good” and “evil” are not.

It would be quite wise of all people to follow a single religion (belief system). But that would be LESS WISE than believing the RIGHT religion.

Therefore, since it is more wise to “fight about” which religion is right as opposed to picking one arbitrarily, God has arranged things such that that is our current situation.

We are ALWAYS in the most preferable state we (both individually and as “mankind”) can possibly be in at all times. And that state ALWAYS impels us toward learning more about God, and why His truth is to be followed.

(( This is a restatement of “God always answers our prayers as is best for us”, of course. ))

We two (you and I) are just mirroring what the world situation is. I would dictate that all people have the true religion (of the Church [Catholic]), so that all people would have as much peace AND are as “morally correct” as possible, while you would dictate that all people have the true religion (of “rational human flourishing promotion”), so that all people would have as much peace as possible, BUT since to you there is no absolute “moral correctness” to be had, you assume that this “good” would be “handled/created” by the peace of your dictated religion.

Peace does not produce morality.

Morality produces peace. And morality is the result of correct religion (belief system), and not a “unified” belief system (religion).

If you WOULDN’T dictate that your “belief system” be accepted as a universally good thing, then you don’t believe that your belief system is truly good.

Which, of course, you don’t, because you don’t know what “good” means! Your “belief system” SEEMS good, which is a scalar valuation (it “works for me”), but you wisely have no confidence in it actually BEING good.

I most certainly WOULD dictate that correct religion be accepted as a universally good thing. I make no bones about that. Does this make me a dictator? Yes, but a dictator, one of whose dictates is that I’m prohibited from imposing my dictates on anyone other than by trying to persuade them my (the Church’s actually) dictates are good, with no authority to be coercive.

Now, since I’m VERY poor indeed at persuading anyone of anything, as I’m “obnoxious and disliked” (phrase stolen from the movie “1776” describing John Adams), I’m a really REALLY inept dictator in every conceivable way!

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
We have two choices: We can follow the dictates of whomever has enough temporal power to enforce their definition of words, or follow God’s definition of words (interpretations) of those very important words which define morality.

I choose God’s interpretations.

Am I somehow supposed to be convinced that you have access to God’s definitions of words?

You’re SUPPOSED to be convinced of that, but you obviously aren’t. That is a fact based on my ineptitude and you’re being who you are,… and the world being what it is.

But, yes. You should become convinced that the Church is the single best access point for God’s truths.

What do I do with the fact that someone else has different definitionas and also claims that these are God’s definitions?

My suggestion would be that you do whatever you need to do to come to the conclusion that the Church is the best access point of God’s truths.

How you do that, I suppose we could discuss strategy about at length if you should so wish, which sounds both interesting and overwhelmingly tiresome to me (and probably to yourself as well), but that’s probably not the answer you’re looking for. <chuckle!>

Umm… So, uh, elsewise, I would say that you will do what is most wise for you to do to get done what it is that you’re trying to do in this world to make humanity “wise up” and find both peace AND correct action (morality).

…which is pretty much what all of us people of goodwill are trying to do.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
You choose “your own” (or those you trust) because there is no “God”, as “God” is simply an invention of man, or at best (if HAVING a “god” is deemed relatively “good”) “God” can’t be known and is irrelevant.

So, your choice is amongst various slavemasters, none of whom are worthy of being followed.

Slavemasters? I don’t follow you.

Following any “supposed truth or quasi-truth” that is not based in God (which means, essentially, based in “scientific/scalar-value-ific !?] reason ungoverned by divine revelation”) is to follow a slavemaster.

I use the term quite a bit, actually, usually along with “demon/demonic”, which I seem to have forgotten to include in this particular episode of my interminable blithering.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
God is utterly worthy of being followed, considering the definition of God qua God, and He has the added benefit of being utterly committed to never violating our free will, which is precisely what all human slavemasters are ultimately committed to doing.

How can you believe that God is both utterly committed to never violating free will and also that [there exists a] God that intervenes occasionally in human affairs?

Because the two are not mutually exclusive, either logically or “physically”.

God doesn’t change anyone’s mind. He changes (occasionally) “things” in the world which motivate people to change their own minds. Sometimes it works, sometimes it seems to work but eventually doesn’t, sometimes it doesn’t work right off the bat, sometimes the “change” isn’t even noticed, etc…

You’ll have to show me a place in documented salvation history (the bible and whatnot) where God simply, ala “I Dream of Jeannie”, changes someone’s mind.

There is also the question of how one reconciles “free will” with “God’s Plan”, but that’s another discussion, should you want to get into that.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
I do agree with you that our competing understandings of what “morality” is should be compared in the “conversational pressures of rational discourse”, but when one “side” of the conversation thinks they have the only valid meaning of “rational” they by fiat can come to any conclusion that they please.

I’m sure you aren’ty talking about my side of the conversation because I’ve never suggested that anyone should adopt my standards of what is good justification for belief. As usual you are accusing me of what you are doing.

I’ve only ever suggested that people should apply their own usual standards of evidence to their religious beliefs that they would apply in all other facets of their lives.

And this is your error.

You don’t apply the same standards of belief for those things concerning non-religion (science) that you do concerning religion.

I can’t see why people would hold religious beliefs in a different category of beliefs that do not need to be based on evidence.

For the same reason that the “good” of a good candy bar is not the same “good” as in the “good” of a good road.

Since you won’t do what is necessary to even be able to perceive what the difference is between the two evidences, which makes them in your mind a single thing, when they’re not a single thing, nearly everything I’ve been spouting sounds like utter nonsense and the gibberish of stuttering Jawas with headcolds!

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
I agree that, with one exception, there is no good that can come from basing an argument on authority.

But there is one authority, and only one, on which to base questions of truth.

He who is not God who gets to define “evidence” is a slavemaster (or at least a wouldbe slavemaster).

He who is not God who gets to define “healthy” or “skepticism” is a slavemaster.

He who is not God who gets to define “authority” is a slavemaster.

It’s fine to say that “God only knows,” but he ain’t talkin’.
What I hear is you claiming to speak for God.

I’m just a letter carrier. Kill me as best you can as you wish. That wouldn’t do a thing to either the message or the author.

Where has God defined “healthy”, “skepticism”, “evidence”, “authority”?

Oooo,… That could take some time. For the moment I’d suggest checking out the use of those words in the Catechism. (That’s what I invariably do first.)

How is defining words being a slavemaster?

Defining words WRONGLY is fettering people to untruths, which is one (rather overly-clever and certainly overwrought) definition of being a “slavemaster”.

…but, we’re not here to improve Doctor Webster’s Big-Book-o-Words, but just to converse to understand each other better.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
All slavemasters are anti-Christs. Not themselves as persons/sinners, but their behaviors as sin-purveyors/proliferators.

anti-Christs?

To lead others to untruths, while calling them truths, is anti (against, militantly) Christian behavior.

Don’t get too worked up by the word, as there are as many anti-Christs as their are unChristian behaviors and instances OF those behaviors.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
We can certainly, and will certainly, because God allows it, argue amongst ourselves about what morality really is, but that doesn’t change what morality actually is.

I agree that arguing about what is moral does not change what is moral or what morality is. But even if I believed in God, why would I believe that you have a better idea of what God thinks than I do?

Because I could communicate hints to you that God is God as God really is, which is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-merciful.

I fail miserably in doing that, on a VERY consistent basis (aka “always”).

One shouldn’t base believing in the only single thing worth worshiping on the basis of any person’s abilities, but rather on understanding why Love and Truth are worth worshiping as the Triune Persons, God.

That is always a journey of discovery that one does on their own.

I’m just here to give out bits of paper with writing on it, and pointing out other bits of paper that might be useful in learning about God qua God.

We Catholics are VERY unoriginal. The origin speaks for Himself.

:shamrock2:

 

[mnmom]

Sorry if I am off topic but petey are you Hebrew Catholic?