Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[ReapReason]

Ok.

No need to be confused. Just accept what I am saying.

 

[PRmerger]

No need to be confused. Just accept what I am saying.

I am an agnostic about what you are saying.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I guess I could say, “Thank you, Alan, for acknowledging that lots of liberal folks here like to use the ‘I’m more tolerant/holy/Christlike/compassionate’ than you on these threads.”

You could have, but then you would have been using “meaning creep” on me.

I acknowledged “sometimes” but you have changed it to “lots.” :tsktsk:

See? I can detect quantitative shenanigans as well as qualitative ones. If I were to agree on “lots” I’d need a definition of “lots” and some evidence.

I’m so glad I found a way to resume being obstinate.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Today’s email from Fr. Richard Rohr addresses the right/left issue in the Church:

POWER AND POWERLESSNESS / RIGHT AND LEFT

In the biblical tradition, the power on the Right and the power on the
Left are symbolized by the kings and the prophets, respectively. There
is almost a necessary tension and even opposition between them. There is
only one time in all the Hebrew Scriptures that those two ever made
friends, and then only barely. That is when David the King accepted the
critique of Nathan the prophet, after Nathan accused him of his
sinfulness and David had the humility to say that he was correct: “I
have sinned against the Lord” (see 2 Samuel 12 [1]).

The Right always considers itself the product of rationality, experience
and civilization. The people on the Left are always the product of these
“silly” people’s movements arising out of high-minded ideology,
unbearable injustices, or both. Neither of these currents is totally
rational (even the Supreme Court disagrees on what is rational).
Movements from the Left are normally not well-planned at the beginning.
They are intuitive and come from what is suffered by the little people,
who at that point are of no account and have no press or status. Thus
they rely on symbols, songs, slogans, and momentary charismatic leaders
to get off the ground. Remember when white people laughed at black
people for singing, “We Shall Overcome”? Today we can remember those
naive English colonists on the East Coast of America who said “No
taxation without representation.” The pattern is always the same:
“kings” (power) versus “prophets” (truth).

Prayer:
I am powerless without You.

 

[PRmerger]

You could have, but then you would have been using “meaning creep” on me.

I acknowledged “sometimes” but you have changed it to “lots.” :tsktsk:

See? I can detect quantitative shenanigans as well as qualitative ones. If I were to agree on “lots” I’d need a definition of “lots” and some evidence.

I’m so glad I found a way to resume being obstinate.

Alan

Ah. I stand corrected. I should have said “sometimes”. Not “lots”.

Not that this makes any difference to me. I am simply :extrahappy: that you acknowledged that I (or rather, Elizabeth) had a good point that contrasted yours.

Edit: Heyyyyy! That was sneaky. I didn’t see your “obstinate” comment until it showed up in my quote. Very guileful, Mr. Wabbit. :tsktsk:

 

[PRmerger]

Today’s email from Fr. Richard Rohr addresses the right/left issue in the Church:

POWER AND POWERLESSNESS / RIGHT AND LEFT

In the biblical tradition, the power on the Right and the power on the
Left are symbolized by the kings and the prophets, respectively. There
is almost a necessary tension and even opposition between them. There is
only one time in all the Hebrew Scriptures that those two ever made
friends, and then only barely. That is when David the King accepted the
critique of Nathan the prophet, after Nathan accused him of his
sinfulness and David had the humility to say that he was correct: “I
have sinned against the Lord” (see 2 Samuel 12 [1]).

The Right always considers itself the product of rationality, experience
and civilization. The people on the Left are always the product of these
“silly” people’s movements arising out of high-minded ideology,
unbearable injustices, or both. Neither of these currents is totally
rational (even the Supreme Court disagrees on what is rational).
Movements from the Left are normally not well-planned at the beginning.
They are intuitive and come from what is suffered by the little people,
who at that point are of no account and have no press or status. Thus
they rely on symbols, songs, slogans, and momentary charismatic leaders
to get off the ground. Remember when white people laughed at black
people for singing, “We Shall Overcome”? Today we can remember those
naive English colonists on the East Coast of America who said “No
taxation without representation.” The pattern is always the same:
“kings” (power) versus “prophets” (truth).

Prayer:
I am powerless without You.

Good thoughts!

Provides a great segue for me to quote my fave Catholic philosopher: Peter Kreeft:

[SIGN]The Church has always had a conservative head and a liberal heart, and the world has never understood her, just as it never understood Christ.[/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

• A conservative is one who is enamored of existing evils; a liberal is one who wishes to replace them with new ones." (Ambrose Bierce)

• A liberal is someone who doesn't believe in evil, except for the evil in conservatives. A conservative is someone who does believe in evil—except for the evil in conservatives.

• A conservative is a liberal who just got mugged. A liberal is a conservative who just got arrested.

• A liberal and a conservative were scheduled to exchange their brains and their hearts in an experimental operation. But no one could find a conservative who would give up his heart, or a liberal who had any brains to give. [source](http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/two-verses.htm)

 

[Gaber]

…*] A liberal and a conservative were scheduled to exchange their brains and their hearts in an experimental operation. But no one could find a conservative who would give up his heart, or a liberal who had any brains to give. source

That is kind of the reverse of how the MRI studies show things to tend. It revealed that while “conservatives” trended to act more from the fear center of the brain, “liberals” tended more to use their entire brain.

If I’m not mistaken, that study and its conclusions are included in , The Science of Why They Deny Science–and RealityThe Republican Brain The introduction is synopsized on the site. There are other on-line references as well.

 

[PRmerger]

That is kind of the reverse of how the MRI studies show things to tend. It revealed that while “conservatives” trended to act more from the fear center of the brain, “liberals” tended more to use their entire brain.

If I’m not mistaken, that study and its conclusions are included in The Republican Brain, The Science of Why They Deny Science–and Reality The introduction is synopsized on the site. There are other on-line references as well.

We are talking about religious conservatives and religious liberals, Gaber.

Not political ones.

At least, I am.

 

[Gaber]

We are talking about religious conservatives and religious liberals, Gaber.

Not political ones.

At least, I am.

I’m sorry. Is there a difference?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry. Is there a difference?

Do you not think that there could be a person who’s apolitical but also a religious liberal? I happen to know a few.

And I know a few people who are apolitical and also religious conservatives.

So, yes, there’s a difference. One can be entirely ignorant of the political realm and still be religious conservative/liberal.

Oh, and do you think Jesus was political?

 

[Gaber]

Do you not think that there could be a person who’s apolitical but also a religious liberal? I happen to know a few.

And I know a few people who are apolitical and also religious conservatives.

So, yes, there’s a difference. One can be entirely ignorant of the political realm and still be religious conservative/liberal.

Oh, and do you think Jesus was political?

Never met Jesus; can’t say in degree or kind. Reportedly He differentiated between what is “God’s” and what is Ceasar’s." And he didn’t it seems care for money changers, in the Temple, at least. I’m guessing, that since His country was under Roman occupation and that there were many political groups about, that He had to deal with political things on a daily basis though. But don’t we all?

And in any society, claiming to be “apolitical” is a political statement in and of itself. And I would doubt, that since “political” and “policy” stem from the Greek word for City and infer decisions related to getting along with one another, your friends do that at some level or another whether they vote or not, or debated issues. Any comment, for instance, on streets, traffic, urban landscape, taxes and their use, police, fire, or any public service or figure, is inherently political. So I think the claims of anyone stating they are “apolitical” ate misstated.

And while the book and study refer to political parameters, I’m thinking that the ideas of “liberal” and “conservative” apply as functions, not only to content. So it doesn’t matter about what one is c or l about, as contents, it is what they do with it relative to context, or even the context they define as being pertinent. In that regard, institutionally, Catholicism is known to be fraught in some ways with ideas of guilt and fear, so naturally conservative. But we knew that before any study, even in St. John’s Catholic Elementary School. “Vamos a ver” was far from the agenda of catechism classes, or even in our state wide theology competitions later.

 

[Ohana]

This website is run by apologists. Apologists seem to be more of the “Peter” and “James” types. Tradition, dotting i’s and crossing t’s, vehemently holding one’s intellectual position. Others, like me, see ourselves more as “Paul” or “John” type. We want to know, where is the love? Why are our leaders hypocrites? We talk more about the Holy Spirit – not a good topic for the Peter and James type because they like traditional rules and the Holy Spirit implies there is guidance beyond what is written and what we can humanly extrapolate from it.

Also I notice a great deal of emphasis on sins of the flesh. I have ideas about why, but so does everyone else I suspect.

That said, over my years on the forum it seems we have had increasing numbers of people posting about mysticism and touchy-feely stuff than before. About the allegorical and deeper levels of scripture and not just the same old arguments about literal meanings. My CAF experience, anyway, seems like it’is evolving in a positive direction. The biggest thing that has helped me lose my anxiety for CAF is to convince myself I neither have to be seen as right, nor do I have convince anyone else they are wrong. I can try to do it, but no longer do I feel the aching compulsion of trying to fix everyone and everything.

While that’s true, the opposite is also very true. I see discussions on things that people who never talk about in person. For example, sins of the flesh.

Actually I don’t mind getting many opinions on each issue because it gives me the best chance that some combination of them is actually true, or at least helpful. I’d much rather that than listen to any one source which supposedly is accurate – according to itself and or others. I have yet to find such a source on this earth – including my pastor and SD – that I consider infallible and can safely ignore all other sources.

Also I’ve learned that one does not need to get personally upset when threads go stupid or wrong. If we get upset, then that’s our own spiritual problem to deal with – not the fault of the other poster. Gosh if we are that touchy, all it would take would be a 'bot to get us all agitated.

Alan

I edited out some of this post as it was so long. I have to say though, that this was extremely helpful to me. I have had a lot of difficulty recently with CAF and what I would see as rigidity. The idea of Peter/James and Paul/John points of view really helps me place this in context.

I like ideas, I like to think, but like many Catholics I believe, I am fearful of going too far. That conflict within me, is triggered when I say something here that is reacted to rather violently (as in; die, old person!) That had to do with preference of the OF Mass on my part versus TLM. I left CAF for about a month after the last one, and had almost decided just to not return. Going through the “am I bad”, am I awful, am I damned, litany is tiring!

This helps me see that I do not have to take the attacks so personally, and that I do not need to do anything really, but follow my own journey. My internal conflicts will arise, but I own them.

 

[Gaber]

I edited out some of this post as it was so long. I have to say though, that this was extremely helpful to me. I have had a lot of difficulty recently with CAF and what I would see as rigidity. The idea of Peter/James and Paul/John points of view really helps me place this in context.

I like ideas, I like to think, but like many Catholics I believe, I am fearful of going too far. That conflict within me, is triggered when I say something here that is reacted to rather violently (as in; die, old person!) That had to do with preference of the OF Mass on my part versus TLM. I left CAF for about a month after the last one, and had almost decided just to not return. Going through the “am I bad”, am I awful, am I damned, litany is tiring!

This helps me see that I do not have to take the attacks so personally, and that I do not need to do anything really, but follow my own journey. My internal conflicts will arise, but I own them.

Yes, ideas can evolve. Belief gives the impression of having already all the answers.

 

[PRmerger]

Never met Jesus; can’t say in degree or kind.

That’s fair.

So you’re saying you really don’t know anything about him.

I accept your POV but will also call you on this, Gaber, whenever you attempt to say, “Jesus said ____” or “Jesus wouldn’t _____”

Because you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim, “I can’t answer the question you posed because I never met Jesus” and then also claim, in a different argument, something about Jesus.

Does that sound fair?

 

[Elizabeth502]

That conflict within me, is triggered when I say something here that is reacted to rather violently (as in; die, old person!) That had to do with preference of the OF Mass on my part versus TLM.

So someone said, “die, old person!” based on your preference for the OF Mass, and you didn’t Report it to the moderators? (The comment is an infraction.)

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, ideas can evolve. Belief gives the impression of having already all the answers.

But Roman Catholic moral theology does not “evolve.” Its explanations and terminology sometimes evolve, but never the core teaching.

And practices, regarding liturgy, regarding how the sacraments (all of them) are administered, prepared for, and (again) explained, can evolve, but not the core sacramental theology of each of them, which is timeless.

Pedagogy, practice, and discipline are not to be confused with (Catholic) belief.

 

[PRmerger]

In that regard, institutionally, Catholicism is known to be fraught in some ways with ideas of guilt and fear, so naturally conservative.

Huh?

Firstly, guilt and fear, like pain, have its place.

Pathological guilty and fear are, of course, unnecessary, but guilt and fear as general principles are necessary.

Secondly, what does guilt and fear have to do with conservatism?

But we knew that before any study, even in St. John’s Catholic Elementary School. “Vamos a ver” was far from the agenda of catechism classes, or even in our state wide theology competitions later.

You are correct in that the Church has done, in the past, a dismal job of providing nourishing catechesis for its flock.

But to say that Catholics cannot question, or use reason, it to be quite ignorant of Catholic teaching.

Heck, the existence of this very forum–known as Catholic ANSWERS–belies your paradigm.

Catholics can question.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I like ideas, I like to think, but like many Catholics I believe, I am fearful of going too far. That conflict within me, is triggered when I say something here that is reacted to rather violently (as in; die, old person!) That had to do with preference of the OF Mass on my part versus TLM. I left CAF for about a month after the last one, and had almost decided just to not return. Going through the “am I bad”, am I awful, am I damned, litany is tiring!

This helps me see that I do not have to take the attacks so personally, and that I do not need to do anything really, but follow my own journey. My internal conflicts will arise, but I own them.

Yes, it is really nice that we have CAF to give us triggers like that. Think of yourself as a nice big Cadillac, giving smooth rides to those you are responsible to over terrain that can be smooth, rough, slippery, and more. You read the landscape (other posts) and deliver pure love, peace, and joy through your fingers.

Until recently I never understood why everyone isn’t like me, in that I have no limits to the amount of imagination ideas I’m willing to take on. I don’t care if they are pleasant, sad, green, evil, or Thursday – I want to experience them. In the spirit of Romans 7, I do not impede sin that I find planted in me. Rather, the sin comes alive and permeates all of my thoughts (mostly subconsciously) and runs its course, thus killing any part of me that was still alive to that sin.

People tell me, “if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.” Well that’s what I’m hoping. If I open it the brain can go exploring or seeking upgrades or maybe making way for a better set. One good thing about how I was raised by my dad is he never put training wheels on my thoughts. And no sincere question would get me into trouble.

Alan

 

[bri89]

This ultra-fiscal conservatism is unique to American catholics I’ve noticed. I was surprised, as a non-religiously identified person from a fundamentalist background, to find so many people on this forum espousing views in alignment with the fundamentalists I grew up with. Also, the view that alleviating poverty should be left to private charity alone rather than addressing the larger systemic context, is a bit disturbing. Many of course are not like this, and I’m not saying conservatives are all hard’hearted, but I’m still surprised.