Shouldn't liberalism/ progressivism/ modernism/ relativism/ emotionalism be considered a religion?

[devoutchristian]

I call myself a Catholic because I am a Catholic.

Being a Catholic and a relativist is like being a triangle that has four sides, it’s absurd.

Relativity is s scientific fact.

We’re not discussing science.

The nature of human experience is subjective.

But the nature of morality is objective.

We create reality as we experience it.

Nonsense.

The reality we perceive is dependent on that which has the experience.

Some people perceive the Earth to be flat, they’re wrong.

This has been known for over eighty years in physics.

We’re not discussing physics.

A particle doesn’t become a particle until it’s observed by something.

We’re discussing moral theology, not physics.

Until then it remains a wave potential (Wheeler, Delayed Choice Experiment, 1978).

As I said we’re talking about moral theology, not physics.

The world around you is as dependent on you for it’s existence as you are dependent on it.

Nonsense.

Furthermore, logic is situational.

But it’s still objective.

Anyone who fails to accept that is left with a good many dichotomies to come to terms with.

No they aren’t.

If I take a black and white view of the commandment not to kill, and then join the armed forces to go fight in a war, then I am indeed introducing some nuance, subjectivity and situational flexibility into my perspective, am I not?

Yes that is a nuanced situation, however there is an objective moral answer.

Yet people live with these obvious contradictions to an absolutist view, and strangely they don’t accept the idea that anything is relative.

They’re not contradictions, they’re simply examples which show that not all moral matters are matters of intrinsic evil, and some things that are normally prohibited can be good in limited circumstances.

I find that very curious.

That the morality of a situation can sometimes be complicated does not negate the fact that there is an objective morality, rather, it shows why the Church’s guidance is important, to help discern such situations.

So as off base as I may seem to you, your question in turn seem rather curious to me.

Relativism is diametrically opposed to the truth, so I was surprised to see someone who was a relativist claim to be a Catholic.

Yes, I can think and still call myself a Catholic.

Of course, however, elsewhere in your post you cited the growing number of relativist as support for your position, indicating a tendency to commit the bandwagon fallacy, rather than discern what is actually true.

Of course I can.

You can also say that the Earth is flat, it wouldn’t make it true.

It may not fit your view of what you think a Catholic should be, but I on the other hand think that the church can accommodate membership from the ranks of modern humans who understand that absolutism is not a tenable view.

There are people who think that the Earth is flat and that the scientific community should accommodate their views, it doesn’t make them right.

In fact, I think you will find that more and more of us think like me these days, but even if I were alone, my ability to reason would cause me to maintain my view unless someone could present a good argument otherwise. Many have

Two hundred years ago many people thoug that slavery was moral, popular opinions are not an indicator of truth.

Many have tried and all have failed.

Then I’ll pray that God enlighten your intellect to the truth of the Catholic faith.

I am open to possibilities though, so if you want to discuss it, we certainly can.

No thanks. Since you’ve admitted that your heresy is obstinate rather than transient, I think it would probably be a waste of time.

I just think you’ll get frustrated, but it’s up to you.

Indeed I probably would, seeing as how you have already committed numerous logical fallacies.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

God alone is absolute, non-changing truth.

Yes, God is an unchanging truth that is expressed in an ever changing reality. God is not distant. God is here, and now and everywhere, and here and now and everywhere is constantly in a state of flux and change.

We are not absolute nor are we ever perfectly moral or good or can ever make up for any sin against God.

I didn’t say that we were perfectly moral or perfectly good.

So that is why He gave us His Son to be the one moralizing force that we can draw on through the reception of the sacraments, to forgive our sins and connect us to the Absolute Good.

Whenever I hear people proclaiming anything with such vehemence I wonder who they are trying to convince me, or assuage their own doubts? I’s okay to ask questions you know.

But not God, or the 10 commandments, or Jesus Christ savior and redeemer to us. God is the Unmoved Mover.

By taking on the flesh He both moved and became part of that which is mutable and ever changing. Every cell in Jesus’ body changed completely every year like yours and mine. Why do you see God as separate from the world, when God is apparent everywhere?

God does not need us, but He does need us to extend His mercy to our neighbor

I am not in a position to know what God needs or doesn’t. Mercy toward one another is very nice though - thank you for that.

 

[meltzerboy]

Some conservatives, including EWTN, salivate at the title “Liberalism is a Sin”, however if you read the book you will see that it is talking about a 19th century definition of liberalism which is not relevant today.

I don’t know what “liberalism” today is, except that whatever a “liberal” is I am one according to conservative Catholics, and all of my beliefs are strictly Catholic. Go figure. It started when I became sympathetic to some “liberal” causes, eg. anti-Iraq War, pro-environmentalism, to name two.

Here is the definition of “Liberalism” used in that book…

I have rarely heard those who are defined as “liberal” today saying “One religion is as good as another”. I’ve **never **said it.

I would say most liberals think that one religion should be tolerated and respected as much as another, rather than one religion is as “good” or expresses the truth as well as another. It is unfortunate that some liberals attack the Catholic Church, Christianity, or religion in general. I don’t regard these so-called liberals as representative of true liberalism.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Being a Catholic and a relativist is like being a triangle that has four sides, it’s absurd.

A triangle with 4 sides is easier to understand when called a square.

We’re not discussing science.

Those who don’t reconcile science with what they believe are bound to be left behind like Neanderthals.

But the nature of morality is objective.

And relative to the situation. It is wrong to steal, but I bet most people would feel morally correct in stealing a loaf of bread to keep from starving. The classic Jean Val Jean scenario, right? That’s morality relative to a situation. Let’s not be silly, please.

Nonsense.

Why?

We’re not discussing physics.

You asked how I could be a relativist. That’s where things that are clearly demonstrable about the world around us and within us comes into the conversation.

We’re discussing moral theology, not physics.

I see the two as the same.

As I said we’re talking about moral theology, not physics.

That’s three times you have said that. I’m starting t sense an aversion to facts.

Nonsense.

That’s two times on using the reply “nonsense”, and two times without an explanation as to why it’s nonsense. If you are going to discuss something with me, I would like it if you could stick to facts.

Yes that is a nuanced situation, however there is an objective moral answer.

If the commandment absolute is absolute, there is no nuance. The minute you let nuance in, you are in my camp. No way out.

They’re not contradictions, they’re simply examples which show that not all moral matters are matters of intrinsic evil, and some things that are normally prohibited can be good in limited circumstances.

You might fond yourself someday faced with the problem of doing that which is intrinsically evil to avoid a greater evil. That is relative. And if something is normally prohibited and god in limited circumstances, then that is relativity based on circumstance, No way out of that.

That the morality of a situation can sometimes be complicated does not negate the fact that there is an objective morality, rather, it shows why the Church’s guidance is important, to help discern such situations.

See above.

Relativism is diametrically opposed to the truth, so I was surprised to see someone who was a relativist claim to be a Catholic.

Well -Surprise!

You can also say that the Earth is flat, it wouldn’t make it true.

Very true. We agree.

There are people who think that the Earth is flat and that the scientific community should accommodate their views, it doesn’t make them right.

And there are people who believe in absolutes and think the scientific world should change to accommodate them too.

Two hundred years ago many people thought that slavery was moral, popular opinions are not an indicator of truth.

Slavery wasn’t a popular view. It was wrong. I might note that most slave owners had an absolutist view of the world.

Then I’ll pray that God enlighten your intellect to the truth of the Catholic faith.

Thanks, but I think you are just praying for God to make me think like you.

No thanks. Since you’ve admitted that your heresy is obstinate rather than transient, I think it would probably be a waste of time.

But you tried it anyway.

Indeed I probably would, seeing as how you have already committed numerous logical fallacies

Such as?

 

[devoutchristian]

As I said Gary, I’m not going to argue with you about this. And I’m certainly not going to do so with someone holds such absurd opinions as the idea that physics and moral theology are the same thing. But perhaps you should consider this, since you think that absolutism is false, are you absolutely sure of that?

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

As I said Gary, I’m not going to argue with you about this.

Good. We can discuss it, but I don’t want to argue either.

And I’m certainly not going to do so with someone holds such absurd opinions as the idea that physics and moral theology are the same thing.

Science and theology are not necessarily at odds with each other. To say that this is so is just a conditioned way of thinking. It’s a point of view.

But perhaps you should consider this, since you think that absolutism is false, are you absolutely sure of that?

Relative to the world we live in, yes. It’s relative, you see.

 

[devoutchristian]

I would say most liberals think that one religion should be tolerated and respected as much as another, rather than one religion is as “good” or expresses the truth as well as another.

The problem though, is that that position is itself contrary to Catholicism, since it is the political application of religious indifferentism.

 

[meltzerboy]

The problem though, is that that position is itself contrary to Catholicism, since it is the political application of religious indifferentism.

Respecting other religious beliefs is contrary to Catholicism? I’m not saying one has to practice the tenets of other faiths, but since when is respect out of the question? I don’t see how this is a political application of religious indifferentism or relativism since respect for other religions does not prevent you from believing in the truth of your own faith. And the alternative is the cycle of disrespect, hatred, aggression, and violence, which we have plenty of in the world already.

 

[devoutchristian]

Respecting other religious beliefs is contrary to Catholicism?

No of course not. The idea of respecting all religions equally is contrary to Catholicism.

 

[meltzerboy]

No of course not. The idea of respecting all religions equally is contrary to Catholicism.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean. If you mean not all religions are worthy of respect, that may be the case. However, if you mean one cannot respect other religions as much as one respects one’s own, I’m not sure about that. I’m drawing a distinction between respect and belief: one may believe one’s own religion is true or truer than any other, yet I think one may at the same time respect other religions in the same way one respects one’s own. This is what many liberals believe.

 

[devoutchristian]

I’m not exactly sure what you mean. If you mean not all religions are worthy of respect, that may be the case. However, if you mean one cannot respect other religions as much as one respects one’s own, I’m not sure about that. I’m drawing a distinction between respect and belief: one may believe one’s own religion is true or truer than any other, yet I think one may at the same time respect other religions in the same way one respects one’s own. This is what many liberals believe.

I don’t really see how one could give the same respect to something that one considered to have only partial truth as one gives to something which one regards as having the whole truth. It would depend on exactly what you mean by respect.

 

[meltzerboy]

I don’t really see how one could give the same respect to something that one considered to have only partial truth as one gives to something which one regards as having the whole truth. It would depend on exactly what you mean by respect.

What I mean by respect is regard for the rights of others to believe in their faith and practice their religion in the way they see fit, provided it does not infringe upon others’ religious rights. There may even be admiration involved as well, but probably not reverence.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No, rather they are a dangerous political philosophy which they consider more important than religion.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

No, rather they are a dangerous political philosophy which they consider more important than religion.

Well, now that has been elucidated so eloquently in your explanation, I guess the matter is settled

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Well, now that has been elucidated so eloquently in your explanation, I guess the matter is settled :)

Yup so thread over.

 

[andrewstx]

I believe that things were different back when a lot of Catholics were blue collar workers and had modest incomes.

Now many have climbed the social ladder to the middle class, and not a few have abandoned the social justice the church teaches.

It is easy to be conservative when one has more to conserve.

Again and again we hear of the encyclical (sp) condemning socialism and communism, but how often is it brought out that the same encycyclical condemns laissez-faire just as strongly?

I am blue collar and am now disabled, and the only things I agree with Republicans on are pro choice and being opposed to ss "marriage.

 

[meltzerboy]

I believe that things were different back when a lot of Catholics were blue collar workers and had modest incomes.

Now many have climbed the social ladder to the middle class, and not a few have abandoned the social justice the church teaches.

It is easy to be conservative when one has more to conserve.

Again and again we hear of the encyclical (sp) condemning socialism and communism, but how often is it brought out that the same encycyclical condemns laissez-faire just as strongly?

I am blue collar and am now disabled, and the only things I agree with Republicans on are pro choice and being opposed to ss "marriage.

“It is easy to be conservative when one has more to conserve.” I like that line. I think you meant pro-life.

 

[missluckie26]

Dear Missluckie: Admittedly, a good many bad deeds have been committed by members of my Church, and sometimes by people in our leadership roles. And a lot of equally bad things have been done by atheists. Such things don’t speak to the core beliefs and higher aspirations of either group. None of us are good every minute of our lives and no one is bad every minute of their lives. We are just people, and like the source from which we came, we are growing and learning as we go. The question should be, what can people do to make things better without regard to what we might believe? I belong to a faith that has a set of dogmas, and you belong to a faith with dogmas as well. Atheism is full of materialist dogma and has it’s own high priests, such as Richard Dawkins. But surely, the capacity for love and the desire to thrive is the same in both of us. So, the question insofar as I can reason is what do we do about that collectively? How can we love and thrive and grow together without regard to the contexts we are wrapping around reality with our theologies?

If you are looking for someone to admit that some in our Church have done some very wrong things, then I will admit that. So now perhaps we should ask where we go from here. What do we do about the “now” that we are living in, and the future we’d like to help materialize? None of us has to believe in anything to love each other and to look for ways to make our lives fuller. I bet the only thing either of us wants is to find some happiness, and respecting one another’s core values is a good place for us to start. It doesn’t matter if I follow Jesus or someone else follows Krishna or the Buddha, or if you follow your own heart with no belief in God whatsoever. We can still use our lives to fulfill what we sought, which are the same basic things - love, security, creativity and a sense of mutual well-being.

Thank you for your reply, it was very much appreciated as opposed to being just passed over and ignored. The purpose of my post was to show what it is that I as an atheist see, and why I then get “zealous” about things. I disagree with the OP that it’s a religious zealousness, I assert that it’s a reactive zealousness. That’s the point I’m trying to make. When I became an atheist from a christian not too long ago, I still had issues with the Catholic church, before. But now I actually study up and pursue viewpoints that are against what I felt was right because I didn’t like anything that had to do with negativity with regards to Christianity. I think this is a vital failing point that theists need to correct. Not for me, but for yourselves and the betterment of the world around you. Actually looking at and talking about something that is happening no matter how uncomfortable it makes you, and identifying why it is happening will eliminate the need for brushing it under the rug.
I’m not saying you yourself are doing this, I speak in generalities. I totally appreciate your taking responsibility for your religion; that’s really all I ask for as an atheist.
As for materialistic dogma and high priests of atheism: I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve heard of Richard Dawkins and a few of his quotes, yeah. But I’ve also heard of Ray Comfort. Do you consider him to be a high priest of Christianity because he speaks for it and has internet videos? I don’t. What’s more there isn’t really a dogma to be found, where I’ve sought other atheists. There isn’t a book they give me which lays out what I should believe; they all believe different things for different reasons from what I’ve gathered. Some are pro life, some aren’t. Some are conservatives, some are liberals, some have open hostility towards religion, some have passive viewpoints. For the first time in my life I’ve had the freedom to choose what I believe based on what I feel is right; not the other way around. And atheists are very accepting of whatever conclusions I draw, so long as I have thought about it and have good reasoning for what I believe. I’m not told what is right, like when I was a Christian-- then saw that it’s not right. One example being gay marriage. In this country everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness; thus the suppression of gay marriage by religious dogma in this country I have always thought was wrong.
In conclusion, since this might hit the limit of 6k characters: I would like to hear your reasoning as to why you believe atheism is a religion, what you define a religion as being, and also I’d like to extend my hand back in the form of love and in respecting your core values. I do know they for the most part, are respectable values.
When it comes down to it, the reason I’m involved whatsoever in theism vs atheism debates is because I want what you want; to be accepted for who I am, not what I believe. I also want respect and to be able to give respect; But mostly, I want a resolution to the primary issues that Christians and atheists can’t seem to agree upon, as it affects all of us. Open discussion is the key.

ps. The Hokey Pokey is totally what it’s all about

 

[andrewstx]

“It is easy to be conservative when one has more to conserve.” I like that line. I think you meant pro-life.

Oy! Of course I meant pro life, thanks for catching that.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Since many liberals (aka progressives and formerly known as modernists) take their relativist activism to a zealous extreme and are very passionate about it as if it is the absolute unquestionable truth shouldn’t liberalism be considered a religion?

It could be because a lot of those outlooks are based on faith.