What are the reasons I should (or shouldn't) become Catholic?

[Janet_S]

youtube.com/watch?v=h0nSjxDKJEo

Thanks, KMS. That’s a perfect answer.

 

[qui_est_ce]

youtube.com/watch?v=h0nSjxDKJEo

That was so totally awesome. It brought tears to my eys. Thank you. That is the reason I am Catholic. I experience all in the Present. It’s not a play, it is real.

 

[kms123]

I’m curious as to what are the reasons that I should or shouldn’t become Catholic in your opinions.

This may be a repeat but it’s worth repeating.

ourcatholicfaith.org/reasons.html

 

[AgnosTheist]

I don’t think that was Chesterton’s point. It would be nice if you would comment on the quote itself, the point of which is the irony that the medieval man (who made dogmas and believed in truth) is viewed as “backward” by the modern man yet the medieval man is actually more advanced (more human) that the modern man who prides himself on his “tolerance” to any and all ideas and his denial of objective truth. And why is that? Because the modern man who claims to accept everything really accepts nothing.

Did you miss his point? I’m guessing you did else why would you totally switch gears and pull out the familiar but totally unrelated topic of Catholics burning heretics at the stake. I guess you had nothing to add to the discussion. Too bad.

Janet, i dont think that is the point. The point was the more doctrine a person makes, the more human he becomes. And the less doctrine, the less human. That point I already criticized. The last question I asked was, those children who died without the luxury of inventing dogmas, are you more human than they are?

Now about your comparison between the medieval and the modern man, how can you credit the former as being more advanced when medieval humanity though very religious was as much defined for rampant racism, sexism, religious intolerance & violence, warfares & genocides, and class discriminations?

Chesterton lived in a backward society, & he aint perfect. Dont rely too much on his opinions.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Let’s see, you misunderstand these words (things)

what a cheesy excuse.

do you think you are more human than atheists and agnostics?

You will see nothing else, because of your history. That is your right. It is also your error, and will serve you very badly, and cause you no end of pain.

you wish.

 

[jmcrae]

Chesterton lived in a backward society, & he aint perfect. Dont rely too much on his opinions.

Chesterton lived at the height of Western civilization, before it was overtaken by the twin insanities produced by world-wide war: Modernist philosophy, and nihilism.

He lacked technology, but he was better educated than just about anyone on this Forum.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Chesterton lived at the height of Western civilization, before it was overtaken by the twin insanities produced by world-wide war: Modernist philosophy, and nihilism.

those insanities were largely byproducts of western culture that time. so how could you say that age was the height of western civilization? that can only be true in terms of colonial power. never in terms of ethical and moral aspect.

He lacked technology, but he was better educated than just about anyone on this Forum.

he was better accomplished than everyone here, but in terms of education: by what is described in wikipedia I am much more educated than him. so should be a lot of you.

 

[Janet_S]

.

Janet, i dont think that is the point. The point was the more doctrine a person makes, the more human he becomes. And the less doctrine, the less human. That point I already criticized. The last question I asked was, those children who died without the luxury of inventing dogmas, are you more human than they are?

Now about your comparison between the medieval and the modern man, how can you credit the former as being more advanced when medieval humanity though very religious was as much defined for rampant racism, sexism, religious intolerance & violence, warfares & genocides, and class discriminations?

Chesterton lived in a backward society, & he aint perfect. Dont rely too much on his opinions.

It absolutely is Chesterton’s point–the modern man vs the medieval man (or the common man) --and this theme permeates everything he writes. If you read him much, you would know what I mean. He was a great champion of the common man, of family, of freedom, and of simple living. The people he criticized were the skeptics, the progressives, in general the elite who scorn the common man and think him incapable of running his own life.

And don’t assume the modern man has evolved into a more advanced creature. We haven’t. As far as war and genocide, the medieval man has nothing on us. The 20th century was the bloodiest ever. And most of these atrocities can’t even be blamed on religion–they were perpetrated by atheists. Look at germ warfare, chemical warfare, and the atomic bomb. Consider the atrocity of abortion with 1.5 million children being killed each year in the US alone. Still think the modern man is better?

The medieval world was not as dark as you think, nor is our age one of light. We could learn a thing or two from our medieval brothers. At least they believed in reality. Most people in the world today don’t.

Agnos, don’t be a chronological snob.

 

[qui_est_ce]

but in terms of education: by what is described in wikipedia I am much more educated than him. so should be a lot of you.

Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord, s/b “more educated than HE.”

8:00 PM Central Daylight Savings time 9/28/07, First Friday, Holy Hour.

BTW, you do know the significance of First Fridays?

 

[Contarini]

And don’t assume the modern man has evolved into a more advanced creature. We haven’t. As far as war and genocide, the medieval man has nothing on us. The 20th century was the bloodiest ever.

True, but there were a lot more people running around to be killed–not to be flippant or anything. Most of us have never seen a violent death. That was not true in the Middle Ages–between public executions, crime, and war, your chances of dying violently were pretty good, and your chances of seeing someone die violently were excellent.

I love the Middle Ages and I agree that it’s ridiculous to claim that we are more advanced in every way. But I also think it’s unfair to say that we are *more *violent.

Edwin

 

[Gara3987]

Go to this site fisheaters.com it may give you what you are looking for.

 

[Janet_S]

True, but there were a lot more people running around to be killed–not to be flippant or anything. Most of us have never seen a violent death. That was not true in the Middle Ages–between public executions, crime, and war, your chances of dying violently were pretty good, and your chances of seeing someone die violently were excellent.

I love the Middle Ages and I agree that it’s ridiculous to claim that we are more advanced in every way. But I also think it’s unfair to say that we are *more *violent.

Edwin

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but one of the advantages the medievals had was that they believed there was such a thing as good and evil. Not many people seem to believe that today. Look how people ridicule Ronald Reagan and George W Bush when they talk about evil in the world.

Today, “evil” is an old-fashioned idea we have outgrown. Our violence is certainly more sanitized than it was in medieval times, but it’s present all the same. That’s what’s so dangerous about it. So many evil schemes are packaged up and presented to the world as a good. Who will be around to see it for what it really is.

Pope JP II wrote about this in his encyclicals Evangelion Vitae and Veritatis Splendor. He knew a bit about evil and violence having experienced it first hand.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Where are Brian, Nella, Priscilla Ann, Emily_CA, and Brewmaster? They pop up here and there with attacks and inuendos against the “Roman” Church, and then leave, never to engage in discussion. Brosam got banned for using a quote out of context from a poster as his signature, and generally vicious posts. They are all over the Forum making the same claims, but never return to discuss.

I commend Agnos Theist and Notself for engaing in discussion. I have learned at lot from them.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I love the Middle Ages and I agree that it’s ridiculous to claim that we are more advanced in every way. But I also think it’s unfair to say that we are *more *violent.

Certainly not ‘in every way’.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but one of the advantages the medievals had was that they believed there was such a thing as good and evil. Not many people seem to believe that today. Look how people ridicule Ronald Reagan and George W Bush when they talk about evil in the world.

That is not what people ridicule them for. What people ridicule Bush for–sticking to the more contemporary case–is the idea that evil is something “out there” which you can destroy by displays of military might. Read Lord of the Rings–it’s all there. Or read St. Augustine, particularly the City of God. Bush’s attitude is arguably a form of the Manichean heresy. It’s a revival of the Roman dream of imposing justice and peace by force. It’s inherently idolatrous. And yes, that makes it evil.

Left-wing people think Bush is evil (I wouldn’t go that far–it’s not my business to judge him as a human being, but secular folks generally have no such compunction). It is simply nonsense to say that they don’t believe in evil. That’s a straw man.

Today, “evil” is an old-fashioned idea we have outgrown. Our violence is certainly more sanitized than it was in medieval times, but it’s present all the same. That’s what’s so dangerous about it. So many evil schemes are packaged up and presented to the world as a good. Who will be around to see it for what it really is.

Pope JP II wrote about this in his encyclicals Evangelion Vitae and Veritatis Splendor. He knew a bit about evil and violence having experienced it first hand.

I agree with all of this, and I agree that Pope JPII is an excellent guide in these matters.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

And don’t assume the modern man has evolved into a more advanced creature. We haven’t. As far as war and genocide, the medieval man has nothing on us. The 20th century was the bloodiest ever.

I agree, the 20th century was the bloodiest ever. But only because its first half was the culmination of medieval racism and fascism. The world wars sure served as a wake up call for humanity. And after that things got better and better. Many wars are prevented and all forms of discrimination are publicly opposed.

And most of these atrocities can’t even be blamed on religion–they were perpetrated by atheists. Look at germ warfare, chemical warfare, and the atomic bomb. Consider the atrocity of abortion with 1.5 million children being killed each year in the US alone. Still think the modern man is better?

the atomic bomb only destroyed 2 cities. you have any idea how many cities were culled by the mongols? sure people abort unborn children, is that any worst in the past wherein baby girls were buried alive just for being females? I would settle with abortion any time.

The medieval world was not as dark as you think, nor is our age one of light. We could learn a thing or two from our medieval brothers. At least they believed in reality. Most people in the world today don’t.

its not as dark if you were a wealthy catholic living in medieval europe. but if you were a jew, a witch, black, a heretic, an infidel, a peasant, or a catholic under moslem rule, you would surely change your mind.

 

[Contarini]

I agree, the 20th century was the bloodiest ever. But only because its first half was the culmination of medieval racism and fascism.

That’s complete balderdash. It’s propaganda by those who cling to the superstitious religion of Modernity and Progress. Racism is primarily a modern phenomenon, and faschism, particularly Nazism, was thoroughly and typically modern. Of course it built on longstanding prejudices, but it was driven by a belief in science and in the peculiarly modern concept of the Centralized State. Same with Communism, which is the apotheosis of the worship of modernity (worshiping as the goddess History what medieval people would have reviled more wisely as the strumpet Fortune, to quote C. S. Lewis).

The world wars sure served as a wake up call for humanity. And after that things got better and better.

Oh really? Have you read many books or watched many movies from the 50s and 60s? I find the amorality and ruthlessness of the era horrifying. Read some early Heinlein, for instance. Or Ayn Rand (actually I have managed to avoid reading Ayn Rand, so I’m going at second hand there). This leaves aside the equally brutal attitudes prevalent on the Left.

I think the relative humanity of our culture today is due in great measure to the much-reviled flower children of the 60s. For all their faults, they did have a great horror of violence and of the despicable subterfuges by which those in power mask their evil. That is why they loved Tolkien, alien as Tolkien was to their world view in so many ways. So yes, there was a reaction. But it wasn’t immediate and it wasn’t automatic, and in many ways it took the form of a reversion to premodern values (again, Tolkien is an excellent example).

Many wars are prevented and all forms of discrimination are publicly opposed.

In the fortunate Western countries, sure. Have you checked in on Darfur lately? And what about the Iraq War?

the atomic bomb only destroyed 2 cities. you have any idea how many cities were culled by the mongols?

Well, probably no one has a very good idea, since Genghis Khan deliberately encouraged horror stories about his actions in order to spread fear and make people surrender quickly. But I agree–he did kill a lot of people.

sure people abort unborn children, is that any worst in the past wherein baby girls were buried alive just for being females?

This practice was banned by the Church in the Middle Ages. You should be praising the enlightenment of medieval Christianity!

I would settle with abortion any time.

Why settle for either?

Edwin

 

[AgnosTheist]

Of course it built on longstanding prejudices,

im glad we agree on this.

but it was driven by a belief in science

care to explain how? like world war I, world war II, the holocaust, the armenian genocide…how were those driven by a belief in science?

and in the peculiarly modern concept of the Centralized State.

what do you mean by ‘centralized state’? how is that different from monarchy & imperialism?

Same with Communism, which is the apotheosis of the worship of modernity (worshiping as the goddess History what medieval people would have reviled more wisely as the strumpet Fortune, to quote C. S. Lewis).

communism was the side effect of medieval imperialism & religious intolerance. you cant just blame it on modernity.

Oh really? Have you read many books or watched many movies from the 50s and 60s? I find the amorality and ruthlessness of the era horrifying. Read some early Heinlein, for instance. Or Ayn Rand (actually I have managed to avoid reading Ayn Rand, so I’m going at second hand there). This leaves aside the equally brutal attitudes prevalent on the Left.

i know a lot of bad stuff happened in those years, but the point is it got better and better. 1900-1949 was terrible, 1950s-1960s was bad, 1970s wasnt so bad, 1980 to present is much better.

In the fortunate Western countries, sure. Have you checked in on Darfur lately? And what about the Iraq War?

thats basically it, right? in the medieval times dozens of wars & oppressions happen at the same instant all around the world.

Why settle for either?

I personally agree with abortion under certain conditions.

 

[Contarini]

care to explain how? like world war I, world war II, the holocaust, the armenian genocide…how were those driven by a belief in science?

Nazi racism was based on the belief, held and promulgated by many scientists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, that certain races are superior to others (and certain individuals within those races superior to others), and that members of a superior race have not only the right but the duty of dominating inferior races and guarding the purity of their own race in order to ensure future progress.

what do you mean by ‘centralized state’? how is that different from monarchy & imperialism?

Premodern monarchies had very little direct control over people’s lives. That’s one reason why they so often resorted to rule by terror–killing people in a public and nasty way every so often was one of the ways to ensure that people would respect your authority when you weren’t around to enforce it. With modern bureaucracy and technology, it became possible for the state to control how people lived as never before.

The best definition of the modern state is that of Max Weber. The state is an institution that monopolizes the means of violence within a certain defined territory, and does so on the basis of abstract law rather than invoking a religious or charismatic justification.

communism was the side effect of medieval imperialism & religious intolerance.

How? That’s quite a sweeping and dramatic claim–feel free to share your justification for it.

you cant just blame it on modernity.

Everything comes from everything else, so of course modernity can in a sense be “blamed” on premodernity! But Communism is a feature of the modern world, and its peculiar secular millenialism is thoroughly modern, inconceivable except in the post-French-Revolution era.

i know a lot of bad stuff happened in those years, but the point is it got better and better. 1900-1949 was terrible, 1950s-1960s was bad, 1970s wasnt so bad, 1980 to present is much better.

That’s incredibly simplistic. Just for starters, the period before WWI was quite peaceful and prosperous. Then all hell broke loose. Why? People who subscribe to your view of the world would have us believe that people somehow got nostalgic for magic and mysticism and premodern irrationality, but that reeks of special pleading to me. The horrors of the World Wars came after a period when it seemed as if the Western world was progressing peacefully, and the reasons for this have to be sought squarely in modernity, because that’s when these events happened.

You really can’t turn the clock back, you know. The people who normally say this actually mean the opposite–they fear that turning the clock back is possible and are pleading with us not to do it. But since you really can’t, that isn’t something to worry about. What we have to worry about is what the clock is moving forward to.

thats basically it, right?

I’m sorry to be rude, but the ignorance revealed by that question is breathtaking. For starters, have a look at this BBC story which talks about sixteen different wars going on in 2004 (and these are just a few of the wars currently/recently going on around the world).

I personally agree with abortion under certain conditions.

Depending on what you mean by that (I would agree that removing the child from the womb may be necessary in certain extreme circumstances), this statement of yours is itself evidence that we have not really “progressed” that much!

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

But Communism is a feature of the modern world, and its peculiar secular millenialism is thoroughly modern, inconceivable except in the post-French-Revolution era.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said that what has happened in Russia, is coming to the West.

"Is it possible or impossible to transmit the experience of those who have suffered to those who have yet to suffer? Can one part of humanity learn from the bitter experience of another or can it not? Is it possible or impossible to warn someone of danger?… The proud skyscrapers stand on, point to the sky and say: it will never happen here. This will never come to us. It’s not possible here… Humanity acts in such a way as if it didn’t understand what Communism is, and doesn’t want to understand, is not capable of understanding… The essence of Communism is quite beyond the limits of human understanding. Its hard to believe that people could actually plan such things and carry them out…
"Communism has infected the whole world with the belief in the relativity of good and evil… Among enlightened people it is considered rather awkward to use seriously such words as ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ Communism has managed to instill in all of us that these concepts are old-fashioned concepts and laughable. But if we are to be deprived of the concepts of good and evil, what will be left? Nothing but the manipulation of one another. We will decline to the status of animals.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn speaking to the AFL-CIO in New York City (1975)