The Confusion of Catholicism

[PumpkinCookie]

I’m done giving individual replies because I don’t have time and I’m losing interest. No one is engaging with my main idea, we’re just arguing about givens. Some responses:

“Dogma” and “Scientific theory” are not equivalent.

Can I run experiments to show the eucharist is or is not God? Can I demonstrate that prayers either have an affect or not? Can we do some tests to see whether the only God is Allah and Muhammed is his prophet?

Of course not!

Can we try out different drugs on bacteria to see whether they succeed in killing them? Are we able to verify the conductivity of a certain metal by running current through it? Can we make predictions about the trajectory of a projectile based on prior experiments?

Maybe!

Is a dogma true? Oh, definitely and absolutely, always and everywhere, can’t even question it (to some people).

Is a scientific theory or hypothesis true? Oh, maybe, probably, I guess we think so for now based on the evidence available (to any and everyone.)

Big difference.​

I don’t think I’m being cynical or disparaging by acknowledging that Catholics won’t admit that the doctrinal or dogmatic history of Christianity is ambiguous, because it totally undermines their arguments against orthodoxy and Protestantism. Of course Catholics can’t engage with my main thesis, it makes perfect sense now. I honestly had totally forgotten because, like I said, it has been years since I cared about that particular scuffle.

I can understand now that the idea presented in this thread requires too much suspension of belief on the part of Catholics. They’re unwilling and possibly unable to think outside this particular box. Consider this my white flag. I give up. Not because I don’t think my theory has merit, but because I see now that my interlocutors aren’t able to dialogue. That’s OK. Not everyone has to talk about everything.

---

Vic Taltrees UK,

I am not Latino or Irish. My ancestors were all deeply superstitious Italians. My family of origin factors into this less than you assume. My mother and siblings are protestants now. My father is a “nominal Catholic,” sounds like you guys would be friends.

My maternal grandmother is long gone, may she rest in peace. She was very religious and superstitious. She essentially worshiped Mary. Her home was full to brimming with statues dripping in (painted) blood. Frilly children of Prague on every bookshelf. Exposed flaming, bleeding, pierced hearts were on every panting. She was a devotee of the via dolorosa or the way of sorrows (an extra-long rosary full of misery and sadness). She was also a generous and kind lady. I’m certain she believed all kinds of things, but I always thought “well that’s just what grandma is into.” My paternal grandparents are also Italian immigrants to the USA, but they were much more well-off and secular. My father’s entire family of origin left the church for secularism. I suppose my paternal grandmother is a “nominal Catholic.”

The oppression came later, when a certain group at my college started agitating me to “evangelize” others. I was encouraged to “learn my faith” “read the bible” “read the saints” “go to adoration,” etc. So, I did! As I dived deeper, I became increasingly revolted. “This is what the Church really teaches? This is horrible! How can anyone believe this? Why have I never heard of this before? Who covered this up? How?” Since that time, I’ve had hundreds of experiences of disgust and rejection, and they have proceeded from an engagement with councils, popes, fathers, doctors, saints, theologians, evangelists, apologists, (alleged) miracle-workers, and (alleged) visionaries. A kind of lurid fascination spurred me on, though I protested deep within. Maybe, my early exposure to my grandmother’s dark religious superstition made me subconsciously associate brutality, misery, and pain with “Godliness.” Going to the Latin mass was a big eye opener. The faces there I’ll never forget. Such an odd mixture of smug self-righteousness and resigned despair. I’d never seen it before or since. I knew then that, for me, Catholicism is spiritual poison.

Does that mean I think it is poison for everyone? No, of course not. Believe what you want. Follow where you think God is leading you. Clearly, I’ve had a deeply negative experience of Christianity and Catholicism, but not everyone does. Good for them.

I’m not going to go to a protestant church. I don’t believe Jesus was/is God. I don’t believe in original sin. I have no desire for eternal life. Christian churches have nothing to offer me.

I want to obey God. I want to be good. I want to love others. I want to live a good life. I believe this is possible, even without an explicit belief in God. But, I have that belief, and I think the Tanakh is full of useful and enlightening material, so I read it and meditate upon it.

I was (partially) joking about imagining God smiting Augustine or Bosco or the Jesus portrayed by “La Salette” or whatever, but I am also partially serious! It helped me get up the courage to finally stand up and walk out. For me, Catholicism presents an idol. I firmly believe that I have abandoned an idol by walking away, and I am trying to be obedient to God. So, that’s that.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

In relationship to the Old Covenant, it is a constant thread throughout, mankinds abandonment of God, while God is ever merciful and faithful to Israel. Human history, including that of the OT is ambiguous. While history can inform our reason, such as, rejecting Mormonism for dubious historical claims, history isn’t the sole variable in our search for truth.

Historical Catholics lived in their time and their place. They expressed their faith as how they were. How they understood the world in which they lived. This is not a bad thing. It is no different in the OT. You’d have to be really filtering out OT historical events. **But, you celebrate divine retribution of the OT, even to believing you can threaten your contemporary humans with the same. But others claiming the same for themselves, who aren’t you, are monsters? What argument do you think ISIS is using! **

It is all wonderful, IMO, that you are seeking, studying and forming opinions of your own, but you are not consistent. **God cannot be used for your personal retribution against others. You are not a one-person Israel. Just as God cannot be used by political leaders, as their excuse for their unjust actions. **

Keep journeying. Pray always.

1. Yep. (first bolded statement)
2. You’re misunderstanding my position. I have neither the right nor the ability to threaten anyone with divine retribution LOL! It’s more like I have faith that God will set everything aright in the end. I have faith that God will save me from the enemies who try to destroy my soul. Certainly, I myself deserve some divine retribution! I pray that God will be merciful with me instead. There is a big difference between that and ISIS. I would not compel anyone to believe something at the point of a gun. Like I wrote before, by nature I’m a libertarian. I am disinclined to care what other people think. Regarding the future, maybe when the Messiah comes he will be so convincing that everyone will just believe in God of their own volition. Who knows?
3. God cannot be used at all, by anyone.

 

[PRmerger]

“Dogma” and “Scientific theory” are not equivalent.

But Dogma and Scientific LAWS are.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

But Dogma and Scientific LAWS are.

Nope. We can demonstrate that a scientific law successfully describes reality and can predict the outcomes of certain phenomena, and it is also possible that we’re wrong. In fact, if you were to disprove a scientific law and come up with a new theory describing reality more fully, you’d win a Nobel prize.

We cannot demonstrate a dogma like “the only God is Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.” If you tried to disprove it and insist on a competing dogma, you might lose your head (in some places)!

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. We can demonstrate that a scientific law successfully describes reality and can predict the outcomes of certain phenomena, and it is also possible that we’re wrong. In fact, if you were to disprove a scientific law and come up with a new theory describing reality more fully, you’d win a Nobel prize.

We cannot demonstrate a dogma like “the only God is Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.” If you tried to disprove it and insist on a competing dogma, you might lose your head (in some places)!

Of course we can demonstrate dogma (correct dogma, that is).

For example, the dogma that God exists can be demonstrated by these proofs:

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

The dogma that the CC is the body of Christ can be demonstrated by these proofs:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Of course we can demonstrate dogma (correct dogma, that is).

For example, the dogma that God exists can be demonstrated by these proofs:

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

The dogma that the CC is the body of Christ can be demonstrated by these proofs:

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Right, first you decide that a dogma is “correct” and then you try to prove it. That’s what lawyers do, not scientists. Not that there is anything wrong with lawyers! It’s just that they are arguing for a particular outcome and it’s their job to present heavily biased arguments. The philosopher and the scientist, however, shouldn’t be starting with the conclusion as a given and then cherry-picking evidence to support it.

In science, we have a hypothesis. We don’t know if it is correct at the outset. We try to supply evidence and test it to see whether it describes reality well or not. If it seems to check out, we adopt it, for now. It can always be overturned by new evidence, or new analysis, or a better theory that describes more precisely and predicts more accurately.

“Science” is not a religion. It is a mode of investigation and understanding.

 

[RebeccaJ]

1. Yep. (first bolded statement)
2. You’re misunderstanding my position. I have neither the right nor the ability to threaten anyone with divine retribution LOL! It’s more like I have faith that God will set everything aright in the end. I have faith that God will save me from the enemies who try to destroy my soul. Certainly, I myself deserve some divine retribution! I pray that God will be merciful with me instead. There is a big difference between that and ISIS. I would not compel anyone to believe something at the point of a gun. Like I wrote before, by nature I’m a libertarian. I am disinclined to care what other people think. Regarding the future, maybe when the Messiah comes he will be so convincing that everyone will just believe in God of their own volition. Who knows?
3. God cannot be used at all, by anyone.

Ah, I hadn’t realized your God was made in the image of the passive aggressive. It does reveal your personal religious ideas more clearly. I have no interest in false gods.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Ah, I hadn’t realized your God was made in the image of the passive aggressive. It does reveal your personal religious ideas more clearly. I have no interest in false gods.

What do you mean? God is not passive-aggressive he is merciful. We shouldn’t mistake his kindness for weakness.

Incidentally, this reminds me of Nietzsche’s criticism of God. Have you read The Gay Science or On The Genealogy of Morality?

 

[Gorgias]

I’m done giving individual replies because I don’t have time and I’m losing interest. No one is engaging with my main idea, we’re just arguing about givens.

Why, of course! If we can’t agree on the assumptions you’re making, there’s no sense in arguing what conclusion those assumptions lead you to! If your argument hinges on the assertion “the moon is made of green cheese”, why would we proceed to the argument if the premise is flawed?

Can I run experiments to show the eucharist is or is not God? Can I demonstrate that prayers either have an affect or not? Can we do some tests to see whether the only God is Allah and Muhammed is his prophet?

Of course not!

This is why I keep begging you to read the ‘Grammar of Assent’. You’re making the same mistake that atheists and materialists make: you’re assuming that empirical testing is the sole measuring stick and guide for determining truth. To be blunt: it ain’t. An experiment can’t tell you whether, for instance, a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (only a jury of peers can do that); an experiment can’t tell you whether Nietzsche or Locke or Hegel is correct; an experiment can’t tell you whether your wife loves you (only you, in your heart, can decide that).

Different contexts admit to different standards of proof. While you cling to the notion that empirical experimentation is the only possible standard of proof, you will continue to pooh-pooh spiritual realities. And that, my friend, is an irrational approach.

Is a dogma true? Oh, definitely and absolutely, always and everywhere, can’t even question it (to some people).

Is a scientific theory or hypothesis true? Oh, maybe, probably, I guess we think so for now based on the evidence available (to any and everyone.)

Big difference.

Absolutely. That’s because the two fields of inquiry are asking questions of different types, and require different types of analysis. If someone asked you “how tall is that building?”, and you pulled out a bathroom scale to measure it, wouldn’t you look pretty silly? Of course – you’d be using the wrong tool for the job! Same dynamic here – you’re walking around with scales and hydrometers and calipers… and telling us that theology is ambiguous because you can’t measure or weigh its assertions. Just. Plain. Silly.

I don’t think I’m being cynical or disparaging by acknowledging that Catholics won’t admit that the doctrinal or dogmatic history of Christianity is ambiguous, because it totally undermines their arguments against orthodoxy and Protestantism. Of course Catholics can’t engage with my main thesis, it makes perfect sense now.

No; what’s really happening is that you can’t see our arguments, since they totally undermine your arguments against religion. Of course you can’t engage our answers, and so you make up a story about our motivations. It makes perfect sense now.

 

[OneSheep]

As I dived deeper, I became increasingly revolted. “This is what the Church really teaches? This is horrible! How can anyone believe this? Why have I never heard of this before? Who covered this up? How?” Since that time, I’ve had hundreds of experiences of disgust and rejection, and they have proceeded from an engagement with councils, popes, fathers, doctors, saints, theologians, evangelists, apologists, (alleged) miracle-workers, and (alleged) visionaries.

Hi PC,

In my view, the revulsion stems from the conscience. If we are being asked to believe something that sounds less loving than the person who loves us most, then it certainly cannot be God’s love, according to our own formation. There are a couple simple reads that have wonderfully provocative titles: Healing Spiritual Abuse and Religious Addiction and Good Goats: Healing Our Image of God both by Matthew Linn (a Jesuit priest) and his brother Dennis Linn with his wife Sheila Fabricant Linn. In the first book I mentioned (which I am reading now) Sheila, born of a Jewish family, describes her own move to Catholicism without rejecting her roots, she was nurtured by some very loving Catholics at GTU Berkeley. That said, she addresses the approaches that revolt us and the “addiction” we encounter in some fellow Catholics.

It would probably be taking it too far to say that “healing” implies a sickness. We all have journeys that take us in different directions and we suffer the errors. One of the premises the Linns uphold is (paraphrased) “If it isn’t Good News, then it isn’t Gospel”. I like that as much as I do (again, paraphrased) “It isn’t God if what is presented shows a love less than the person who loves us most.” These are not “heady” books, but they do address a number of common arguments against what they are saying. Look past the cute illustrations and see the depth.

Can we be so patient to respect that human awareness, our view of God and human, evolves very, very slowly? Yes, we can feel aghast at what appear to be extremely tribal and exclusive doctrines, depicting a condemning God, but history shows a human race becoming more and more inclusive, and we can rejoice in that, right? In the mean time, rather than be victims of what appears to be an incongruous, xenophobic, and superstitious set of beliefs (and whoever “covered this up” ) we can continue to create a Church, and a world, that respects and forgives the past and understands from where came the human race and we as individuals. While we show such patience, we continue building a world, (a kingdom) that fits what we know as true: i.e. that God loves and forgives unconditionally, that people and creation itself are beautiful and of infinite value, that we can cherish a life and a universe that comes from a heart of compassion.

Again, thanks for the great discussion. A priest I love a great deal once said, “If a person sees Jesus as cruel or unforgiving, that person would be better off rejecting such a Jesus.”

Paz.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Why, of course! If we can’t agree on the assumptions you’re making, there’s no sense in arguing what conclusion those assumptions lead you to! If your argument hinges on the assertion “the moon is made of green cheese”, why would we proceed to the argument if the premise is flawed?

I don’t think my premise is flawed. You have to. It’s a matter of faith for you. Therefore, you’re not able to investigate this. That’s OK.

This is why I keep begging you to read the ‘Grammar of Assent’. You’re making the same mistake that atheists and materialists make: you’re assuming that empirical testing is the sole measuring stick and guide for determining truth. To be blunt: it ain’t. An experiment can’t tell you whether, for instance, a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (only a jury of peers can do that); an experiment can’t tell you whether Nietzsche or Locke or Hegel is correct; an experiment can’t tell you whether your wife loves you (only you, in your heart, can decide that).

Different contexts admit to different standards of proof. While you cling to the notion that empirical experimentation is the only possible standard of proof, you will continue to pooh-pooh spiritual realities. And that, my friend, is an irrational approach.

1. OK I will read it, I have other things to do as well! 2) I never said empirical testing is the sole measure. Pure reason can prove all kinds of things, but there are issues with that methodology as well read Kant’s critique.

Absolutely. That’s because the two fields of inquiry are asking questions of different types, and require different types of analysis. If someone asked you “how tall is that building?”, and you pulled out a bathroom scale to measure it, wouldn’t you look pretty silly? Of course – you’d be using the wrong tool for the job! Same dynamic here – you’re walking around with scales and hydrometers and calipers… and telling us that theology is ambiguous because you can’t measure or weigh its assertions. Just. Plain. Silly.

Yep. Tell that to PRMerger. I would argue that we can’t be certain of theological claims not because they are not empirical, but because the proofs are either inconclusive or do too much work. I am unaware of any series of arguments that prove only your version of Catholicism while thoroughly and conclusively refuting all other forms of religious experience. I suspect it is impossible, which is part of my explanation for why religious proselytization so often morphs into violence.

No; what’s really happening is that you can’t see our arguments, since they totally undermine your arguments against religion. Of course you can’t engage our answers, and so you make up a story about our motivations. It makes perfect sense now.

You have successfully argued that you understand Catholicism to be unambiguous by either denying the viewpoints of Catholics who disagree as “wrong” or making the definition of “Catholic” contingent upon agreement with what you view as “orthodoxy.” This shouldn’t be a surprise, Christians have been doing this for their entire history. “Who are the real Christians? We are, everyone else is just wrong, it’s not ambiguous at all.”

Honestly, I suppose your motive is faith. You have faith in a certain understanding of Catholicism. That’s OK.

 

[o_mlly]

…
1: The essence of what it means to be a Catholic is ambiguous and confusing.
…

“Confusing” refers to a state of mind that has yet to grasp the idea(s). That’s is understandable. If you mean that specific teachings are unable to be grasped (confusing) or the system of teachings lack coherence please cite an example.

“Ambiguous” refers to an idea that is subject to multiple interpretations. Please cite a Catholic teaching which you believe has multiple interpretations.

“Unity in essentials, freedom in non-essentials, charity in all things.” St. Augustine

 

[PRmerger]

Right, first you decide that a dogma is “correct” and then you try to prove it.

Or you do what most people do, for most of their academic lives:

“…for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”.–Cardinal Newman.

That is,** we do what you do: **we trust the Math Professor has given us the correct answer, and then we work our way into figuring out how that answer is correct.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“Confusing” refers to a state of mind that has yet to grasp the idea(s). That’s is understandable. If you mean that specific teachings are unable to be grasped (confusing) or the system of teachings lack coherence please cite an example.

“Ambiguous” refers to an idea that is subject to multiple interpretations. Please cite a Catholic teaching which you believe has multiple interpretations.

“Unity in essentials, freedom in non-essentials, charity in all things.” St. Augustine

I am not a philosopher, only gained a bowing acquaintence with those that are/were, and have forgotten much. However, it has long seemed to me that to the extent there is “confusion” among Catholics or atheists, either one, it is a result of opting for “values” over “principles”. The latter are largely learned from those who are better authorities than ourselves. The former are things as we wish them to be. It has been a very long time since Nietzche declared the “death of God”. By saying that, he was actually talking about a shift from actions and beliefs based on longstanding principles, in favor of individual judgments, and it applies equally well to atheism as it does to Catholicism or even principles of governance.

For Catholics, there are the teachings of the Church. Catholics who wish to be true to their faith accept them even if they dissent intellectually or emotionally from them. Why? Because it is part of Catholicism that Jesus bestowed inerrancy and teaching power on the Church. Now, one might believe the truth of the underlying principle, or might not. But if one wishes to be a “Catholic”, one does.

Some atheists are also “principled”. Their belief system might be founded on a rigorous empiricism and rational idea development based on it, or it might be “free floating”, changeable from minute to minute depending on how the atheist feels about it today.

In the political realm, we in the U.S. revere or purport to revere the seminal words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” Truths. Self-evident. How alien that really is to the common modes of thinking today; a time in which almost nothing is viewed as an absolute “truth”, let alone that one might be “self-evident”. We worship the gray. More than that, we worship the idea of gray. We do it because it allows us to ignore all thought that went before, all principles with which we don’t agree, all duty to engage in principled behavior if we dont’ feel like engaging in it.

Are there teachings in the Church that I don’t really grasp intellectually? Absolutely. Some of the more arcane theological propositions leave my head spinning. But that only means I don’t understand things my mind is not chambered to understand or that I have not sufficiently studied. Others do understand them because they possess sufficient intelligence, and do study them.

And without a doubt there are atheists who find some of the atheist writings incomprehensible, and for the same reason.

Catholics, of course, have an advantage in that we have a very long line of theologians, philosophers, Doctors of the Church, and so on. For atheists, the textual material is rather thinner. But it does exist.

Do Catholics, at a point, simply accept some things on authority? No question about it. Even St. Thomas Aquinas admitted that, ultimately, our authority as to certain things is revelation and that alone. If one does not accept the validity of revelation, then one can’t accept Catholicism or anything about it. Atheists do not accept authority as their philosophical underpinning. They posit the non-existence of God and go from there.

 

[o_mlly]

… St. Thomas Aquinas admitted that, ultimately, our authority as to certain things is revelation and that alone. …

Thank you for your comments and I agree.

I also think that our faith is neither irrational or ambiguous. That is, right reason does not stand in opposition to Catholic teaching although reason alone may not reach all the tenets of our beliefs.

Reason and faith are two forces that are to cooperate to bring the human person to know the truth, and that each of these has its own primacy: faith comes first in the sequence of time, reason has the absolute primacy.

Encyclical on “Augustine of Hippo,” John Paul II.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think my premise is flawed. You have to. It’s a matter of faith for you. Therefore, you’re not able to investigate this. That’s OK.

With all due respect, PC, that’s a bunch of self-serving hooey. Look at what you’re saying! “Gee, since you disagree with my premises, it can’t possibly be the case that my premises are wrong – no, what it must be is that ya’ll are just unable to come to grips with my superior logic!” That’s not reason – it’s hubris. :sad_yes:

I never said empirical testing is the sole measure. Pure reason can prove all kinds of things

However, those empirical ones are the only ones that you use as a club against Catholic teaching: “you can’t prove them”, over and again, is your only defense.

I am unaware of any series of arguments that prove only your version of Catholicism while thoroughly and conclusively refuting all other

You really need to read Newman. The ‘thoroughly and conclusively’ part is the unreasonable part. Not because good proofs are available, but because the decision of “thorough enough” and “conclusive enough” is one each person makes.

You have successfully argued that you understand Catholicism to be unambiguous by either denying the viewpoints of Catholics who disagree as “wrong” or making the definition of “Catholic” contingent upon agreement with what you view as “orthodoxy.”

It’s not “what I view as orthodoxy”, it’s “what orthodoxy means in a Catholic construct.” The entire notion of Catholic orthodoxy itself is an unambiguous one!

 

[RebeccaJ]

What do you mean? God is not passive-aggressive he is merciful. We shouldn’t mistake his kindness for weakness.

Incidentally, this reminds me of Nietzsche’s criticism of God. Have you read The Gay Science or On The Genealogy of Morality?

1. libertarians are by definition passive-aggressive
2. saying to a Catholic on a Catholic forum that the Messiah will be known when he gets here, is passive-aggressive
3. saying that you avoid exacting personal retribution because your God will get it done, is passive-aggressive

I could go on but you get the idea. You’ve made God in your own image. As I said, I have an aversion to made up on the spot religions, and have no interest in false gods. Or dishonest conversations. It is I suspect why this thread has grown tiresome.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

With all due respect, PC, that’s a bunch of self-serving hooey. Look at what you’re saying! “Gee, since you disagree with my premises, it can’t possibly be the case that my premises are wrong – no, what it must be is that ya’ll are just unable to come to grips with my superior logic!” That’s not reason – it’s hubris. :sad_yes:

I said no such thing! There are many reasons my thesis could be wrong. You say it’s because “Catholicism” isn’t ambiguous. I suspect your reasons for saying this have to do with your faith commitments, since every piece of evidence I’ve brought up you “hand wave” away by either alleging that clear and obvious statements mean the opposite, or define “Catholics” as “those who agree with you.” For the sake of argument, let’s go ahead and grant that Catholicism has always been perfectly clear from the very first disciples.

1. Why do we see so many anti-atheist threads filled with scorn and name calling?
2. Why are most Catholics in disagreement with the obvious and clear teaching of Catholicism?

You’re essentially going to say “they’re ignorant sinners.” This is a dis-satisfactory explanation. It doesn’t tell us anything. For instance, we don’t see all religious people creating anti-atheist threads or burning those who disagree with them do we? Any buddhists out there flaming atheists? Any official inquisition set up by Quakers? “Ignorant sinners” should explain the behavior of, well, anyone. But, we don’t see this same behavior in all people everywhere. What is it about Catholics/Protestants/Muslims/Atheists that causes this? Is it the “will to truth?”

What is the impetus to violence? What causes the desire to control and dominate the thoughts of others? What causes the reaction of scorn, contempt, and mockery when the attempt to evangelize fails?

However, those empirical ones are the only ones that you use as a club against Catholic teaching: “you can’t prove them”, over and again, is your only defense.

You really need to read Newman. The ‘thoroughly and conclusively’ part is the unreasonable part. Not because good proofs are available, but because the decision of “thorough enough” and “conclusive enough” is one each person makes.

It’s not “what I view as orthodoxy”, it’s “what orthodoxy means in a Catholic construct.” The entire notion of Catholic orthodoxy itself is an unambiguous one!

I stick to empiricism because my other arguments against Christianity would be considered deeply offensive and get me banned.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

1. libertarians are by definition passive-aggressive
2. saying to a Catholic on a Catholic forum that the Messiah will be known when he gets here, is passive-aggressive
3. saying that you avoid exacting personal retribution because your God will get it done, is passive-aggressive

I could go on but you get the idea. You’ve made God in your own image. As I said, I have an aversion to made up on the spot religions, and have no interest in false gods. Or dishonest conversations. It is I suspect why this thread has grown tiresome.

1. OK I guess I can see that. I’ve never heard this description before. I’m a libertarian by temperament and disposition, but my religious beliefs encourage me to think that total freedom isn’t the ultimate path to world peace, unless somehow all people would internalize God’s commandments such that they could exercise freedom without harming themselves or others.
2. Well, what am I supposed to do? I don’t believe it has happened yet. If you do, that’s OK. Who cares what I think, anyway? I’m obviously and unambiguously wrong about this…right?
3. You really need to read On The Genealogy Of Morals. Your criticism of my idea that we should allow God to balance the scales of justice rather than taking it into our own hands is the core of Nietzsche’s critique of what he calls “slave” (aka Jewish) morality. I think he had some interesting and compelling insights, but was ultimately misguided about this. Sure, there is something invigorating about the thought of violently silencing or subjugating one’s enemies (like ISIS). I can see why it galvanizes many young men living in ambiguous and shifting political and economic realities. However, I do not think it is the path to peace either.

 

[RebeccaJ]

1. OK I guess I can see that. I’ve never heard this description before. I’m a libertarian by temperament and disposition, but my religious beliefs encourage me to think that total freedom isn’t the ultimate path to world peace, unless somehow all people would internalize God’s commandments such that they could exercise freedom without harming themselves or others.
2. Well, what am I supposed to do? I don’t believe it has happened yet. If you do, that’s OK. Who cares what I think, anyway? I’m obviously and unambiguously wrong about this…right?
3. You really need to read On The Genealogy Of Morals. Your criticism of my idea that we should allow God to balance the scales of justice rather than taking it into our own hands is the core of Nietzsche’s critique of what he calls “slave” (aka Jewish) morality. I think he had some interesting and compelling insights, but was ultimately misguided about this. Sure, there is something invigorating about the thought of violently silencing or subjugating one’s enemies (like ISIS). I can see why it galvanizes many young men living in ambiguous and shifting political and economic realities. However, I do not think it is the path to peace either.

I’m not being clear. Sorry about that.

God is the author of justice. When you say, paraphrasing, that God will take care of your enemies, this is an expression that you believe, when others are punished as you see they should, then the divine scales of justice are balanced.

I view this as a sign of immature faith. If you’ll indulge my poor explanation further, this is immature because you imagine justice is how you see it, in what you want, which is childish. And easily disproven the first time that you don’t get what you want. Which is good! It will be the time for your faith to mature. At which point, you’ll have to actually deal with the confusion and ambiguities, which I see as your own making. Brought on by making a false god and then creating arguments against your false god. Or, you can adjust the image of your second and personally preferable god to something more satisfying to your personal needs and desires.

Perhaps I am off, but it is the impression I get from what you’ve written in this thread.