We can change the topic of this conversation to whether my faith is mature or not if you want, but before we do that I’m going to go ahead and ask you to acknowledge that you think my explanation of Catholic/Protestant/Atheist mutual hate is correct.
I wasn’t trying to cut you down, personally. Or to imply somehow I’m above all that. It is how it is and why the Psalmist prays, Lord clear me of my hidden faults. We are all immature in our faith and are all reliant on God to reveal to us what we hide from ourselves. The numerous ways and means by which we avoid what God has to say because we’d rather hear ourselves. We all do this, even those who may think they don’t.
Those who agree with the Magisterium. And disputing your interpretation of a statement is not the same as denying its actual meaning.
A) People are sinners. Sometimes we behave badly.
Citation needed. Most Catholics are not in disagreement with the obvious and clear meaning of Catholicism.
I can’t speak for Gorgias but I don’t say that.
Nope. Neither do we see all Catholics, or all Christians, doing that. Nor do we see all atheists creating anti-Christian threads.
…Because you know of 21st-century Catholics who burn people?
If by flaming you mean internet flame wars, then yes, yes there are. If you mean actual flames, no.
Do you really allege that no Protestant or non-Christian religion ever persecuted others?
History, including recent history, is full of people persecuting other people. Religion is by no means the only grounds for persecution. Pointing solely to examples of wrongdoing by those you disagree with is cherry-picking.
What is it about people that causes this?
Human beings are sinful. We do horrible things to each other sometimes. This is not an indictment of Catholicism. It’s an indictment of Humanity.
…Citation?
…*Seriously!? *You’re saying that anyone who changes the topic is admitting dfefeat?
Have you considered that your main idea that Catholicism is Abiguous/Confusing is a peculiar (particular to you) and uncommon? That most Catholics (ESPECIALLY those here on CAF do not experience their faith this way?
I did not claim they are. I just pointed out that Science also has dogmas.
It is impossible to prove a negative.
Actually there is quite a bit of research published (not only in Christian Counseling journals) that demonstrates this is the case.
I suggest you pick your subjects carefully or you could get beheaded.
You seem to want to apply a method that was developed to verify physical/material phenomena to measuring spiritual/non-temporal phenomena. Why would you assume this method would apply?
Such a position would not be consistent with the Catholic Catechism.
I think so. Had you considered using a more appropriate method of research?
For me, it has nothing to do with arguments against others. It has to do with the Source of the revelation. We can trust the Source, becasue we know who He is, and we know He is not ambiguous.
This is very noble of you, Pumpkin. I am sure you can devise another thread that may provoke the spirited dialogue you seem to be desperately needing.
One has to wonder what you are doing on a Catholic forum. Isn’t that a toxic experience for you?
Thank you, but it does not explain why youare here.
Sounds like you have your mind made up on these issues.
May the Spirit of God guide you into all Truth.
God meets all of us where we are. I hope that, through your desire to love and obey God, you will achieve the abilty to forgive all the persons and practices that have wounded you.
Nicely done.
OK so your alternative thesis is that the mutual fear/hate of some Catholics/Protestants/Atheists toward each other is the result of spiritual immaturity?
You just said it! Your answer (seems to me to be): “people are sinners, that’s why they hate each other.” OK, that’s a sort of general answer to general hate. That’s not the specific question here though. I’m trying to figure out why very conservative believers of Catholicism/Christianity seem to hate and fear atheists. I’m also trying to explain why there appear to be evangelical atheists or “anti-theists.” Why do they hate and fear conservative Christians/Catholics? Why, specifically, the mockery and slander on both sides? “They’re sinners” seems like a shallow answer to me, because we don’t see this behavior from huge segments of the population of human beings (hindus/taoist/shinto/buddhist/liberals of various persuasions) which is what we would expect if “sin in general” were the best explanation.
Not all members of a class or group exhibit the same behaviors, this is obvious. I’m not arguing (here) that Catholicism/Christianity or Atheism produce hate in and of themselves, but that they produce hate when confronted by some personalities. Namely: people who desire strict boundaries and simplistic answers on a deep psychological level. People who desire to construct more clarity for themselves end up hating others as a mode of clarification. Of course this is subconscious, because no one can tolerate being a hater, I suspect.
Yes, OK now we’re getting somewhere. Why do people persecute others? My ideas: they’re racist, they fear the unknown, they see the world as “you win, I lose,” they don’t like change, they want to remain in control, etc. But, I am interested in a more specific question. Why do Catholics/Christians/Atheists persecute each other? And, notice, this isn’t physical/economic persecution (anymore) but purely intellectual. Is the best answer “they’re sinners?” Can you be more specific?
We can change the subject to whether or not someone is “admitting defeat” if you want, but before we do that, I’m going to go ahead and ask you to confirm that my thesis is a better explanation. Since you want to change the subject, I have to assume you agree with me, right? If you don’t why not?
Have you considered that your main idea that Catholicism is Abiguous/Confusing is a peculiar (particular to you) and uncommon? That most Catholics (ESPECIALLY those here on CAF do not experience their faith this way?
You mean, I’m the only person who thinks what it means to be a Catholic is ambiguous? I doubt it, since the entire purpose of CA is to try to answer that question for millions of people who find it confusing and ambiguous. I have no doubt some Catholics are 100% sure they’re right about everything and the true Catholics. There is abundant evidence here.
I did not claim they are. I just pointed out that Science also has dogmas.
Name three please.
It is impossible to prove a negative.
Yes you are right, and in the case of many religious dogmas, it is also impossible to prove a positive. That’s OK!
Actually there is quite a bit of research published (not only in Christian Counseling journals) that demonstrates this is the case.
Really? Peer-reviewed medical journals? Double-blind? Name three please.
I suggest you pick your subjects carefully or you could get beheaded.
Exactly.
You seem to want to apply a method that was developed to verify physical/material phenomena to measuring spiritual/non-temporal phenomena. Why would you assume this method would apply?
I don’t think it does, and that’s why I think it is wrong to try to get others to agree about spiritual matters. It’s personal and subjective.
Such a position would not be consistent with the Catholic Catechism.
So you say. Which one?
I think so. Had you considered using a more appropriate method of research?
Yes. Reason tells me it is incoherent and historical analysis offers only some support for some claims. Of course science can’t say anything about whether a religion is true or false, that’s why it is wrong to insist on one religious claim to the exclusion of others without solid proof.
For me, it has nothing to do with arguments against others. It has to do with the Source of the revelation. We can trust the Source, becasue we know who He is, and we know He is not ambiguous.
You’ve got your sources confused I think. The bible is not the church is not Jesus is not God (from my view anyway). I can’t verify or falsify your source any more or less than any other religious text unless the text makes clearly and obviously false claims that can be demonstrated to be false.
This is very noble of you, Pumpkin. I am sure you can devise another thread that may provoke the spirited dialogue you seem to be desperately needing.
You are right that some discussions do require suspension of belief. There are some arguments that don’t have sufficient value to me any more to spend my limited energy speculating, when the outcome of the speculation has no eternal value to me. Perhaps I would have when I was young, but the further I get from the apogee of my life span, the less I am willing to invest in that which has no live giving value.
You are right. Religious beliefs really don’t matter too much do they?And yet here you are. I remember one of my neighbors as a kid told the Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to her door that she was “too old to change her mind.” I get that, I really do. All I’m saying is that maybe it was misguided for them to be there in the first place. Maybe the whole project of evangelization causes nothing but psychological trauma and fosters hate.
One has to wonder what you are doing on a Catholic forum. Isn’t that a toxic experience for you?
No, it’s healing. I am gaining a deeper understanding of the thought processes of others. I sometimes think “wow, how can anyone be a Catholic, knowing this and that?” By being here, I am answering that question and building empathy, so hopefully I can help others. There millions and millions of ex-Catholics out there, and they’re all wounded. I am coming up with a plan to help, and this is part of the research.
I have met far too many people with the same attribute, that once they hear their own voice they fall so much in love with it that they invent reasons just to listen to themselves. Once those around them tire of the incessant noise, they have to find other pastures where they are not known to begin the process anew. The result is that some outer shell of their ego gets a boost, the server loses valuable space and as you noted, an “argument” with so many logical inconsistencies simply defies negation or proof. I tried very hard not to laugh out loud at the magnanimous gesture referenced by this individual.
“Hubris: excessive pride or confidence.”
“Argue against”. There’s a world of difference between arguing against an assertion and just hand waving.
Nope. That can’t be the answer: you, yourself, assert that there aren’t any “clear and obvious statements”; rather, you claim that they’re ambiguous. So, that can’t be what it is, by your own thesis!
Nope – I’ve never done that: rather, you continue to do that!
None of us on this earth is all-knowing: to a lesser or greater extent, we’re all ‘ignorant’.
Umm, in case you didn’t realize it, Buddhists don’t believe in a god – so, why should they flame those who share at least part of their beliefs?
No, but note that this doesn’t mean that Quakers are the epitome of religious tolerance that you seem to be suggesting: for example, in the Commonwealth that bears William Penn’s name, only Christians could vote or hold elected office.
The frailties of human nature. Trying to blame one religious group for the characteristics of human beings is short-sighted at best, and biased at worst.
Again, this is not what Catholicism attempts to do. But, you’re the expert on Catholicism, such that you know better than us what it teaches, right?
It’s not the failure of evangelization – it’s the failure to get beyond the barriers of the biases and pre-conceived notions of others that’s so frustrating.
My… now that’s an interesting claim!
Thanks for the compliment. OK you think I’m wrong, that’s fine. Don’t worry, we don’t need to “cross swords.” I left mine at home.
It’s hubris for me to suspect your view of Catholicism as unambiguous is faith-based? Is that what you mean? I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that I could be wrong. It is possible Catholicism has always been totally clear and unambiguous right from the beginning. I think the evidence points elsewhere, not as a matter of faith, but based on my understanding of the history. I am trying to explain why the deeper believers seem to be the deeper haters, while the more shallow believers seem to hate less. I thought Sartre’s explanation made some sense in explaining anti-semitism, so I tried to see if it would explain other behaviors. My mistake was attempting to argue about the source of anti-semitism with anti-semites! LOL duh that’s not going to yield much, except hate, rejection, scorn, slander, strawmen, and a borderline flame war. Wait…
…has my point been given yet more support by this very thread?Please show me where I said “Catholics make no clear and obvious statements.” I do not believe I said that. The reason I think Catholicism is ambiguous is that there are clear and obvious statements contradicting one another from Catholics over time. You have argued that seemingly contradictory statements are not actually contradictory. That’s fine, but I’m not convinced. Maybe some other people are. That is also fine.“Argue against”. There’s a world of difference between arguing against an assertion and just hand waving.
Nope. That can’t be the answer: you, yourself, assert that there aren’t any “clear and obvious statements”; rather, you claim that they’re ambiguous. So, that can’t be what it is, by your own thesis!
OK, so is Joan Chittister a Catholic? What about Cardinal Kasper? Are their published writings Catholic? What about Hans Kung? What about Karl Rahner?
OK, stick with me. Honestly, doesn’t “poor catechesis” = “ignorant” and “prideful” = “sinner?” Seriously, is that not fair? Poor catechesis seems like a more specific kind of ignorance, and pride is a more specific sin.
Buddhists don’t seem to engage in any kind of “evangelization” do they? They neither mock nor scorn other religious traditions. There doesn’t seem to be any will to conquer other people’s souls. But, if “sin” is a good enough explanation for the mutual animosity of Christians and atheists toward each other, why do we not see these same issues cropping up in other religious environments?Umm, in case you didn’t realize it, Buddhists don’t believe in a god – so, why should they flame those who share at least part of their beliefs?
No, but note that this doesn’t mean that Quakers are the epitome of religious tolerance that you seem to be suggesting: for example, in the Commonwealth that bears William Penn’s name, only Christians could vote or hold elected office.
The frailties of human nature. Trying to blame one religious group for the characteristics of human beings is short-sighted at best, and biased at worst.
Again, this is not what Catholicism attempts to do. But, you’re the expert on Catholicism, such that you know better than us what it teaches, right?
It’s not the failure of evangelization – it’s the failure to get beyond the barriers of the biases and pre-conceived notions of others that’s so frustrating.
My… now that’s an interesting claim!
What would your answer to this be:
http://beccadorr.com/wp-content/upl...tisers-dont-meet-twitters-spending-quotas.jpg
lifesitenews.com/news/dissident-nun-sister-joan-chittister-the-lifesitenews-interview
Egg-zactly.
You’re asking me to judge whether she is correctly articulating Catholic teaching. This pre-supposes that I agree that there is such a thing as Catholic teaching. I can tell you that I don’t fully understand what she is even saying. Does it boil down to “sometimes abortion is OK, depending on the circumstances?” If it does, I can tell you that doesn’t harmonize with the 1993 Catechism and many proclamations by Catholics in the 20th century.