| Does Catholic dogma forbid defending the religion? |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (3:23 pm) As a recovering Catholic, I am willing to discuss the faith I was raised on ~ in so much as I am able. Quite honestly, despite a multitude of masses, very few confessions, confirmation and several years of Catholic school, I'm not so certain I understand it myself. Catholicism is a religion that is tied to rituals and symbols. (I mean c'mon: we've got transubstantiation for crying out loud). To be honest, I think the reason why you find that a lot of Catholics are reluctant to discuss their religion with you is because they really don't have any good answers other than "well, the pope said so" or "that's the way we've always done it." That may seem like a flip response, but I'd be willing to bit there's a grain of truth there. However, I am willing to take a stab at answering specifics. Fire away! posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (3:30 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Cool, but first off, what do you mean by a recovering Catholic- like a recovering alcoholic? posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (7:31 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 LOL, kinda. I've heard this term before. She probably means that she doesn't subscribe to the religion, as she doesn't agree with it, even though she was raised &/or baptized as such. I have a lot of recovering Catholic friends. ;P posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (7:32 pm) Side note: In Judaism, almost everything that we do is discussion! BTW, was I supposed to write something for you, dragonbait? about Judaism? I totally forgot! It's almost spring break though! ;) posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (7:38 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Red Tygress hit it just about on the nail, although not exactly... i don't exactly prescribe to catholicism anymore, but then again i do not really prescribe to anything else either. i haven't found an alternative that fits me... and i'm not exactly ready to go the atheist route yet... i'd say i'm fairly agnostic these days... but the catholic guilt still haunts me. :) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (7:40 pm) Reply to: RedTigress lol, yep you were going to write about the Jewish perception of God, I believe. Something along those lines. :) posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (7:49 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 LOL, ok. I'll get to work on that. Must make note to self! ;P posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (8:00 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Ah man, so you suffer the guilt but don't get the eternal rewards, that's a shame. ;) Joking aside, maybe you can answer my questions from the Catholic perspective even if they aren't your beliefs. Here are some I just copied from another blog I asked them on, to no avail: If God is omnipotent, why would He even allow sin to have originated? By giving us free will, wouldn't he have been giving us His version of free will? So if he was truly benevolent, all-loving, and entirely good, how could he have made us, in His image, predisposed to sin? And why would He? Also, couldn't He have just prevented original sin, as He is supposedly omniscient as well? And if God decided to take pity on His creation, after so much devastating sin, why wouldn't He simply change the nature of sin, or change the capabilities of man, or interfere in some way other than sending His son to be killed? And how does Christ's crucifixion really save us? Aren't we still in the same position, in which we must choose to believe in order to be saved? We are still just as likely to sin, aren't we? So why was that necessary? posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (8:04 pm) Reply to: juniperflux For a reference point, those questions were in regard to this blog: http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=reducto&static=123448 I wish I knew how to hyperlink in comments... posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 03.28.04 (9:08 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 #1 I just want you to know that I really appreciate how you started off with some easy ones. :) Ok... this is what I'm going to do here. In order to answer these questions I'm going to transport myself back in time... imagining that I am once again 12-13 years old, clad in my little plaid jumper, asking the priest your questions... and then I'll write what I *think* he would have said. I think to your first series of questions, (which are really just one question, aren't they?), a priest would first remind us that God is infinite in his being and abilities whereas man is finite, therefore, there are some things about him that our finite minds will never be able to truly understand. Having said that, why would God create original sin? Because he wants us to choose him. Because we are not really faithful believers if we have not made the CHOICE to believe. Catholics are not Calvinists... predestination is not part of our dogma. For Catholics, the CHOICE is the beautiful part of the faith. Why would God go through all the hassle? Because without the CHOICE there is no pure faith. Heck, without choice there is no faith at all. Ok... next up... As I said earlier, Catholicism is a religion of symbols, and there is none more important than the cross. I recently had an interesting convo with a protestant friend of mine, and he was saying that for him the "resurrection" was the more important part of the story of Christ, not the crucifiction itself and he never really understood why Catholics placed such emphasis it. I think most Catholics would like to believe that the sacrificing of one's flesh and blood is probably the ultimate sacrifice and thus proves how much God loved man. Thus, he gave his only son as proof of his love for us. Why does Jesus' death take away our sins? Because Jesus' life was free from sin... thus in a truly pure and benevolent act, he gave his life to pay for the sins of man. Thus, all we have to do is hop on board the Jesus train and our sins are forgiven too. I know that will seem offensive to some of your truly Christian readers, but that is really the way I see it. Yes, we are still as likely to sin, but by being faithful in our belief in Christ, we prove to God that despite our weaknesses, our heart is pure and faithful. Plus... as Catholics, we get to go to confession, pass go and collect our $200.00. It's the ultimate get out of jail free card. :) Hope some of that made sense... posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.29.04 (4:25 pm) Reply to: juniperflux I don't know, if there's no way I can understand God by my finite abilities, why would I want to bother with religion in the first place. Why would I devote my life to something I can't possibly understand, knowing all along that I cannot understand it? And if God created sin so that we would have to choose to have faith in Him, does He have an inferiority complex? Why would a perfect being need that sort of affirmation, and why would a benevolent being contrive such brutality as a means of testing the faith of His creation, His followers? Why is faith so important to God? If I create something, my ego causes me to want it to be acknowledge that I am the creator, but isn't God above that egotistical pettiness? While I understand your explanation of salvation through Christ, I still don't see why it was necessary for Christ to die in order to atone for the sins of mankind. If Jesus' death only saves us from our sins if we accept Christ as Savior and repent, (1) how is it truly justice to be saved from sin solely by a belief, and (2) why is morality necessary? If we get this get out of jail free card, as you put it, why worry about the jail part? It demeans any sense of responsibility for our own lives. And I still don't see why it was necessary for Jesus to die- sin could have been thwarted by an omnipotent being in some other, more productive manner, it seems. Or is it sort of further testing our faith by adding in the Jesus element? posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 03.29.04 (5:19 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Ok first off, please do not lose site of the fact that for the most part, you are preaching to the choir here. It's more than a little challenging to answer these questions reasonably when, for the most part, I have trouble swallowing the answers myself. However... here goes nothing: "I don't know, if there's no way I can understand God by my finite abilities, why would I want to bother with religion in the first place. Why would I devote my life to something I can't possibly understand, knowing all along that I cannot understand it?" There are lots of things in the universe that we believe in without first hand knowledge that they exist. That is the essence of faith. The only reason that you would choose to believe in something that you will never fully comprehend is because somewhere inside you, you have faith in the validity of it all. I think a lot of mathematicians operate under this same principle, by the way. :) "And if God created sin so that we would have to choose to have faith in Him, does He have an inferiority complex? Why would a perfect being need that sort of affirmation" Here you are applying human characteristics to God. Remember, man may have been created in God's image, but we are not God. God does not need our affirmation, but we, as his imperfect creation, are given the choice to follow him rather than just live a fruitless existence as a world of zombies void of free will. Why does he do this? In the end, the choice is for us, not for God. In the alternative version, we are forced to follow God by not given a choice… and where is the beauty in that? The same holds true for why he would create "such brutality as a means of testing the faith of His creation?" I think a true believer would say that he gave his son, we (man) created the brutality. Remember, catholics are not calvinists… it was not predestined. " how is it truly justice to be saved from sin solely by a belief, and (2) why is morality necessary? " Why be saved from sin at all? Because you want to spend all of eternity, beyond this earthly existence, in heaven with God, Jesus, The Holy Ghost and Mother Theresa. Otherwise, there really isn't much of an incentive. And how do you get admitted beyond the pearly gates? St. Pete looks into your heart and knows whether or not you have accepted Jesus. If you have, you're in. If not, bye bye! As for morality.... I kind of think that is a different topic here. Morality is created by man, (although atheists would argue so is God). Basically, morality is just a set of guidelines to help us live our lives in a way that keeps on the path to salvation. "If we get this get out of jail free card, as you put it, why worry about the jail part? It demeans any sense of responsibility for our own lives. " I really can't answer this one, because I fully agree with you. Confession is one of the sacraments and is just one element that separates Catholicism from other Christian religions. Personally, I think it does demean personal responsibility... however, I think many Catholics would say that the exact opposite is true for them. That confession provides a direct dialogue between themselves and God such that they are forced to verbalize and face their sins in a way that other Christian faiths do not have. I think some Catholics would say that this is actually deters sin rather than promoting it. (I'm not buying it). "And I still don't see why it was necessary for Jesus to die- sin could have been thwarted by an omnipotent being in some other, more productive manner, it seems. Or is it sort of further testing our faith by adding in the Jesus element?" All I can say to this is see above. :) Again, Jesus dying only emphasizes how much God loves us. He sacrificed his only son so that we might be saved. That God is quite a guy, alright. :) Whew! Isn’t there someone else out there who is willing to take up the cause of the Catholics??? posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 03.29.04 (5:24 pm) PS: Please note that I would only go through all of this for "my muse." ;-) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.29.04 (6:01 pm) Reply to: juniperflux lol, thanks- I do appreciate it, and I know you're only trying to answer based on the Catholic faith and that your beliefs aren't being reflected here. :) I'm glad you mentioned that I am assigning human traits to God, because that was the first thing I thought you would say. The problem with anthropomorphism is that the classic Catholic ideas of God center around a divine being with human-like traits. So to say that some traits of God are similar to humans but assigning human characteristics to God isn't right, is a bit contradictory, or at least taking the easy way out- saying some things are one way, but the things that can't be explained are not, seems like a bit of a cop-out to me. What I was saying about faith and God is that a perfect being wouldn't really care that much about having His creation worship Him, unless He needs the ego boost. The alternative of allowing the choice to have faith in Him is not necessarily that the faith is forced, but there could be no faith and no need for faith. The way I see it, a truly benevolent God would not punish His creation simply for not believing in Him. As for justice and morality, Christianity demeans their values. I don't see how God's decision to send a person to Hell for eternal damnation just because they do not believe in Him, regardless of how good a person they were in life, while anyone who does believe is granted eternal rewards, regardless of how bad a person they were in life, can be viewed as justice. And morality is unnecessary if salvation through redemption is the practice. Sadly, I don't think there are any Catholics willing to defend their religion. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 03.29.04 (6:11 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 "I'm glad you mentioned that I am assigning human traits to God, because that was the first thing I thought you would say. The problem with anthropomorphism is that the classic Catholic ideas of God center around a divine being with human-like traits. So to say that some traits of God are similar to humans but assigning human characteristics to God isn't right, is a bit contradictory, or at least taking the easy way out- saying some things are one way, but the things that can't be explained are not, seems like a bit of a cop-out to me." Yes, but God is perfect, therefore ego cannot be the reason why he would do things. Perhaps pointing out that God would act out of an ego-driven need for self-assurance is really just an argument created to justify our own weaknesses in this regard, and thus make ourselves out to be more Godlike ~ rather than the flawed sinful creatures that we really are. :) We could go around and around and around about this. But... I do want to make one point, this is not simply the argument of Catholics. All Christian faiths inherently revovle around a humanesque deity. "What I was saying about faith and God is that a perfect being wouldn't really care that much about having His creation worship Him, unless He needs the ego boost. The alternative of allowing the choice to have faith in Him is not necessarily that the faith is forced, but there could be no faith and no need for faith. The way I see it, a truly benevolent God would not punish His creation simply for not believing in Him. As for justice and morality, Christianity demeans their values. I don't see how God's decision to send a person to Hell for eternal damnation just because they do not believe in Him, regardless of how good a person they were in life, while anyone who does believe is granted eternal rewards, regardless of how bad a person they were in life, can be viewed as justice. And morality is unnecessary if salvation through redemption is the practice." I think for most Catholics these two go hand in hand. You can truly have accepted Jesus as the Christ if you live a life void of morality and riddled with sin.... thus morality acts as a barometer of sorts. "Sadly, I don't think there are any Catholics willing to defend their religion." Well... at least none on tblog. :) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.29.04 (10:18 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Yes, but God is perfect, therefore ego cannot be the reason why he would do things. That was sort of my point- if God is perfect, He would't do things because of something like an ego, so why does He do things? There must be some valid explanation, other than one that relies solely on faith, before I will accept it. This entire discussion is relevant to all Christian faiths, not just Catholics, but my original point in wanting to discuss it with a Catholic was because so few seem willing to. :) Regarding morality, I suppose the basic idea is that to truly accept Christ as Savior, one must embody the actions of Christ as well, thus leading a life of moral rectitude. But that isn't absolutely necessasry according to the faith- so long as you repent for your sins, and accept Jesus as Savior, even if it is not until you are on your death bed, you receive the same eternal rewards as anyone else of your faith. Maybe we should seek out some Catholic tbloggers. ;) posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 03.30.04 (6:14 am) The problem with an argument that removes faith from the equation is that faith is the essential component to all of this. Anyone who follows any religious dogma does so with at least some leap of faith. You cannot remove faith from the equation. If all aspects of any religion could be PROVEN scientifically, or otherwise, everyone would be a believer. That's why they call them FAITHS to begin with. I can't really rebuke your argument about morality and the last rights, etc, because I so completely agree with your point. I think most Catholics would take a "better late than never" stance on salvation, however. :) posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 03.30.04 (11:07 am) This is an interesting discussion, but I'd like to take a stab at your question: " If God is omnipotent, why would He even allow sin to have originated? By giving us free will, wouldn't he have been giving us His version of free will? So if he was truly benevolent, all-loving, and entirely good, how could he have made us, in His image, predisposed to sin? And why would He? Also, couldn't He have just prevented original sin, as He is supposedly omniscient as well?" First of all, God could have created whatever he wanted and we aren't privy to why he created us the way he did. I don't believe that Catholics know this either, because it wasn't revealed to us. Fundamentalists believe that you can find all the answers in the Bible. Catholics believe that there is more than just the Bible. There is nature, which is God’s creation, and he reveals Himself to us through nature. He also reveals Himself to us through contemplative prayer and meditation. So, when new information about the Universe is revealed through scientific discovery a Catholic isn’t tied down to assuming we already knew the answers. Getting back to the question. God has created us and given us free will. If we didn’t have free will there wouldn’t be sin. Catholics are currently taught that our life on Earth is understood in the context of a relationship with God. We have freedom to turn either turn toward God or turn away from God. Every action of a human with freewill can be seen in this relationship. If you make use of your gifts from God to improve the world around you then you are turning toward God. If you use your gifts from God in a selfish or self-serving way then you are turning away from God. The relationship with God would be pointless if people didn’t have the freewill to choose to be in the relationship. If God were to force a sinless world on everyone it would be as if God were the master and we were all slaves. They forced devotion of slaves is much less valuable than those who offer their devotion with freedom of choice. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 03.30.04 (12:30 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 I don't find the argument that just because something is beyond a person's finite abilities, it should not be compelling. There are lots of areas of physics, and mathematics, particularly related to quarks and string theory and extra dimensions and other related concepts that give me the impression that I could never fully comprehend them and the problems could go on forever and may be beyond human comprehension. Plus it would take earning a PhD (or doing the equivalent work) to even begin to understand them, and even then there's a long way to go. But the same was true in the recent past with some even more basic concepts. Just because something is beyond comprehension does not seem like a legitimate reason in and of itself to consider it unworthy of study. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 03.30.04 (3:46 pm) Reply to: DrForbush If God is so worried about freedom, why did he create gravity? Not the best argument, but why did he make creatures that can do some things but not others, if free will is his goal? If he wants a creature to freely love him, creating another omnipotent being seems like the best way to go. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 03.30.04 (4:25 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Free will is the only way that God can experience Love. God needs someone that is free to love him. Also, it isn't freedom it is free will. Everything is constrained by the laws of the universe. posted by: DrForbush (reply) post date: 03.30.04 (4:32 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Also, No One knows why God did anything. I was only saying what the Catholic Church teaches. From the facts, it looks like he used evolution in his method to create beings that have free will allowing each subsequent creature to have more and more free will. And, this may not be the most important part of his creatation. This is only what we understand. posted by: brogonzo (reply) post date: 03.31.04 (12:10 am) Responding to your blog directly, I'd just like to say that it's the fault of those Catholics you've spoken with, instead of the faith itself, that you've been denied answers to your questions. I've had the opportunity to study some of Catholicism's major philosophical contributers (see Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and the later works of Renee Decartes) and many of the really deep questions about free will, God's omniscience and the like have been examined fully by some very astute thinkers. For modern questions about Catholicism, check out theologian/philosopher/apologetic/humor-writer Peter Kreeft. He's got a several books in question-and-answer format you might find enlightening, and he continues C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" with a couple follow-ups (call it fan-fiction). Hope this helps! posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 03.31.04 (10:18 am) Reply to: juniperflux If you are applying this to any religious dogma, then we are getting off the topic of Catholicism. However, while I agree there is an element of faith involved in all religions, it's a question of where faith plays a role. With Judaism, a person who does not follow the religion at all, and maybe never even heard of it, but leads a righteous life, is going to heaven just as quickly as anybody else. While there are some elements of faith involved -- a person who worships idols or insists that there is no God would not reap the same rewards -- even a person it this category would at most delay being at the side of God and would not experience anything analogous to a literal place called hell ruled by a horned red devil. That's very different from the Christian notion that having faith, even if it comes on the deathbed, and repenting for all of one's sins on one's deathbed would get one into heaven because of the faith, while somebody who lived a righteous life but rejects Jesus or curses Jesus on his deathbed for taking his life would end up eternally damned to hell. So the notion of faith and how it is applied is certainly a way of differentiating Christians from members of other religions even if there is an element of faith in all. And since Christianity considers the afterlife to be the ultimate goal, that's a pretty important point. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 03.31.04 (5:37 pm) Reply to: brogonzo Yeah, I don't actually fault Catholicism itself for the lack of answers I've received, but those I have discussed it with for either not having a strong enough concept of what they believe or just being afraid to discuss it. I too have studied Augustine (though, more in a political light than theological), Acquinas, and Descartes, and this is actually why I don't understand why so few Catholics seem willing to defend their faith- these philosophers as well as others have already done all the work for them. :) Granted, I could argue against any of the 'proofs' given by theologians for God's existence or the nature of Christianity, but at least there are answers. I hadn't heard of Peter Kreeft, but his work does sound interesting. Thank you. :) posted by: berenike (reply) post date: 09.21.04 (8:04 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 What's the address of the main page of yur blog? I am probaby being thick but I can't find it. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 09.21.04 (8:39 am) Reply to: berenike http://dragonbait22.tblog.com :) |
|