Part 2 of 2 (due to length)
I don’t agree with your term, “grave misconceptions” because it tends to be accusatory & indicting, and I don’t think you’re an arrogant person. I have questions about my faith, certainly, but I’m not the only one. I also don’t believe that the Church is so narrow that it would condemn one of its flock with excommunication for schism or heresy for asking questions about the “mystery” of our faith.
Really? I edited the phrasing several times… and I found that most neutral!
Grave = serious. Misconceptions = misunderstandings. Example (from above): predestination. It appears that you are defaulting to that belief, even when you know it isn’t Catholic. Basing your arguments/debates/questions on predestination shows that you haven’t internalized the understanding that predestination doesn’t come into play. You need to revise your thinking, somehow, about this basic notion.
It’s a simple suggestion, but please understand that I am in no way saying that it’s easy.
Again… you’re strawmanning, perhaps based on your upbringing: NO ONE here is suggesting that you’re being condemned for this, either by the posters or the Church.
But when you debate - it comes across as arguing… and that you think you are right and the other person wrong. Now that happens a lot on the death penalty threads, and if it’s appropriate anywhere, I suppose that’s where it would be. But here, we have HMC’s truth. Debate and questioning are different.
I am far, far from learned when it comes to the Church’s repository of knowledge. But I have read a fair amount of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the Companion to the CCotCC. Plus lot’s of Bible study and lots, lots of Church history as well as general history. Plus the usual college and graduate exposure to geology, biology, psychology and all the “ologies” that are boring at the time, but later on seem to be of great interest.
Your use of Biblical quotes and examples, esp. on the other thread, was quite impressive! Confession: I was sure you were a Prot while reading your questions. And sadly, I mean this as a compliment!
Debating, to me, is the crown-jewel of truth. Reading and listening without debate only internalizes ones perception. But it must be exposed to see if the internalization is valid. Debate accomplishes that.
How often have you changed your mind, even your whole way of thinking about something based on YOU debating?
Also - your style tends to be very scattered. You throw out every reason rather than taking one and drilling down into it. I find that to be a very human trait, FWIW. But my approach is the exact opposite. Stay focused on ONE detail and work it to death.
In the past (while an atheist, which is important for one on the topics), I changed my thinking on 2 major issues: abortion and guns.
Both times, I decided that my positions were SOOO self-evident, had the facts, had the stats, and had common sense. Thus, I HAD to see the thinking of my opponents to understand where they had gone wrong so I could know better how to reach them. Ugly as it would be for me, I had to understand their arguments as well as they understood them so I could exploit the waeknesses.
Sounds good on “paper”, huh?
Oops. Once I left my ‘I am right’ attitude behind (because I was, and I knew it, and I was quite safe and secure in my knowledge), I went in with a notion of openness.
Oops. When I really evaluated what they said, I realized that I was the one who was wrong. No, it wasn’t an instant understanding, but something that took place over weeks and months.
In this case, debate had failed to bring me to understanding, but reflection on what was being said brought everything into a new clarity. FWIW, there are very very few pro-life atheists. That was an uncomfortable place to be initially.
My concern is that those who debate tend to solidify their own positions, and that it can even lead to sophistry. Perhaps a more Socratic approach is better?
Yes, but aren’t questions healthy? Both for the one who asks and the one who responds. They can reveal truth, which may change or strengthen perception.
On this we agree!
With regard to your reading list… CS Lewis is a Christian writer, not a Catholic one. If you read only one book of his - read the one suggested about pain.
If you are concerned with suffering and pain (perhaps as mini examples of violence), reading some of Fr. Groeschel’s writings, as well as Mother Angelica’s, will really help you.
But seriously, if you want the really meaty work, you’re looking in the wrong era. I stumbled upon some mind-blowing writing from Roman Catholic Books. They publish books from the early part of the 20th century. The writing style was VERY different then. Based on your style on this forum, I think you would get a LOT out of it. It’s accessible and very “truth” oriented. I wonder why we don’t have more of these types of books published now, because I think it would help the people who are seriously questioning things.
I think a lot of books now are written in a soft-pedal manner. The audience nowadays is one that, if confronted with the truth -the CATHOLIC truth- presented confidently, would run screaming. I think that you, on the other hand, would relish the approach.
If you are interested in the link to their PDF catalog, please PM me. I think I’ve seen several titles related to this very question of violence.
That doesn’t seem to be the mark of a loving God.