Why are these Fora so overwhelming Conservative

[Gaber]

'zactly, Gaber. Exactly.

You somehow trust your very life, putting your existence into the hands of a complete stranger!–without making a single inquiry…

yet for some peculiar reason require an inordinate amount of evidence for religious things.

Why?

I do make inquiry. I even read about what pilot errors can happen and how they can be remedied. But unlike religion, there is a material commonality with the experience of flying. We know that it is statistically safer then driving, per passenger. I see car wrecks often, but only once seen the wreck of a jet liner. not pretty. And it doesn’t matter if the pilot is Catholic, Jewish, Rasta, Pocomaniac, Shinotoit, or a convert to the Muslim faith from a cargo cult. I am reasonably confident that we will get to the intended destination safely and on time, with some variance.

And I have what assurance of that from a faith? Given my experiences and studies in meditation and other such, the universals in human experience and capacity are pre-religious, religion simply being a locally inculcated explanation in usually skewed and misunderstood terms for what is the substrate to all of it, including Catholicism, as the words of Our own Lord indicate, as far as how I read them.

Where in the Bible, other than by rationalized extrapolation, is so much of what the Magesterium put forth? And what about the ideas put forth here?

PR, faith is a wonderful and useful thing to have. But it has depth, origins, parameters, limitations, and all that. Perhaps I’m just more aware of those because I had to be to keep from going mad by not restricting myself to what I knew as Catholicism. No resource within the Church that I had access to was adequate to my need. But I think that precious few arrive at my need. And they might. like someone I truly and highly admire, get through all that within the bounds of Catholicity. I didn’t, but don’t discount it either. I just see it differently.

So I’m neither surprised that few see the way I do, nor do I think that anyone ought to, unless they arrive at such a view as mine on their won. I’m certainly not going to convince you, and have no need to, and neither ought you change if what you believe is working for you. You are perfectly where you ought and need to by by your own light. Who can argue with that, or would want to? But nothing you bring as a third party “proof” can change my experience either.

 

[Gaber]

If this is your paradigm: “there are questions, yes?” then you ought to be consistent and apply it to all things, yes?

-do you question whether there was duplicity among “insiders” regarding 911? Have you considered the Truthers’ arguments? What say you?

-what about the moon landing? Do you consider the arguments that it was all fabricated?

Just wondering…

As for me, if I happen to sit next to a person on a plane (after doing absolutely NO RESEARCH into whether the pilot is actually licensed to fly the plane, because I have faith in the airline ) and he happens to start a conversation with me that goes like this, “Are you aware that there are some* trumpet blasts around the world--it says this will happen in Corinthians 15:52!–that are indicative of the end of the world?”

I will nod politely and then excuse myself to take a nap.

If you want to engage all the conspiracy theories and consider each one, more power to you, Gaber! But, I will say, frankly, that I really don’t believe that you apply this paradigm.

I think you dismiss them, just like I do.

*Disclaimer: the video has one bad word that I heard.

Wow. I guess that because someone says it in the newspaper or on TV it is true? But why would you take what for me is the application of critical thinking about my experience to the extreme of embracing every conspiracy theory that is flying around?

There certainly are questions about 9/11. And about climate change, And not so much about whether we got to the moon or not , but about what was there and on the way to and from. but I’m kinda sure that you might take, say FOX “news” as gospel? I don’t know. but I’ve been at many reported events which I read about later that didn’t in the reporting have much of a correspondence to what I, and even people who didn’t have the same considerations as mine, experienced. So I’m thinking that some analysis is due when one is presented with a story. I know that for a fact, having listened to American “news” and world news that was available when I lived so many years in Canada. But I’m sure that Ours is Always Right, because God is on the Side of our Country. Yes?

(Sidebar)

 

[PRmerger]

Since I know by "the Church " you mean the Catholic Church, it can only begin to make any sense if you put faith in the belief that Christ proclaims through the Catholic Church. As you do. But we’re going in circles so I should perhaps just do what you did with Alan and end our discussion on this thread. God bless you PR in you faith journey and peace.

Right back at 'cha, Matt.

I will close, though, by saying that if you cannot say that you have conformed your views to something that Christ has proclaimed, despite your own personal feelings about this particular view, then I humbly and respectfully say that you may have created a god in your own image. You (and here I mean a generalized “you” as in “people who do this”, not necessarily you, Matt, for I don’t know if this is “you” –how’s that for a convoluted sentence structure!) have church shopped for a church that conforms to your own views.

As for me, I understand that what God has proclaimed is, of course, not going to agree with my personal views and I must them change my views so that they conform to God’s.

 

[PRmerger]

Where in the Bible, other than by rationalized extrapolation, is so much of what the Magesterium put forth?

I think, perhaps, you have forgotten that you are in dialogue with a Catholic, and not an Evangelical or Fundamentalist?

Catholicism does not subscribe to the paradigm that we must show “where in the Bible” something about our faith derives.

 

[edwest2]

PRmerger, my point was before you could put your faith in your church, you first had to have faith in yourself’s choice as you came of age, to place faith in God, Jesus as Savior, and the Catholic Church. Yourself didn’t choose to place faith and belief in a non Christian religion or another Christian one.

The choice here is not entirely intellectual. The Holy Spirit of God is involved. I know Catholics who have strayed from the faith, but it happened so slowly, so gradually and with so many falsehoods being told to them.

In another case, I had a Catholic neighbor, raised like I was, get married and later, go through an atheist phase. He actually referred to the Bible in this way to a total stranger, “I don’t believe in a book of fairy tales.” His wife, a Methodist, and I, agreed to pray for him. Later, he became an usher at his local Catholic Church and his wife became Catholic.

To ignore or deny the power of God is the mistake some make.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gaber]

I think, perhaps, you have forgotten that you are in dialogue with a Catholic, and not an Evangelical or Fundamentalist?

Catholicism does not subscribe to the paradigm that we must show “where in the Bible” something about our faith derives.

Not at all, But I think you will agree that the founding of the Church used the story of Jesus and assumed tradition as well. You know, like Fiddler on the Roof. As far as I can see, that only leaves more room for extrapolative variance and error. Yes?

So we have the Gods of the O&NT, and tradition. Is that increased surety? Or is it more to be wrong about? Or is this another both/and?

By one count, sorry, can’t verify it, there are just over 2000 of Jesus recorded in the Bible. Some of those are quotes from the OT. So figure, all that extrapolation is based on about one third of what the character limit is per post in these fora and hearsay. And you have to count all the other books as extrapolations as well. Add to that that it’s pretty clear that Jesus didn’t think highly of His Apostles understanding of what He was about. And from where I sit, the Pentecost again reminds me of that cartoon about the mathematicians “and then a miracle happens” as a self verification of the gospels.

Now it is well and good to believe all that as literally true. I did for decades. But you can put any valid world view into your brain that is not tied to Reality and still function. If that was not so, Mormons, Christadelphians, Jaines, whatever, would be exploding all around us. But they don’t, and some of them even fly airplanes. But validity is not neccessarioy, and in the case of religions, most often is not Truth. It is someone’s impression of Truth that many buy into according to many factors.

But most importantly, precious few have experienced what is behind all that thinking about what God isn’t and taking it for Reality, or what is behind any kind of thinking, behind thought itself. You see, when you think you think, you think you know. But you are only stringing thoughts. So unless you can shut off your internal dialogue, a la, say as an example, by what the Carmelites advocate, and have the result of that, you really don’t know your own mind. You have, functionally, no clue as to what you are using to get to your wrong conclusions. And you still might not afterwards if your beliefs about anything are set in cement and you use those for interpreting your beyond the mind experience.

But if you can pull it off, and receive Grace, the world changes in an instant. And remains the world. But in the mean time, there is faith and teleology, and we have to be grateful for that, Each one is exactly where they need to be. but you persisted in asking, so that is kind of a doorway, as has everything else, onto a rather radical perspective of what it all means. But just because the door is always open, doesn’t mean you will, or even ought to step through. But you might at least acknowledge that someone else has been somewhere you aren’t quite sure about.

 

[PRmerger]

Not at all, But I think you will agree that the founding of the Church used the story of Jesus and assumed tradition as well. You know, like Fiddler on the Roof.

Ah, I see. You have fallen into the very common (but usually from an uneducated Protestant) error in confusing tradition (i.e. Tevye’s customs) with Sacred Tradition.

You were not aware that they are 2 exquisitely different things?

 

[edwest2]

I have an idea for you. The Catholic church in the USA is actually much smaller than many people think it is. Moreover, it’s always been that way. The reason it looks like it does now is that people don’t cover up their real behaviors and intentions like they used to. They no longer pretend–while trying to impress the neighbors–because they no longer live next door to their relatives in an ethnic enclave where everyone is Catholic. Accountability is gone and so the real truth that was always really there comes out.

Anyone who really wants to go to Church can and still does. People who are actually still Catholic generally know that about themselves and act accordingly. But there are lots of hangers-on for whatever reasons of their own. And that’s fine, whatever. That’s all this amounts to.

Unless you can provide evidence that can be sourced, that is only your opinion - nothing else.

As a Catholic who grew up in the late 1950s and 1960s, what you state is 100% not true. From day one, we were taught and understood in our Religion class that the only person we were to please - not impress - was God in the person of Jesus Christ. He was our role model. And we were taught to model what He taught us every day. We were also taught to not to brag about ourselves. And that has not changed for any individual Catholic today.

bible.cc/proverbs/27-2.htm

Our “real behaviors” or sins, were never meant to be made public. Never. They were between ourselves, God and the priest in the Confessional, and to our priest outside the Confessional, but only in private. If others were involved, like friends or family, that’s where it stayed. If there was a problem - we had something called committed families and a committed Catholic community. And something else, we had relatives that extended back through generations, like grandfathers, grandmothers, aunts and uncles.

And I say this to all Catholics today: Are we to start gossiping, lying or telling total strangers about our latest unmarried sexual encounter?

We do have committed Catholic communities today and we have hope. Something that the world gradually told us to give up. To live for today, get high, have sex with whoever and die - to nothing. We were taught, some of us, that you are not responsible to anyone.

I, and everyone reading this, will be judged. And the Church knows what happened over the last 40 years, about the lies, deceptions and falsehood masquerading as truth in the media.

ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-renounce-culture-that-disguises-falsehood-as-truth

But to all Catholics, no matter how far away from the Church you feel, no matter how long it’s been since you went to Mass and even if it’s been decades since your last Confession - The Church wants you back, Jesus never stopped loving you. So, come home.

catholicscomehome.org/top-ten-reasons.php

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gaber]

Ah, I see. You have fallen into the very common (but usually from an uneducated Protestant) error in confusing tradition (i.e. Tevye’s customs) with Sacred Tradition.

You were not aware that they are 2 exquisitely different things?

Yes, PR. Quite. Perhaps I have underestimated your ability to see past the unfortunate limitation of print not carrying 80% of communications that would happen face to face? Oh well.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, PR. Quite. Perhaps I have underestimated your ability to see past the unfortunate limitation of print not carrying 80% of communications that would happen face to face? Oh well.

In this case, the “print” was only limited by your unfortunate reference to tradition ala Fiddler on the Roof. This clearly showed your misunderstanding (again) of what Catholicism proclaims.

I suggest that you learn more about the faith that you left before trying to engage me in a dialogue, as it pertains to what Catholicism teaches. Or, we can discuss your errors and make them right. I’d be happy to do that.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I suggest that you learn more about the faith that you left before trying to engage me in a dialogue, as it pertains to what Catholicism teaches. Or, we can discuss your errors and make them right. I’d be happy to do that.

Yes, PR. Quite. Perhaps I have underestimated your ability to see past the unfortunate limitation of print not carrying 80% of communications that would happen face to face? Oh well.

Gaber,

There’s your out. I suggest you let it go, brother. You’re not going to win. You can’t even tie.

Alan

 

[Elizabeth502]

Ah, I see. You have fallen into the very common error in confusing tradition (i.e. Tevye’s customs) with Sacred Tradition.

You were not aware that they are 2 exquisitely different things?

Unfortunately, lots of people – including Catholics – fall into the error of thinking that tradition = Tradition, with the modifer being Sacred. The latter has an ancient origin but persistent authenticity to it.

I wanted also to reinforce what edwest said:
While faith is not anti-rational, it involves non-rational or supra-rational acts of will. Faith is not “knowledge,” in the way the Western mind understands knowledge. However, I think too many Catholics use the term faith to mean intellectual certainty. It means spiritual assent. (So, with the help of the Holy Spirit, you are able to say, “I believe,” not “I know.”)

That said, we cannot entirely suspend our rational faculties, as that is the nature of being human. That is why very few people – including the Saints – would truly be able to say that they have “no doubts” (or have never doubted any particular spiritual truth – such as a doctrine, a dogma, a saying of Jesus, God’s will as manifest in their lives, etc.) Most pilgrims struggle with this theological virtue of faith, which is why it is so important to engage our spirits, more than our brains, in releasing the doubts that we are prone to cling to as the fulcrum of our personal “knowledge.”

I know I need prayer not only to increase my faith, but merely to maintain my current faith. It’s not realistic to expect otherwise – for most people.

Finally, I wanted to address what seems to be the subtext of CMatt’s last long post: that supposedly we have some duty – let’s say even as citizens, not as believers of any particular affiliation – to suspend our religious views so as to consider the entire diversity of the nation. That’s an impossible task. No single vote or voter will ever be able to please all segments of the population, and not even an atheist or an agnostic has that civic responsibility.

Perhaps even the layer below that subtext is that Catholics in particular, because of the fervor and the “absolute” quality of some orthodox Catholic positions, must suspend their Catholicity more than less fervent or less attached believers do. If so, that strikes me as close to pathological guilt about one’s religion, and about whether one has permission to be formed by it in any way other than entirely privately.

Practicing, believing Jews have no problem being formed by their religion in the way they vote – and not only that – but in the very way they participate in government. Public morality and a public ethos rank very high among Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews. Many of them become involved in politics/government precisely because of that. It would never occur to them to “separate” their religion from “The State” in such an inappropriate manner. They apply the morality and ethics learned from Judaism to their civic decisions, and consider that to be a sacred responsibility.

Implied in the morality taught by most religions (certainly the main religions of the world) is that such morality promotes the common good, does not oppose the common good. There’s no reason for hand-wringing about whether it’s permissible to form one’s conscience, and to use that conscience beyond Sunday. It just confuses me as to why so many Catholics in particular behave self-consciously about being Catholic and seem to feel the need uniquely to apologize for their affiliation.

 

[PRmerger]

Unfortunately, lots of people – including Catholics – fall into the error of thinking that tradition = Tradition, with the modifer being Sacred. The latter has an ancient origin but persistent authenticity to it.

Yes, it is a common mistake. I don’t blame anyone, especially someone who grew up in the Church during its time of dismal, Kum-bah-yah catechesis, for not knowing this.

 

[PRmerger]

I wanted also to reinforce what edwest said:
While faith is not anti-rational, it involves non-rational or supra-rational acts of will. Faith is not “knowledge,” in the way the Western mind understands knowledge. However, I think too many Catholics use the term faith to mean intellectual certainty. It means spiritual assent. (So, with the help of the Holy Spirit, you are able to say, “I believe,” not “I know.”)

Indeed. Faith is saying “I do” to: your future spouse, to your friend, to God.

 

[livingwordunity]

If I were a person seeking for religious truth I think in general I would be put off the Catholic religion by some of these fora. Many of them are over concerned with externals and sacramentals. Many of them (particularly the threads regarding creationism and Jose Escriba and snake handling) are astonishingly undereducated. And others display an a almost uniform demand that the Church is viewed through an arch conservative lens.

Your criticism is very vague. You’ll have to be more specific.

 

[livingwordunity]

It’s fairly simple really. The highly devout are highly likely to be very conservative, and the highly devout are most likely to be regular visitors to a forum about Catholicism. Those who are less devout would be less likely to visit a board like this, and those who interpret the rules of the church more liberally are apt to be less concerned with official church teachings anyway.

That sums it up.

 

[CMatt25]

That was the lie that was sold to us when the Roe decision came down. That if abortion was legalized, it would be safe, legal and rare. 50 + million babies have been killed since 1973 - you tell me if that’s rare! Because we both know that’s a lot of children murdered in their mother’s wombs. And the figures that were widely publicized about how many illegal abortions were being done, were also lies. Bernard Nathanson, who later converted and became a Catholic, stated that he had helped propagate those lies. Here. Bernard Nathanson testimony.

You have been listening to many lies all along. The one that says you can’t understand what a woman who is pregnant goes through so you can’t have an opinion, being a male - well, a man was present when that baby was created, so of course you can have an opinion! What if we used that same argument when a man murdered another man? “Well, you, female judge, don’t have a penis, so you can’t possibly understand the situation men are in when they murder other men!” Logically, it falls apart at that basic level, let alone the biological fact that since the man helped create the baby, he DOES have a say in what happens to it. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, CMatt, or can’t you see that? Killing an innocent baby in the womb is always, ALWAYS wrong. Once the baby is created, the mother’s “choice” has been made.

The rape and incest cases, I admit, are harder for a lot of people to reconcile, but these are a very tiny percentage of all abortions. And of the studies done on rape victims, the great preponderance of the victims who had an abortion say that the abortion was by far the worse experience. So having an abortion after a rape is like being raped again, only this time the woman knows that she has killed a baby as well. It doesn’t un-rape her. Nothing can take that experience away, but some responses can make things radically worse. The woman deserves better than an abortion and “problem solved.” The same with incest. We can do better than killing the baby and saying, “There, it’s all fixed.” We must do better. Again, these cases are the “rare” examples, so to make law based on them, is simply the wrong choice.

The side that is unwilling to compromise is the one that believes that all life is sacred, and that a baby in its mother’s womb should be SAFE above all, since it was created by God and remains innocent and helpless. You think God understands that we have murdered 50 million babies in the name of “choice?” I think our day of reckoning is coming.

I pray you will be able to think clearly about this issue one day.

TheRealJuliane, I’ve always wondered if there was a fake Juliane on CAF. We could write a book on things that need done to make it rarer beyond outright banning all abortions. A lot of your post expresses belief in regard to terminology. So I’ll just otherwise say thank you for your prayers. The Apostle James taught us to pray for one another. So I’ll pray for you too for whatever your personal intentions or needs may be. We all can use prayer. God bless.

 

[LisaA]

That sums it up.

I also see a number of people who like to come onto CAF as a form of entertainment, goading, poking and sometimes outright insulting those of us who take our faith seriously. I try very hard not to feed the trolls but sometimes it is hard to avoid that temptation. I sometimes wonder if they think they will change our minds. Lotsa luck with that one!

Lisa

 

[CMatt25]

You are wrong in that. The parallels between slavery and abortion are quite compelling…

Is the unborn baby a human being or not? What do you think?

Unknown does not mean un-human does it?

And what right is that? To murder an unborn human being?

Again would you kill a baby? A toddler?

At what stage can we kill with impunity?

It is not a Catholic issue, it is a human rights issue. One does not even need to be a person of faith to believe in human rights.
Lisa

Thanks Lisa but I don’t need a discourse about the definition of slavery. I know what slavery is. You are free though to say I am wrong in how I look at issues in a society of many beliefs and I could say the same about you. One problem with the slavery analogy though is you equate abortion with owning a human person. And even if we answer the question of when life begins, we still have that problem of answering and agreeing on when an embryo or fetus becomes a person whose personhood rights surpass those of the woman carrying the embryo or fetus in her body. That’s what a society of plural beliefs in an imperfect world attempts to do as I’ve already explained. There was a SCOTUS ruling 4 decades ago next Jan. The slavery analogy could also be used as an argument for choice. Slavery is about losing one’s freedom over one’s body and life. In a sense it could be argued a woman is not free if she can not even choose for instance whether or not she will be a mother after being raped or when her own human life is at stake. I know anti choice people like to say those are rare cases. Yet the Catholic Church opposes this freedom even in those cases. We may never agree on personhood rights or when the rights of the unborn should trump the woman’s rights under secular law, but we know women and slaves are people.

As to your questions…

I’ve already told you what I think.

Not to me it doesn’t.

The right to choose whether to abort a fetus under the law.

Again no I already answered that.

At what stage a woman has her human rights in the United States on this issue was determined as stated above decades ago.

But you are correct Catholics are not the only faith group against choice on this issue. You’ve already explained you left the Methodist faith because they are not. Catholics though sure do spend IMO an inordinate amount of time on it when the time could be spent on other things Christ actually talked about. Again that is what I believe. We’re going to disagree on it. It reminds me of a United Church of Christ pastor who once told me he used to be a Presbyterian but switched to the UCC because less time and resources are spent on gay issues.

Anyway we’re going around in circles too so like I did with PR, I’ll allow you the last word if you need it. I’ll just say God bless you on your faith journey and peace.

 

[livingwordunity]

But you are correct Catholics are not the only faith group against choice on this issue. You’ve already explained you left the Methodist faith because they are not. Catholics though sure do spend IMO an inordinate amount of time on it when the time could be spent on other things Christ actually talked about.

Faithful Catholics spend a lot of time teaching that abortion is wrong because the left spends a lot of time teaching that abortion is a right that must be exercised.

Christ said if we love him we will keep his commandments. One of those commandments was thou shall not murder. Murder is not just a matter of religion. Even atheists can admit that murder is wrong. But it’s hypocritical to say that murder is wrong except when a mother wants it for her child.

Abortion is murder of the worst kind because it’s the cold blooded killing of an innocent baby in the womb of her mother. And the killing of each child is also the killing of generations of children that child would have had. Have you ever been to a funeral for a baby? Because I have, and it’s very heartbreaking to see a baby in a casket.