Why "practice" religion?

[PathDiagnosis]

Why isn’t your personal experience enough?

I should think that you would only require historical evidence, if you had no personal experience that doing these things is good.

Then that’s a good enough reason to do it.

I mentioned I sometimes pray lie “God if you are there…etc” while learning about religion. I was hoping my Rosary in front of the Blessed Sacrament could be something like that.

 

[Incomplete]

I mean:

I stopped believe that if there is a God and He created the Catholic Church.
If there is a God, it is most probable, given historical evidence , the He created the Catholic Church.

typing too fast

You believe there is no God? Or you think evidence indicates it’s unlikely He exists?

I’m confused again because you have also said

I’m not saying God doesn’t exist. I accept the possibility of God existing

I realize in that quote you used the word “possibility.” I just want to clarify where you’re coming from.

 

[jmcrae]

I mentioned I sometimes pray lie “God if you are there…etc” while learning about religion. I was hoping my Rosary in front of the Blessed Sacrament could be something like that.

It certainly couldn’t hurt anything. I say go for it. But let God do the leading.

 

[PathDiagnosis]

Why isn’t your personal experience enough?
)

I don’t want to commit myself to something as important as religion based on emotions/feelings.

People fall in romantic love with other people based on emotions/feelings, but such matters pertain to physical/right now life we are experiencing, not religion. Yes, I admit people make decisions based on personal experiences like emotions/feelings.

 

[PathDiagnosis]

You believe there is no God? Or you think evidence indicates it’s unlikely He exists?

I believe there might be a God but an skeptical about religion and being religious in general.

 

[Incomplete]

I believe there might be a God but an skeptical about religion and being religious in general.

But if you believe there is a God, and believe He started the Church, why are you skeptical about religion? I’m lost.

 

[PathDiagnosis]

But if you believe there is a God, and believe He started the Church, why are you skeptical about religion? I’m lost.

1.) There might be a God.
2.) If there is a God, I have trouble with accepting a particular religion with specifics such doctrines, prayer, rituals, etc.
3.) If there is a God and He established a true religion, it seems most probably to me-due to historical evidence and possibly my own personal experience- that it is the Catholic Church

 

[Incomplete]

1.) There might be a God.
2.) If there is a God, I have trouble with accepting a particular religion with specifics such doctrines, prayer, rituals, etc.
3.) If there is a God and He established a true religion, it seems most probably to me-due to historical evidence and possibly my own personal experience- that it is the Catholic Church

If there is a God and He established a church, why do you have trouble believing that His church would have specifics? How else does God teach us? How else does He guide us?

 

[PathDiagnosis]

If there is a God and He established a church, why do you have trouble believing that His church would have specifics? How else does God teach us? How else does He guide us?

So many specifics all after accepting that God created the Catholic Church. So so so many specifics like what is mortal sin what is venial sin, indulgences attached to Hail Mary, all the cannon laws, etc? I’m not at all confused by people believing in God, but the specifics that religion attaches confuse me. I feel like I need evidence for accepting every little thing in a religion. Like, what evidence is there that Baptism removes something called Original Sin or that the Holy Spirit somehow anoints us at Confirmation, etc.

The historical evidence for Christ indeed suggests he rose from the dead and I can see why Christians accept it. But, even if they came to that conclusion, there is no evidence to support miracles like walking on water, turning water to wine, raising Lazarus, healing a woman with His garment, etc.

 

[Incomplete]

So many specifics all after accepting that God created the Catholic Church. So so so many specifics like what is mortal sin what is venial sin, indulgences attached to Hail Mary, all the cannon laws, etc? I’m not at all confused by people believing in God, but the specifics that religion attaches confuse me. I feel like I need evidence for accepting every little thing in a religion. Like, what evidence is there that Baptism removes something called Original Sin or that the Holy Spirit somehow anoints us at Confirmation, etc.

What you really need to know is that if God created the Church, then He leads it. I am pretty sure you don’t feel like you have to understand every single thing in science. And even as good as science is in explaining things, it can and is wrong often enough. Yet you trust science. You don’t just stop living, paralyzed in fear, because some of science might be wrong.

So many specifics in science, too…some of which are proven much later to be wrong. I would suspect you don’t have to find evidence for everything in science. And those that find evidence, centuries later the new evidence sometimes overturns the old.

If God exists, trust in the Church you believe He created. If He created a Church it was to lead His people, and we have no reason to believe He would stop leading His people.

At some point you have to accept that if God IS, you will never understand everything about Him. In fact, you (or any of us) will understand very, very little about Him.

So, if you believe He created the Church, why do you need evidence about the rest of this?

 

[PathDiagnosis]

What you really need to know is that if God created the Church, then He leads it. I am pretty sure you don’t feel like you have to understand every single thing in science. And even as good as science is in explaining things, it can and is wrong often enough. Yet you trust science. You don’t just stop living, paralyzed in fear, because some of science might be wrong.

So many specifics in science, too…some of which are proven much later to be wrong. I would suspect you don’t have to find evidence for everything in science. And those that find evidence, centuries later the new evidence sometimes overturns the old.

If God exists, trust in the Church you believe He created. If He created a Church it was to lead His people, and we have no reason to believe He would stop leading His people.

At some point you have to accept that if God IS, you will never understand everything about Him. In fact, you (or any of us) will understand very, very little about Him.

So, if you believe He created the Church, why do you need evidence about the rest of this?

I see where you are going. Assume there is a God that created a religion and it is the Catholic Church (again, the most reasonable option). He will guide it. I haven’t reached a point where I can except that. Not sure if I ever will.

Like I said, evidence that suggests the Resurrection is substantial. Even so, there no evidence I can see that supports other miracles like walking on water, multiplication of loaves of bread, etc. I realize there will never me, save for a time machine. So, there is faith. Some have it and it works for them.

Thanks all.

Peace

 

[jmcrae]

Like I said, evidence that suggests the Resurrection is substantial. Even so, there no evidence I can see that supports other miracles like walking on water, multiplication of loaves of bread, etc.

If someone raises himself up from the dead, it stands to reason he can do anything he wants, including multiply loaves and fishes, or walk on water.

 

[Incomplete]

I see where you are going. Assume there is a God that created a religion and it is the Catholic Church (again, the most reasonable option). He will guide it. I haven’t reached a point where I can except that. Not sure if I ever will.

Like I said, evidence that suggests the Resurrection is substantial. Even so, there no evidence I can see that supports other miracles like walking on water, multiplication of loaves of bread, etc. I realize there will never me, save for a time machine. So, there is faith. Some have it and it works for them.

Thanks all.

Peace

Again I am confused. You see evidence for the Resurrection, but you have to have evidence for every other claim of God? Do you hold every piece of science and every historical figure to that standard?

And if you think that the Church is the most reasonable option, I don’t understand how it follows that you can’t accept it. You would rather accept less reasonable options?

I really don’t understand.

 

[Incomplete]

You also didn’t respond to some very good answers as to why it is good to “practice” religion.

Re-reading this thread, you seem to be questioning the existence of God more than anything. But it also seems you won’t commit unless God comes to you personally in a way that makes it impossible for you to doubt. But He won’t take away your free will, and even if He comes to you, you would later ask for more.

I say this because you accept the resurrection, but still can’t claim Jesus is God. You accept the resurrection, but then put yet another obstacle in the way. People tell you good reasons to “practice” religion, and you don’t say much about it. You accept other things in your life without needing evidence for how to live every moment, but won’t accept that a man who raises from the dead is God.

You say you’re afraid of making a mistake. But if you think there may be a God, but also that there may not be, you are in a position where you have no idea if the way you decide to live (with or without Him) is a mistake. So how do you live day to day? Living without Him might be a mistake. See what I’m saying?

You don’t have to believe without any doubts. Even great saints had doubts. The difference is they persisted.

 

[MontChevalier]

I practice religion because practice makes perfect. God is perfect. Therefore practicing makes me more like God (theosis).

Wow, um, this is strange. I think I should point out that your religion, currently, says “non-practicing” Roman Catholic. How can you say you’re practicing and yet not practice? :ehh:

Anyway, I practice religion because it gives me peace. It is the only hope I have, and it keeps my me from doing worst things. To me, human beings are despicable little things, with despicable petty problems. I can’t find a single person who has the claim to say “They’re good in all their entirety”. And yet there is only one who has the merit of trust, the merit of goodness and righteousness; that one, is God(The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit). God will never abandon me, never be corrupt and never be too lazy to talk cause some piece of garbage game is on television. God will always watch out for me, always show me right, always be pleased when I do good, and will always be fair. God is love, in all its purest essence; from His very bowels (if He has any) to the light which surrounds Him. He is all that has made humanity human and all that cares for those who are not cared for.

I want to show you this verse:

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

"4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away."

Just put the word God instead of love on those verses and you’ll get the idea.

-MontChevalier

 

[Sufjon]

Hello,

I am not here to start a flame war. I would like to know why some of you need to practice religion Even if there is a God, why do you need a relationship with him/her/it? Did it ever occur to you that you are Catholic or some other sort of Christian because you were born into it, or born into a relative state of luxury that allowed you to research Church history, etc?
**
Background on me:**

Former Catholic convert from Protestantism. I feel like I know much about Catholicism, or as much as possible. I am well versed with works by Scott Hahn, Catholic Answers, etc. I am familiar with early Church history: the Didache, Pliny the Younger, Ignatius , Polycarp, etc. I admire the historical continuity of the Catholic Church, objection to Sola Scriptura, etc.

In a Universe in which the Christian God is true and Christianity is true, I would ONLY be Catholic. Frankly, from a secular viewpoint, I believe Protestantism is in serious error. If Christ is truly God, the CATHOLIC CHURCH (and ~Orthodox) is the HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC ONE CHURCH.

Not that works matter much to Christ, but here is a picture of the type of Catholic I was:
*Preferred Tridentine Latin Mass, was member of FSSP parish.
*Prayed rosary
*Confession about once a month
*Wore fivefold scapular

---

Interested in learning from practitioners of religion. Basically, can you be happy without religion? Can you go without it? Can you be apathetic to all the “where do morals come from, etc”? Basically, what is wrong with living life with no religion?

---

This is a really interesting thread you’ve started PathDiagnosis. My sense is that the standard answer might be that you do it to “get saved.” But I have a sense that we mostly want to feel connected to something, because “connected” is our natural state. I would offer that this sense of separateness from God and from others that we have is an illusion caused by our minds and bodies, or to be specific - sentient experience. Using the mind and body in the process of realizing our connection is a great way to use our primary impediment as a vehicle to get ourselves back into proper alignment. This is a crucial element of what religious practice can do.

I have read the rest of the thread and it’s not really clear to me what you believe, but I am sure that you’ll find what you’re looking for. In my faith the Lord says that no effort in finding Him is ever wasted, and He promises that you will attain Him. The path you take is up to you - whether as a Catholic, LDS, or whatever. You’ll find what you’re looking for.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[meltzerboy]

So many specifics all after accepting that God created the Catholic Church. So so so many specifics like what is mortal sin what is venial sin, indulgences attached to Hail Mary, all the cannon laws, etc? I’m not at all confused by people believing in God, but the specifics that religion attaches confuse me. I feel like I need evidence for accepting every little thing in a religion. Like, what evidence is there that Baptism removes something called Original Sin or that the Holy Spirit somehow anoints us at Confirmation, etc.

The historical evidence for Christ indeed suggests he rose from the dead and I can see why Christians accept it. But, even if they came to that conclusion, there is no evidence to support miracles like walking on water, turning water to wine, raising Lazarus, healing a woman with His garment, etc.

It sounds to me you believe in G-d, at least to some degree, and that you believe Jesus to be G-d, especially since you claim there is historical evidence for the resurrection. The rest, which you equate with religion, you’re not really sure about, perhaps because you think it is man-made. Is it that you believe you can’t be Catholic or, generally, Christian if you don’t accept all the doctrine, rituals, and so on which religion entails? As you probably know, dogma and doctrine are part of the package; however, certain rituals and customs are not required. Why can’t you stay with what you believe about Catholicism and continue to reflect upon those aspects of the religion you’re not sure about? Why does it have to be all or none? Further, many young people of your age question their beliefs–religious, political, social, aesthetic, whatever. You will likely go through some soul-searching for a while before arriving at more lasting conclusions, and there’s nothing wrong or unusual about that.

 

[Warrenton]

Can some of you explain how you came to this conclusion?

I finally accepted that I would never be able to visualize, through power of imagination or faith, the historical Jesus.

That left me with the Church, which carries on his mission.

Much like the government of the United States carries on the mission of Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Madison and the other founders.

To evaluate the truth of Christ, I evaluated the truth as expressed by his creation, the Church.

I compared it to other institutions, its philosophy to others, the reason for its errors compared to other human errors.

I found myself surprised that more than I could rationally explain, the Church was on the right side of history, logic and morality against what the trends of the world dictated.

I concluded two possible rational explanations: the Church has, since its origins in the faith of the Jews to the present, either been the luckiest group of people in the long and storied history of humanity, or …its claim to divine guidance is true.

Option B stretches credulity far less than option A, so I have gone with it. Naturally, that entails accepting the Church on her own terms. That’s why I try to avoid the sins she says to avoid (not very successfully, most of the time), beg her pardon and absolution when I fail, accept the bread of life at her hands, join her prayers.

It is no different than having accepted citizenship as an American, I strive to keep America’s laws.

Cheers!

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Thank you for your response. Again, we do what works for us. This is great so long as do not harm others or ourselves in the process. I noticed this when I was a Catholic, especially with regard to the practice of private devotions. I prayed the Marian Rosary but others didn’t and had preference for other chaplets. Another example: I preferred the fivefold scapular over the Miraculous Medal.

Thanks.

Peace

My favorite devotion is praying the Liturgy of the Hours. I prefer it even over the rosary. However, when I pray the rosary, I prefer to pray it in Latin, not English. The meaning is more precise.

As far as the Church’s position on those outside the Church, that is not a blanketed statement that covers people like you who have been exposed to the truth. By your rejection of the truth presented to you, pretty obviously clear, your culpability will probably be much higher than you wish to admit.

One of the things that made me the angriest in Catholicism was Catholics that tried to deny the truth by hiding from the truth, even though they had already been exposed to the truth. Once can not unlearn something, unless they never really understood or learned. I have no idea of your culpability, because I was once a seminarian and was very confused because of people like you that seemed to diss all the teachings of the faith and acted like nothing mattered. Our DRE taught us that over 80% of Catholic do not actually know the real teachings of the Catholic Church, and unfortunately, that extended to people in the RCIA class.

I wish you well on your journey and will continue to pray for you.

PAX

 

[PathDiagnosis]

You also didn’t respond to some very good answers as to why it is good to “practice” religion.

Re-reading this thread, you seem to be questioning the existence of God more than anything. But it also seems you won’t commit unless God comes to you personally in a way that makes it impossible for you to doubt. But He won’t take away your free will, and even if He comes to you, you would later ask for more.

I say this because you accept the resurrection, but still can’t claim Jesus is God. You accept the resurrection, but then put yet another obstacle in the way. People tell you good reasons to “practice” religion, and you don’t say much about it. You accept other things in your life without needing evidence for how to live every moment, but won’t accept that a man who raises from the dead is God.

You say you’re afraid of making a mistake. But if you think there may be a God, but also that there may not be, you are in a position where you have no idea if the way you decide to live (with or without Him) is a mistake. So how do you live day to day? Living without Him might be a mistake. See what I’m saying?

You don’t have to believe without any doubts. Even great saints had doubts. The difference is they persisted.

I wouldn’t say I believe in the Resurrection. What I mean is concluding that the resurrection happened is reasonable due to historical evidence (which I will not detail here, see early church history, Polycarp, etc). Still, the evidence is not enough for me.

Saints with doubt? Interesting.