# I converted to Catholicism after many years deep in the drug culture, AMA



## SKL

Opening this thread here in P&S was largely prompted by a discussion that we had over in the PD Social Tripping Thread, where, after I'd expressed my Catholic faith in discussing liturgical music that I found wonderful as a psychedelic soundtrack even before my formal conversion, I got asked a number of questions about my conversion and my Catholic faith. This very fact of my conversion will probably make me a minority here, but so be it. In Catholic theology we have something called a "sign of contradiction," which means that theological truths can expect extreme opposition. And it's my belief that we had ought to respond to these in a level-headed and loving way. So, expecting some opposition, I'd like to open this thread as a genuine "ask me anything" type deal.

To outline my own personal journey, to quote from a post of mine to that thread:


> But to briefly outline my route into the church. This may not mean much to non-Christians, but here goes.
> 
> I was born into a nominally liberal Protestant but mostly secular home. My grandfather was a pastor in the United Church of Christ, which was by then more of a venue for left wing politics than for anything resembling a historical continuity with Christianity. I was always interested in religion and began seriously studying the Bible and Church history back in high school. I was briefly involved in mainline Protestantism but found it unfulfilling, made a pit stop in Evangelical "megachurch" Protestantism and found it a mess, then I was pretty much out of church for a good decade and a half during which I did pretty inconceivable amounts of drugs and considered psychedelics to be spiritual (I no longer do, and in fact consider them, or a certain approach to them, spiritually problematic) but after some circumstances that I can't really name here eventuated, I had to leave that world, and I started to study Scripture again, along with Church history. I re-read Philip Schaff's late 19th century History of the Christian Church, which is still easily one of my favorite books. He was Protestant but relatively ecumenical in outlook. I found myself very attracted to early Christianity, and began to see the Protestant Reformation as a break in continuity, despite the fact that they were reacting so some genuine abuses, but the human element of the Church has never been perfect. It was the search for historical continuity that brought me to seek out and eventually become sacramentally confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church. I also struggled with questions of authority, i.e. who can interpret the Bible? In Protestantism you have practically as many interpretations as you have Protestants or at least Protestant pastors. This struck me as impossible. So I looked backwards into the past. As Cardinal Newman, another convert, put it, "to become deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." In Catholicism we have 2,000 years of historical continuity, a beautiful liturgy, and tradition, which G.K. Chesterton aptly called "the democracy of the dead." Our ancestors deserve a voice in our morality, our theology, our society.
> 
> Regarding the "social," i.e. mainly sexual, issues referenced above, I think it's important to realize that the "modern" perspective is incredibly new, the past 50 years or so. I find it remarkably short-sighted to think that the radical changes since the 1960s should supercede all of Western history, and find it no coincidence that as we unmoor ourselves from this history we become more degenerate as a society. Yes, I am politically a very right-wing person (I was president of College Republicans, and only drifter rightward from there after the first Bush administration), but that's not all that I'm speaking of. History is important, culture is important, we do ourselves no favors with a radical break from the past. As a Christian believer from many years even before I joined the Church, I think that historical continuity is very important and something that's been abandoned centuries ago in Protestantism and more recently in the "liberal" factions of Catholicism (I find the use of "liberal," "conservative," political labels, troubling when used in religion, "traditionalist" vs "modernist" is probably a better term ... yes, BTW, I prefer the Latin Mass.)
> 
> I am not about being self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier than though. I am a great sinner, "the chief of sinners," that is why I need the church. I need not only a near-magical "acceptance of Christ," nor just proper belief, nor to simply live a better life, I need to connect with the 2,000 year history of Christian life. Thus, the Catholic church. I have a great deal of respect, too, for Orthodoxy and Eastern Christianity, and bear the hope that the two will be reconciled. Already there is good activity on this track, in terms of seeing the filioque as mainly a linguistic problem, but the authority of the Pope is a bit of a challenge here. I think it's essential, though, that we have authority such that we have order. But I suppose I am mainly in the Western Church because I am of Western origin.



It will prove difficult to integrate the two threads but I'll try to do so, answering questions asked in the former here, as well as questions that come up first in this P&S thread. I'd like to say ahead of time that I am not interested in circular and polemical discussions about abortion, birth control, feminism, homosexuality, and similar, I will be perfectly glad to lay out the Catholic moral theology position on these issues, but I think that protracted debate will only derail the thread, I imagine there are other threads in which back and forth on these issues can be undertaken. 

Anyway, I'd love to hear from anyone out there, Catholic, non-Catholic, anti-Catholic, interested in discussing these issues or theological issues in general. I have a pretty good grounding in historical, theological and literary/critical background for these subjects. If you're hitting on serious issues you can expect serious discourse on these topics; if you're trolling or only interested in injecting contemporary social controversies, I'm not really game, sorry to say.

And also, on a more personal note, as I recently told a friend:



> Now, despite being historically and theologically pretty literate, I've spent a lot of time reading on this kind of things, I'm a pretty bad Catholic, like I said, the "chief of sinners." I'm currently a little estranged from my regular religious practices, I've had a lot of issues in the past year or so with alcohol and depression and other things. Trying to re-start my prayer life and especially the Rosary, getting to the confessional in the near future is absolutely essential for me as well. It's really great, though, to connect with someone through this particular venue who shares the same values and the same background, it's hard for me with all the history that I have with this particular world to connect with people who aren't or haven't been in that particular world ...



Now, just like the title says, ask me [anything.] Would love an honest discourse with any and all.

God Bless,
SKL


----------



## razordesignz

In my opinion catholicism is not the true religion of god. Jesus was one of God's prophets, why would god want him worshipped and not noah, why worship him and not Jacob? And I'd love to hear your philosophy on worshipping the father the son and the 'holy spirit' the 'holy trinity^ and why do both the old and new testemont have so many writings by man in them? Threw different bibles you find multiple contradictions quite frequently. And I suggest you actually read threw and try asking your priest because he will turn you in circles bot having accurate answers. I was born and raised and catholic and was until I was 20. And I them found Islam. And have read the Quaran 2 1/2 times threw and it has no imperfections, and holds multiple scientific facts and knowledge which has only been being discovered by our top scholars and scientists over the past few hundred years, which has lead many atheists and non believers actually convert to islam, because if you open  your eyes and your heart and read the Quaran, you will realised too no doubts will be found. And it's text has never been modified..by man. God sent the Torah and jews were his people. The jews were continuesly disobedient. He them sent Moses and the gospel, again defiently disobedient. Jesus told of one last prophet that would come after him and there would be no more. Prophet Mohammed delivered gods final teachings. And we willl have no more prophets until the day Jesus is resurrected to prove his submission to god against the anti christ.


----------



## -=SS=-

razordesignz said:


> Prophet Mohammed delivered gods final teachings. And we willl have no more prophets until the day Jesus is resurrected..



That's awfully convenient for Islam, don't you think?


----------



## Mysterie

what is your definition of god?

is it possible for us to live the truth of god, as jesus did, during our lifetime?

do you consider it important to take on the characteristics of jesus, or is it more important to follow his teachings and those of the bible?


----------



## Xorkoth

I don't think there is a "true religion"... each one is an attempt to provide a framework for understanding spirituality and answering certain unanswerable questions.  The idea that there is a separate entity who cares what you believe and determines whether you exist in rapture or suffering for eternity after your life is one that I could never believe, so to me all the world's religions are mythologies that arose for these reasons.  There can be some great lessons to learn from them if you don't fall victim to the hate that some people use them to foster, and they certainly can help people be happier sometimes, and if Jesus' teachings were followed as they were laid down, there'd be a really good moral framework being taught too (and this does happen with many Christians, I've regularly attended 2 churches in my life that were full of amazing people who collectively did all kinds of good for the community).

So, to me, Catholic or Protestant are both 2 interpretations of something, neither more right than the other.  Protestantism came about as a change from the older doctrine of Catholicism, but Catholicism wasn't right on either.  Nor is any other religion.  In my mind, what's correct is that we are a part of life, a part of the universe, and our relationship to that is a unique and personal thing.  Life has the meaning we give to it, I don't believe there is an external force dictating the meaning.

I've got no problem with you or anyone believing in anything you want, these are just my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## razordesignz

I was sharing my thoughts and have no problems with whatever people's beliefs are. 'That convenient' lol, first you can stop now because it is not like you are the first person to try and troll me due to lack of knowledge and a minimal amount of mental depth, go listen to some more American media friend. GL with your life Ss


----------



## Xorkoth

^^ In what way was that called for, or trolling?  Please refrain from making personal attacks, SS certainly did not personally attack you.


----------



## Cream Gravy?

What I cannot understand about Catholicism and on a wider scale religion is the need to determine things as sinful when they do not effect others. For example, I believe in the inherent right for one to commit suicide, or to have an abortion, or to do drugs, or to have whatever sexuality one desires, because these things do not effect anyone except the individual taking part in them. Murder, rape, infidelity... these things effect others, and so obviously I can agree that they're wrong and sinful... but why are any of the individual-centric sins even sins in the first place? Do people truly believe God wants them to force *their*​ will upon others? To me, that sounds all to similar to murder, rape, and all the other sins of harming others. Did God not give us free will because he wants us to have to _choose_ to follow his teachings and not to be _forced_ to follow them?

What I'm really wanting to know is, where in God's teachings does it give man the right to effect another man's life? Did Jesus preach homophobia (legit question, is there anything about that in the new testament)? Is it truly necessary to try and force one's will upon others in order to be a true Christian?

I realize this touches on topics of heavy debate, and so I don't want anything more than an explanation for what gives Christians the right to effect their fellow man. I just want to know where in God's teachings it says to effect others, to _force your will upon others_, when so many major sins are sins _because_ they effect others.


----------



## razordesignz

I'd you don't understand the sarcasm in ss's post I really have no interest j  any further discussion with you on this subject because you are oblivious. He shared no personal religious input, only comment be devoted energy to was taking a soft dig at Islam. Pretty simple to understand no?


----------



## jammin83

If you want to talk about Islam, start your own thread. This thread is about Catholicism m8.  

SKL, what appeals to you about Catholicism over Protestantism? 

No fan of Luther?


----------



## -=SS=-

razordesignz said:


> 'That convenient' lol, first you can stop now because it is not like you are the first person to try and troll me due to lack of knowledge and a minimal amount of mental depth..



Sorry but for Islam to essentially claim it is the last religion.. erm, no. Despite not belonging to any faith I find that assertion offensive; saying Islam is the last true religion of the human race is depressing as fuck.. because quite frankly it is the worst out of all of them and the last one I would place faith in.



SKL said:


> Regarding the "social," i.e. mainly sexual, issues referenced above, I think it's important to realize that the "modern" perspective is incredibly new, the past 50 years or so. I find it remarkably short-sighted to think that the radical changes since the 1960s should supercede all of Western history, and find it no coincidence that as we unmoor ourselves from this history we become more degenerate as a society. Yes, I am politically a very right-wing person (I was president of College Republicans, and only drifter rightward from there after the first Bush administration), but that's not all that I'm speaking of. History is important, culture is important, we do ourselves no favors with a radical break from the past. As a Christian believer from many years even before I joined the Church, I think that historical continuity is very important and something that's been abandoned centuries ago in Protestantism and more recently in the "liberal" factions of Catholicism (I find the use of "liberal," "conservative," political labels, troubling when used in religion, "traditionalist" vs "modernist" is probably a better term ... yes, BTW, I prefer the Latin Mass.)



I agree with all of this. Though I don't belong to any faith as I follow my own moral code and intuition, I do find resonance with principles in Christianity (and other faiths). To think that thousands of years of observation of human behavior, at times when there was no TV or anything else besides each other and a bit of alcohol, which gave rise to moral principles in modern religions, can simply be discarded in the space of a couple of decades is arrogance of the highest order. All we did was substitute our faith in religion for faith in science, science that is based primarily on reductionist and materialist principles.. which automatically did away with the idea of any non-local or invisible elements in our existence, which IMO was a big mistake.



SKL said:


> Now, just like the title says, ask me [anything.] Would love an honest discourse with any and all.



Would you ever consider branching beyond the Catholic faith? I don't mean rejecting it altogether, but investigating other faiths and seeing if you can find any similarities or correlations which could go towards you making your own moral code? I think the church does play an important role in bringing people together and binding communities, so obviously if you left the faith to stand alone you might potentially lose that social belonging. 

Also you gave some background here on yourself, and I got impressions from your posts in other threads.. have you had an emotional or salvation type experience prior to just joining, or since you've joined the Catholic faith? You said you had some bad habits and they've been lifted from you.. was this a tangible experience for you, as I've heard about people praying or sincerely throwing themselves down to Jesus or another faith and having all their burdens instantly lifted, resulting in great emotional rapture. Just curious if, given your background, you've had that experience.

How do you feel towards Protestantism? The perspective usually comes from the other direction, and I don't know any Catholics personally so I've never had the chance to ask someone about how they feel. In what way have they diverged from what they should be doing or thinking etc?


----------



## Foreigner

What I don't get about Catholicism and Christianity in general is the notion that anyone, whether a Priest, Bishop, or Pope, can interpret God's will on societal levels. I mean, we can all agree upon certain laws (whether we agree they are also "sins" or not), such as murder, etc... but there is a lot more subjective material in there than just the obvious universal laws (laws, which by the way, were first codified by Hammurabi of ancient Bablyonia and Sumer). I'm thinking now of the times of the Inquisition, which I only bring up for one purpose. Modern people look at this period as a time when corrupt religion was stamping out its rivals, but I do believe that there were also people in power who genuinely believed they were saving souls by purifying people by the flame, or torturing them; but again, I ask, how can common man determine God's will, and therefore carry out reward or punishment based on that? Likewise, and I know this is taking material from elsewhere, how can you be sure you're carrying out God's will and not just your own selfish ego? There seems to be no built-in mechanism in all of Christianity that prevents this fatal error from happening.  I mean, in the United States, there are many Christians against meditation and yoga because they seriously believe if they let down their guard even for a second, the devil will get in; there's also this creepy American Jesus who loves you more than anything but secretly hates you and wants you to suffer if you don't do what he says. If there's a fear of questioning the system built into the system, then how can its proponents be sure they are even relating to God? I know there is the overriding view that humanity is "outside" of God, due to our sin in the garden. So then how can we look to Priests, Bishops, and the Pope to be the middle-men messengers for us, when they too are part of the same sinful view? In short, if we're all blind, then how can the blind lead the blind to salvation? 

In relation to the above, during this 2,000 year rule of Catholicism, there were big portions of history where the Roman and Greek sciences were suppressed. I realize that before the printing press, owning a book was a luxury and most people couldn't afford it let alone have the literacy level to read; but nonetheless I see these suppressions as a means to keep people ignorant so they will follow the straight and narrow. I still see this happening today in the Christian world. Therefore my question is, what good is a system that cannot be questioned, or has to (socially, culturally, scholastically) keep its proponents as ignorant of the rational schools of thought as possible in order to sustain popularity? 

The other thing I want to ask you SKL, is how to you reconcile the liturgical modifications over the centuries? I disagree that Catholicism is one continuous system of morality. On a governance level maybe, but on a local level it has always experienced cultural splits and shifts. It has also adopted elements of local cultures in order to share its values more succinctly (like Christmas happening on the Solstice, Christmas trees instead of Yuletide trees, Easter as a replacement of Ishtar and fertility celebrations, etc.). Also, within the culture of the liturgy itself, there is a movement away from scripture precedents which before modern times would've been seen as heretical, _vis a vis_ the tendency to now disregard books like Leviticus and its proscriptions. If it's all God's mandate then how can you just toss it off? Similarly, what's the deal with Canonization? It seems to me that Catholicism absorbed Paganism by creating its own pantheon of demi-Gods, lest we mention Mary who is basically symbolic of the Goddess / Divine Mother... yet during Catholicism's most brutal periods, people were being killed for being polytheistic. So how do you reconcile being part of a religion that (let's be honest) has some "poly" aspects to it, yet turns around and says that polytheism is tantamount to evil and devil worship? 

Next... on suffering. Okay, Jesus suffered terribly, and I get that Catholics view this as God's retribution for humanity's sin, and therefore humans must suffer in order to become worthy of redemption (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea). I get the whole suffering thing, it's a well worn path built into many religions. However, Catholicism seems to diverge in that it has suffering built in as a mandate. Like if you're enjoying life too much, or heaven forbid experiencing bliss or euphoria, then you're heading toward damnation somehow -- yet we're also supposed to believe the platitude that we have free will. We've seen extreme manifestations of this in flagellants, and in practices like the Inquisition. This kind of goes back to interpreting God's will, in that, what gives anyone the right to decide who has suffered enough, and how can you justify going out of your way to make someone suffer MORE because you think you're doing God's will? Equivocating suffering has to be one of the most unfortunate practices I see in humanity in general, and it's always based on superficial analysis. It seems like people are more prone to accept flaws and critiques of their person, than compliments, due to this culture of shame and guilt. This sinner thing has really been built into the modern west, IMO as part and parcel of Christian rule. So my question is, how is shaming and guilting people into thinking they are, by default, not worthy of God, actually connecting them to God? And likewise, if they are being distanced by this shame and guilt, how on earth can they think they're interpreting God's will? This is a problem with Catholicism, from my view. If we go by only what Jesus said, there is a lot of transcendent love, but Catholicism seems to focus more on sin.

Last but not least: transubstantiation. To me, this is clearly a "Pagan" rite, since at the time Christianity began to gain popularity in antiquity, equivalent rites were happening with *real* blood, of animals as sacrifices. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand why the intake of the body and blood of Christ are important, it makes sense to me; I'm just saying, other sacrificial practices are viewed as barbaric and even satanic by some, yet we are supposed to accept Catholicism's equivalents as acceptable. How do you explain that? 

I know I've asked some heavy questions but hopefully not too controversial. I am genuinely curious about your experiences and knowledge. It's not often I get to talk to experienced Catholics who are open to outsiders.


----------



## Ninae

240sxLover said:


> What I cannot understand about Catholicism and on a wider scale religion is the need to determine things as sinful when they do not effect others. For example, I believe in the inherent right for one to commit suicide, or to have an abortion, or to do drugs, or to have whatever sexuality one desires, because these things do not effect anyone except the individual taking part in them.



No man is an island. And doing harm to yourself is no less"sinful" or what you want to call it. When you harm yourself others are hurt in the process.


----------



## Cream Gravy?

Okay, suicide and abortion aside (given that people seem to believe an unborn child is already a full blown human) what about Catholicism's "your body is a temple don't get tattoos or do drugs" spiel or it's attack on homosexuals? Where's the reasoning behind that when it certainly effects no one but the person partaking in those activities?


----------



## SKL

Hey, guys, I didn't abandon this thread, I have just been heavily busy with work. This weekend I intend to post comprehensively my thoughts on most of what was asked of me above. Will probably bring out some citations and stuff too, because I'm into ecclesiastic and theological geekery. Sorry for the delay. I really am looking forward to the dialogue with everyone.


----------



## razordesignz

How is it the worst? Going off of all muslims are isis members ? Isis has about 30k members....Islam has over 2 billion members. And isis are not real muslims ...fact the majority of the people killed are actual muslims who follow our religion. Islam's rules are 1. Submission to god (no false idols , or worshipping any of his prophets (jesus) we respect them we don't worship them.. 2. Daily prayer 3. Giving charity    Islam is about finding and building inner peace, and submitting to God. The actual definition of Jihad is enduring struggles threw life and not turning your back on god as we are tested. Are Christians all racist because of the Christian cult kkk? Are all catholics pedophiles because of priests who prey on children? Are all muslims terrorists because isis is a terrorist group. No, all of the above are groups of evil because Satan is very real and he acts threw people who he gets hold of...in all cultures and religion. I am an American white and have read the Quaran 2 1/2 times threw...we are not even allowed to verbally force our religious beliefs on anyone who holds no interest. And we are only permitted to act on violence against a person who intends harm upon us. Do deep research, Islam is actually now the world's largest religion at just over 28% of the world's population. Because many humans are blessed with a level of depth to actually study and research Islam and quickly learn and see right threw the invalid sterotypes Islam has developed because of 911. Do research on 911..many expert welders who are not muslims have explained it is impossible for jet fuel to melt the steel that the twin towers were made of..and don't you think if gods true religion was it chances are Satan would manage to infest it with awful views and propaganda to blind many people and steer them away from the truth. This is all I have to say on the subject because I live knowing and proud of what I follow and what is true. Study how many similarities jews and muslims have in common in laws. And the Quaran clearly explained of how jews were gods original people, but we're continuesly disobedient. The rules are almost identical except in islam alcohol was made forbidden, in the Jewish laws it was advised to consume rarely. Over time it became clear no good comes from it so now forbidden. Good luck to you all in your lives threw this test on this earth, to believe this world is all we have and then blank and it is over is a sad dark theory and depressing thought process, hence why the world is a struggle for the majority of people.


----------



## Xorkoth

If you guys want to discuss islam, start a thread on it.  This topic is about Catholicism and has the opportunity to become an interesting discussion, so let's keep it to that.


----------



## noone1

Do you really think we're more of a degenerate society now than in the past. Any history book will show that just isn't true. The only difference is past cultures hid their ills from the media and popular culture and everything was done in secret which is why it seems like a "better" more moral time. The pedophilia, domestic violence, rape, and abuses especially by the church was just as if not way more disgusting then than now. Look at Pope Alexander VI. 

As to the historical argument I'm sure you're versed in the Council of Nicea? How texts where biasedly chosen and some destroyed. The problems with scribes and how we only have copies of copies which contain many mistakes some on purpose? The absurdity of dictating our morality by what ancient desert shepherds believed? 

Personally I like some aspects of the church, Meister Eckhart, the Franciscans and the jesuits. But I love all mysticism.

If it works for you that's cool though.


----------



## Ninae

Yes, many of the grat old poets and atists were opium addicts, etc. They just put it in different terms like "Then I found my muse" or "All of a sudden a different spirit descended over me".


----------



## SKL

OK, finally found some time. I am going to try to take my time and answer the questions as answered. I'm going to agree with Xorkoth and not really engage the responses that will turn this into a two-way polemic about Islam, but I'll try to answer just about everything else, starting, appropriately enough, in order answered, with basic theology.



Mysterie said:


> what is your definition of god?



Certainly not an old man in the sky with a beard. 

God is the _primum movens_, the "unmoved mover," infinite and infinitely perfect, existing outside of time and space, the creator of all things .... cosmology doesn't really make a lot of sense without Him, or at least without invoking systems of belief that involve rather an equal amount of speculation and faith (and the faith of God is the faith of our ancestors, rather than a speculation of moderns) ... but let's look at some relevant Scripture. A great verse regarding ontotheology;



			
				Isaiah 57:15 said:
			
		

> For thus saith the High and the Eminent that inhabiteth eternity: and his name is Holy, who dwelleth in the high and holy place, and with a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite.



Now here we have two things: "inhabiteth eternity," which means God is existing outside of space-time, because He created it, this is pretty much inconceivable to us but means that He acts outside of our ordinary concerns of space, time, and causality, making His actions and purposes often inscrutable to us, at least without guidance.

Now the rest of the verse: "with a contrite, and humble spirit ... to revive the heart of the contrite," this comes to the famous verse in I John 4:8, "God is love ..." which means that God expresses _love_. As Catholics and indeed as all mainstream Christians, we believe in a Trinitarian conception of God, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," i.e.






The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are separate, though equally God. In Christ, we have the _hypostatic union_, the singular ontological unity of God and Man, which I'll discuss later ... this will probably raise more questions than others especially from the Islamic poster who questioned trinitarianism, but, to return to the idea that _God is love_, 



			
				John 3:35 said:
			
		

> The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.



The Father loves the Son, they are both part of the Trinitarian God, but there is Love expressed between them. The Trinity is the union of God the Father, the creator, who loves the Son, the redeemer, and the spirit of that love, who is the Holy Spirit, the "inspirer" of human love of, and connection with, the divine.



> is it possible for us to live the truth of god, as jesus did, during our lifetime?
> 
> do you consider it important to take on the characteristics of jesus, or is it more important to follow his teachings and those of the bible?



"Living the truth of God as Jesus did" is impossible, as Jesus _was_ the truth of God personified: 



			
				John 14:6 said:
			
		

> I am the way, and the truth, and the life.



This is to do with the trinitarian ontology of God described above, but not really with what I think you are concerned with, which is more about moral theology. In this context, the _Imitatio Christi_, the imitation of Christ, is a foundation of Christian moral practice, that is that He is our moral teacher, the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount a foundation for our moral theology, and He is the ultimate example of a blameless life, from whence, the soteriological idea of the "substitutionary atonement" ...



			
				I Peter 3:18 said:
			
		

> For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:





			
				Romans 5:19 said:
			
		

> For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.



... Christ lived a sinless life, as both exemplar and as sinless sacrifice in our place, but also ontologically, as God, being that sin would be against His nature, and being that Christ is a part of the Godhead, logically, he could not sin. Mary, his mother, also lead a blameless life, from her immaculate conception onwards, was also without sin, by special intervention of God, but she is _sui generis_, speaking of mankind as a whole,



			
				Romans 3:23 said:
			
		

> For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God



The differentiaton between Christ's life, His teachings and those of the Bible is a false one. The Jewish law, of course, if we are speaking about the very detailed ceremonial, etc. requirements of the OT, is not binding on Christians, this is a pretty complex theological issue, but is pretty much the essence of the New Testament (i.e. the New _Covenant_, which was foretold in the OT, viz.  Jeremiah 31:31 &c.), that through the life and sacrificial death of Christ, God established a new relationship with mankind in terms of how they might be saved. It is not merely about following the teachings of Christ, or of the Bible, although these are the foundations of moral life. We will, as flawed, fallen human beings, inevitably fall short of both (whether we are talking about the universal morality of Christ or the specific traditions of the Hebrew scriptures.) This is why we need the sacraments, baptism (to wash away our sins prior to joining the Church), confession/reconciliation (to reconcile, with our honest contrition, our sins with God), and, above all, the Eucharist, which is to impart God's grace into our persons and lives (I'm sure that I will speak more on this later.)

I realize that I used some relatively technical theological terms and Biblical references here, I'd be glad to answer questions. I am going to tackle some of the next questions in a little bit, but I hope this gets our dialogue off to a good start.


----------



## SKL

jammin83 said:


> If you want to talk about Islam, start your own thread. This thread is about Catholicism m8.
> 
> SKL, what appeals to you about Catholicism over Protestantism?
> 
> No fan of Luther?



What appeals to me is two things: _historical continuity_, which, in Catholicism, reaches back to "time immemorial." Protestantism was a historical reaction to certain unfortunate trends in Christian society at the time, but in it's justified reaction to these abuses, went to great excess by not treating the wound, but by amputating the limb. This is a famous cartoon from the leadup to the American Civil War that I think is very applicable:



Instead of providing a justified critique of certain excesses of the Church at the time, Protestantism severed it's connection with Christian history, and, more importantly, made every man, or at least every minister of the Gospel, a final interpretor of history and of Scripture, i.e. his own pope. The fruits of this are obvious: the thousands of Protestant denominations with wildly variegated theologies. Further iterations, in almost every generation, of Protestanism, have proved to create only more fractures in terms of both doctrine and community. Which is not to say there are not differences with in the Church, but this brings us to the second question, much connected with that of historical continuity, that of _authority_. Protestantism urges us to develop our own understanding of theology and of Christian history by virtue of our own interpretations of Scripture, but this necessarily leads us to chaos. What Catholicism offers us is an "unbroken chain," from time immemorial to the present day, about how we interpret the Bible and history. Has this developed over time? Absolutely. But as I quoted Cardinal Newman before, "to become deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." By contradiction, to unmoor oneself from history is to _become_ Protestant, functionally at least, even if not in name. I think it the height of arrogance to suppose that we, our our own interpretation of Scripture and ecclesiastical history within our lifetimes, is equivalent to the two millenia of history which have lead to the formation of the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) churches (which John Paul II called "two lungs" breathing in the same body: "the body of Christ," by which name the Church has always been called, I Cor 12:27, etc.)



			
				-=SS-= said:
			
		

> I agree with all of this. Though I don't belong to any faith as I follow my own moral code and intuition, I do find resonance with principles in Christianity (and other faiths). To think that thousands of years of observation of human behavior, at times when there was no TV or anything else besides each other and a bit of alcohol, which gave rise to moral principles in modern religions, can simply be discarded in the space of a couple of decades is arrogance of the highest order. All we did was substitute our faith in religion for faith in science, science that is based primarily on reductionist and materialist principles.. which automatically did away with the idea of any non-local or invisible elements in our existence, which IMO was a big mistake.



This guy gets it, even if he doesn't subscribe to my specific beliefs. Especially with regard to Protestantism. We don't just get to interpret history (or Scripture passed down to us through history) as we want to ... 

As Chesterton said,



> But there is one thing that I have never from my youth up been able to understand. I have never been able to understand where people got the idea that democracy was in some way opposed to tradition. It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of a mob. It is quite easy to see why a legend is treated, and ought to be treated, more respectfully than a book of history. The legend is generally made by the majority of people in the village, who are sane. The book is generally written by the one man in the village who is mad. Those who urge against tradition that men in the past were ignorant may go and urge it at the Carlton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant. It will not do for us. If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.



More later, with the next posts, give me some time  ... been quite busy lately and want to give these questions a little time. I realize my answers may have raised more questions than they have settled and I'm open to engaging that too.


----------



## Xorkoth

One thing I'm wondering about is, if you don't believe god is "an old man in the sky with a beard", why do you still use the capitalized (and gendered) Him?  Is it just out of ritual/tradition or do you have some deeper reason for it?  I suppose I have the same question about the other traditionally capitalized words (God, Church, etc), but primarily about "Him/He".



SKL said:


> "Living the truth of God as Jesus did" is impossible, as Jesus _was_ the truth of God personified



I can only back this up with feelings of course, but I always thought it made more sense, after reading the NT, that Jesus was trying to say, look, you CAN be like me, I'm doing it, so can you.  Rather than saying, no one can be as perfect as me but you can try.  Also the idea that Jesus, as a human, was perfect always felt like a device put in place after he had been deified within the hundred or hundreds of years between his actual life and when the NT books were written.  A great man, yes, a great example, but a man even so.  

I think the cultural happenings of the time during which the books were written and the adoption of Catholicism is crucial to take into account.  Rome was in trouble because Christianity was catching on and they were losing their hold over the population.  In adopting this new religion, it seems to me their goal was certainly, at least in part of not in total, to gain control over the population again.  Besides that, it had already been hundreds of years since Jesus's life when these things we take as gospel were actually written.  How could there be a fully accurate account of what actually went down, especially given the ultimate motive of adopting the religion in the first place?  And what is the reason for accepting some writing and discarding others, especially when some have a pretty different implication (for example, the gnostic books, which were written closer to his life)?



> Mary, his mother, also lead a blameless life, from her immaculate conception onwards, was also without sin



Does this mean that you believe in the idea of sex as a sin?  And that conception that is non-immaculate is a sinful thing? 



> This is why we need the sacraments, baptism (to wash away our sins prior to joining the Church), confession/reconciliation (to reconcile, with our honest contrition, our sins with God), and, above all, the Eucharist, which is to impart God's grace into our persons and lives (I'm sure that I will speak more on this later.)



Why should a ritualized object or action be necessary for these things?  Or is the ritual just the means of connecting to that spiritual idea (of reconciling, washing away previous sin, etc)?



SKL said:


> I think it the height of arrogance to suppose that we, our our own interpretation of Scripture and ecclesiastical history within our lifetimes, is equivalent to the two millenia of history which have lead to the formation of the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) churches (which John Paul II called "two lungs" breathing in the same body.)



I always thought of it as more of a realization that there was corruption in that 2000 years of history of the formation of the Catholic church, and an attempt to move away from that and re-establish the core of what Christianity was meant to be by Jesus.  The good Protestant churches I've been a part of (which include Methodist which I was raised as as well as Prebyterian) emphasize the love and service elements of the religion and put less focus on the ritual and sin elements which I see as social control devices (the hard emphasis on sin and unworthiness being the core of that).


----------



## RDP89

The world would be a much better place without catholicism. And christianity in general. But especially catholicism.


----------



## Ninae

I would be interested in what Catholics, or traditional Christians in general, think of the Essene Gospel.

http://home.netcom.com/~mokeeffe/AquarianGospel1-15.htm

When it comes to Christianity I've always liked Essenism/Gnosticism/Catharism more. It seems more uncorrupted by politics and human matters in general and like it would be closer to the pure teachings of Christ.


"2) And Jesus greatly loved the Vedic hymns and the Avesta; but more than all he loved to read the Psalms of David and the pungent words of Solomon. 
3) The Jewish books of prophecy were his delight; and when he reached his seventh year he needed not the books to read, for he had fixed in memory every word.

5) And Jesus stood before the guests and said,
I had a dream, and in my dream I stood before a sea, upon a sandy beach. 
6) The waves upon the sea were high; a storm was raging on the deep. 
7) Someone above gave me a wand. I took the wand and touched the sand, and every grain of sand became a living thing; the beach was all a mass of beauty and of song. 
8 ) I touched the waters at my feet, and they were changed to trees, and flowers, and singing birds, and every thing was praising God. 
9) And someone spoke, I did not see the one who spoke, I heard the voice, which said,
There is no death."

15) Joachim said,
My son, today you pass the seventh milestone of your way of life, for you are seven years of age, and we will give to you, as a remembrance of this day, whatever you desire; choose that which will afford you most delight.
16) And Jesus said,
I do not want a gift, for I am satisfied. If I could make a multitude of children glad upon this day I would be greatly pleased. 
17) Now, there are many hungry boys and girls in Nazareth who would be pleased to eat with us this feast and share with us the pleasures of this day. 
18 ) The richest gift that you can give to me is your permission to go out and find these needy ones and bring them here that they may feast with us.


----------



## bdomihizayka

Why do you feel the need to identify as a Catholic, and not just a follower, student, practitioner of the Bible/ Jesus' teachings?


----------



## SKL

> The world would be a much better place without catholicism. And christianity in general. But especially catholicism.



A most meaningful contribution to the thread ... and, to the Catholic, a _sign of contradiction_, see above. 



bdomihizayka said:


> Why do you feel the need to identify as a Catholic, and not just a follower, student, practitioner of the Bible/ Jesus' teachings?



This is a pretty easy one for me. The teachings of Christ and the Scriptures are of course laudable and indeed, taken in totality, the most perfect moral system devised, in fact this perfection of morality is to me one of the proofs of it's divinity; however, this doesn't mean that we can just take the words that we approve of and run with it.



			
				II Peter 1:20 said:
			
		

> Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.



Historical-critical approaches to Scripture are not unimportant and they do give us important background and context, but what is important to the Catholic, and what draws me to the Church perhaps more than anything else, is as I've said above, _historical continuity_. In the Church Fathers all the way to the present day I can draw upon a community of people of faith who sustained a living relationship with Scripture, Tradition, and Sacraments.

The individualistic, subjectivist, Protestant tendency to interpret Scripture with the hermeneutic of "what does it mean to _me_?" feels presumptuous in the extreme; if we agree that these teachings and writings are of great importance, who are we to, ourselves, interpret them as we see fit? Every man is not his own Pope, and ever reader of Scripture does not have access to the totality of Tradition or context within which to interpret this Scripture. This is one of the great functions of the Church on Earth.

Since some of the questions are in a similar vein, the next post I'll answer is



			
				Foreigner said:
			
		

> What I don't get about Catholicism and Christianity in general is the notion that anyone, whether a Priest, Bishop, or Pope, can interpret God's will on societal levels.



First, since this will probably come up, the Church is a hierarchical organization and the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) is endowed specifically with the charism (spiritual gift) of _infallability_ although this is often misunderstood, it does not mean that the Pope cannot sin or that every word that he says must needs be true, but rather that when he is speaking, _ex cathedra_, i.e. in solemn and official pronunciation of doctrine, that he, by the Grace of God, cannot err.

What I am talking about is emphatically _not_ about blindly trusting leaders, but immersing oneself in history, and seeing in that history not only traditions which ought not to be disturbed but a line of authority that reaches out to our present day. A great deal of our modern problems stem from a lack of this authority, outside of the authority of the State enforced by violence. We no longer share a common spiritual, communal, ethnic or otherwise values, we're increasingly atomised as individuals. This is part of the whole Modernist project, but standing in opposition to this is the traditions of the Church and other value-systems (if we are to go outside the Church we could make mention of Islam and even Confucianism), in that we admit that there is something above us and who can guide us in our understanding of the world, not because of coercion by violence (although, as you will point out below, that has been part of the process in the past), but because of our acceptance, our faith in a system of hierarchy and of interpretation of spiritual and ecclesiastical history. It provides a frame of reference for interpreting the spiritual world as laid forth in Scripture and Tradition, which otherwise is fairly impossible to do ... look at the massive proliferation of Protestant sects, or even more so, the degeneration of Modernist (or, "liberal") Christianity into what is called by some _moralistic therapeutic deism_. 

This is also a response relevant to


			
				Xorkoth said:
			
		

> The good Protestant churches I've been a part of (which include Methodist which I was raised as as well as Prebyterian) emphasize the love and service elements of the religion and put less focus on the ritual and sin elements which I see as social control devices (the hard emphasis on sin and unworthiness being the core of that).



Moralistic therapeutic deism is described thus:


> 1. A God exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
> 2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
> 3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
> 4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
> 5. Good people go to heaven when they die.



God as a feel-good moralist, and as a Heavenly butler to answer one's prayers, this is pretty much what we're talking about. We see this in various places, in the "blab it and grab it" prosperity gospel ("name it and claim it", "word of faith," &c.) Pentecostal sects and their more telegenic proteges like Joel Osteen, as well as in those "mainline" churches which become more venues for social action and leftist politics than places to preach redemption and the cross.

And it is redemption and the cross which in today's society is the great sign of contradiction. People do not want to be told they are sinful or that their sins are a problem with very real spiritual consequences for both themselves and for society in general. People do not want to hear that society's problems today are a result of spiritual decay. People do not want to hear that they need spiritual redemption. And yet it is the position of the believing Christian, not only the Catholic, position that all of these things are true. The moralistic therapeutic deist, however, doesn't dwell on these issues, but would rather seek an atomised spirituality which prioritizes his own needs, happiness, and ideals of good will towards others (which is not to be degraded, but is only a part of the whole package.)

A sermon, made to converts to Catholicism, on "moralistic therapeutic deism," is here.



> I mean, we can all agree upon certain laws (whether we agree they are also "sins" or not), such as murder, etc... but there is a lot more subjective material in there than just the obvious universal laws (laws, which by the way, were first codified by Hammurabi of ancient Bablyonia and Sumer). I'm thinking now of the times of the Inquisition, which I only bring up for one purpose. Modern people look at this period as a time when corrupt religion was stamping out its rivals, but I do believe that there were also people in power who genuinely believed they were saving souls by purifying people by the flame, or torturing them; but again, I ask, how can common man determine God's will, and therefore carry out reward or punishment based on that?



_Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius._ Kill them all, God will know His own, is what history records a certain abbot as having proclaimed before the massacre of the town of Béziers, a stronghold of practicioners of the Albigensian heresy, in 1209. Centuries later, the "Spanish Inquisition" of much ill repute took place, and certainly had it's excesses, but some of these are exaggerated as _la leyenda negra_, the Black Legend, which was spread by Spain's religious and political opponents mainly in the English speaking world. This brings us to another point - in terms of the administration of justice at the time, the Inquisition was actually relatively lenient, and the massacre of the Albigensians in line with contemporary geopolitics. Things have to understood in context. The church, taken as a whole, is neither infallabile (incapable of being wrong) nor impeccable (incapable of sinning.) The _human element of the church_, as it is called in Catholicism, is liable or even prone to both. Much of what was done in God's name in those days, and these days too, no matter how God is invoked, has been baleful ... and, keep in mind, in the time period we're referencing, not even a loaf of bread would be made without signing the cross over it, religion or at least popular piety and religious language was a part of every day life. We can't take these actions to represent the Church, as a spiritual entity, as a whole, especially taking into account that various parts of the human element of the church, up to and including the Pope (who, remember, is infallable only when speaking in particular circumstances on points of religious doctrine, and is never impeccable), were also political entities of equal or greater power to the kinghdoms and other powers which made up our pre-Bismarckian/pre-nation-state system. Some of these actions were about political expediency (which in turn, in chaotic days, i.e. when the Church was threatened by Albigensian/Cathar/various gnostic heresies and then by the Protestant revolt, were necessary to preserve the Faith), some were part of corruption of the human part of the Church. The Catholic church has a long and complicated history, as does the Middle East, Europe and the rest of the world where the Church has established itself. The complication is because as I've spoken about before, it is not just about one soul's subjective ideas, but about a system of salvation for all people

It is not the place of common man to take out God's judgment on others, but it is the place of the Church hierarchy to maintain order within the Church and within the social and moral lives of the faithful. Today, that mission is in a very different context than it was in the Middle Ages, but the mission is the same, to preserve and protect Holy Tradtion and the message and teachings of Christ and His Church.



> Likewise, and I know this is taking material from elsewhere, how can you be sure you're carrying out God's will and not just your own selfish ego? There seems to be no built-in mechanism in all of Christianity that prevents this fatal error from happening.



The Tradition and Hierarchy of the Catholic Church are exactly this built-in mechanism, and this is what drew me away finally and unequivocally from Protestantism.



> I mean, in the United States, there are many Christians against meditation and yoga because they seriously believe if they let down their guard even for a second, the devil will get in; there's also this creepy American Jesus who loves you more than anything but secretly hates you and wants you to suffer if you don't do what he says. If there's a fear of questioning the system built into the system, then how can its proponents be sure they are even relating to God? I know there is the overriding view that humanity is "outside" of God, due to our sin in the garden. So then how can we look to Priests, Bishops, and the Pope to be the middle-men messengers for us, when they too are part of the same sinful view? In short, if we're all blind, then how can the blind lead the blind to salvation?



No priest nor even the Pope will tell you he is sinless, he is more likely to refer himself as Paul did to Timothy, as "the chief of sinners." The blind _do_ lead the blind, but by the Grace of God and the Sacraments, people are guided to God. Different people have different missions along the way, thus priests, bishops, Popes, religious brothers and sisters, and so forth.

Foreigner, I'll deal more with your questions about Greek and Roman science (the persecution of Hypatia?), although here I'd have to point out, and will in the later post, the role of the Church in preserving the same; furthermore, the liturgy, suffering, and, of course, as I knew would come up, transubstantiation, in a later post, as it is getting late and I am getting tired.

I would like to take the time to point out, again, that I am a great sinner, and have no business judging anyone's morality. I have spent a lot of time with my nose in a lot of books about theology and history but that makes no moral exemplar, I'm an alcoholic, a generally unpleasant person, a covetous, lazy individual with a lot of issues and who's done a lot of wrong to a lot of people, a sometime drug addict and sometime crook who by the Grace of God found something to hold onto in the Catholic Church, our only connection 2,000 years back to the past and the only institution to go on for so long and with such continuity. In our modern world I felt cast aside, atomised, utterly alone, I tried other spiritual systems to connect myself to God or their conception of God or some other spiritual higher power, even in some of those systems that being something as vague as the Self, or the Universe, but all that made sense was the faith of my forefathers, the faith of so many saints and so many scientists, the faith of Aquinas, who is so logical that moderns can't understand him, the faith of Francis, who was such a warrior for social justice that social justice warriors can't hear half of what he has to say, and so many more. The great Catholic doctrine of the _communion of saints_ holds that we, those in Heaven, and even those in Purgatory are united spiritually (thus we may pray to, or rather through, the Saints, and pray for the souls in Purgatory), just as much as we are with one another.



			
				Hebrews 12:1 said:
			
		

> Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us ...



... this is how I am finding straight to _endure the race_ in our crazy world of today. (*@noone1*, promise to address your question about modern vs. ancient degeneracy in another post, but most of my answer has to do with media and reach/scope of popular culture.)

Enjoying our dialogue so far.

I will try to respond to everyone but it may be days late or out of order. Please feel free to ask any questions or engage me in anything, here or via PM. As I've said I am very willing to talk about the Catholic position on various social issues but don't want to get drawn in to any lengthy dialogues about them here, maybe in another thread, but here I think we're doing best discussing history and theology.

Thanks to all who turned in and are participating.


----------



## SKL

A quick one:



			
				Xorkoth said:
			
		

> One thing I'm wondering about is, if you don't believe god is "an old man in the sky with a beard", why do you still use the capitalized (and gendered) Him? Is it just out of ritual/tradition or do you have some deeper reason for it? I suppose I have the same question about the other traditionally capitalized words (God, Church, etc), but primarily about "Him/He".



First, with regards to the masculine gender of the term, I do not believe God is ontologically male, or that He has a gender, specifically; this is grammatical tradition. God is usually referred to as masculine, and as Father, but you will find occasional passages in Scripture in which feminine metaphors are used for Him. The gendered pronoun is much more an artefact of grammar than anything relevant to modern identity politics. God (and, indeed, the angels of heaven; presumably, the resurrected dead, but this is not made clear), is pure Spirit, and although He is a person, He is not a person in the human sense and not being a human being He has no gender. Here we're already getting into the idea of _apothatic_, or _negative theology_, i.e. developing a concept of God through statements about God that are _false_ i.e., God does not exist ... in the sense that we exist, while at the same time God does not _not exist_, as He has personality and agency. God is not in space in time, God is not good or evil (or rather, good and evil derive from God), God is no created (but rather the Creator of all things, the prime mover.)

The traditional capitalized words I use just because it is the traditional way to use them to refer to the divine. It's meant as a mark of respect, but certainly not the most important thing in the world.


----------



## Mysterie

as to the 'sign of contradiction', am i understanding that is right where, if your faith is challenged by someone else, it strengthens your resolve to follow it. basically if you receive criticism for your beliefs then it validates your view that you should be in the world but not of the world. 

is it really worth dismissing everything that doesn't align with your current belief  system? i understand blanket statements like "the world would be better off without catholicism" are not worth giving any thought to, but do you ever find new information in regards to your relationship to god that doesn't fit in your paradigm, and listen to it?


----------



## tokezu

Interesting Thread!

You said that you prefer the latin mass, right? Do you mean that in the sense that every mass should be held in latin? I mean I could (kind of) understand if you want to go to a latin mass every once in a while, because you want to honor the tradition and maybe find it aesthetically pleasing. But isn't it rather important to understand what the priest has to tell you? What do you gain exactly that is worth trading it in for the understanding of what is spoken about in mass? I assume you are not fluent in latin, are you?
Does it bother you that the tradition of the latin mass has a lot to do with keeping people unable to question the content or do you disagree with that interpretation?

Another question that goes to the core of christian theology, if you don't mind I'd like to hear your take on it: There is a german (protestant) theologian, Horst Gorski, who recently has been catching a lot of heat for going against dogma and claiming that Jesus death on the cross was not actually necessary in order for god to forgive the people for their sins. (And this guy is not a fringe lunatic, he is president of the Church Office of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany and the vicepresident of the Church Office of the Evangelical Church in Germany.)
If god had decided that he wanted to forgive mankind, why couldn't he have just done it? What kind of god _requires_ that blood be shed (even if it's "only" his own/his sons) when he has already made up his mind and has come to the conclusion that he _wants_ to forgive the people?




			
				SKL said:
			
		

> We don't just get to interpret history (or Scripture passed down to us through history) as we want to ...



Do you mean we don't get to interpret history at all? Because the way I understand it, if you don't interpret "as you want to" (= making your own conclusions, claiming the right to call bullshit, if something doesn't make sense to you, and being aware that the knowledge that has been accumulated by mankind up until now puts you in a position where it might be possible to understand things that couldn't be understood before) you're not interpreting anything, but following someone elses interpretation.

Edit: What is your position on the good friday prayer for the jews?


----------



## Xorkoth

Do you believe in heaven and hell, and eternal damnation or bliss based on acceptance of Jesus and confessing sins, SKL?  That's a concept I have never been able to get behind; to me it looks exactly like a social control mechanism and the idea that God would create that setup (why, for kicks?) really never jived with me at all.  So I'm curious about your thoughts on it.


----------



## SKL

240sxLover said:


> What I cannot understand about Catholicism and on a wider scale religion is the need to determine things as sinful when they do not effect others. For example, I believe in the inherent right for one to commit suicide, or to have an abortion, or to do drugs, or to have whatever sexuality one desires, because these things do not effect anyone except the individual taking part in them. Murder, rape, infidelity... these things effect others, and so obviously I can agree that they're wrong and sinful... but why are any of the individual-centric sins even sins in the first place? Do people truly believe God wants them to force *their*​ will upon others? To me, that sounds all to similar to murder, rape, and all the other sins of harming others. Did God not give us free will because he wants us to have to _choose_ to follow his teachings and not to be _forced_ to follow them?



God did give us free will. Without it, life would be rather meaningless (there was a thread in this forum that I skimmed recently on this subject.) This touches on the idea of predestination, which is more of an issue in, e.g., Calvinistic thought (or it's Catholic equivalent, Jansenism, deemed a heresy), which, in it's deviant formulation, holds that we lack free will and our actions and our salvation are predetermined before our birth; the authentic doctrine is more along the lines of this: we have our free will, but God, being outside of space and time (see my first post here), knows beforehand how we will exercise it. This does not diminish the fact that we have choices to make and we will be judged for it. God did not create us as automatons or puppets but as wholly independent moral agents, but this does not diminish the fact that He has established standards of right and wrong (as the omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator, His will is, _eo ipso_, the moral standard.) We have the ability to choose or reject God and His teachings, and may exercise it as we see fit, but we must face the eternal consequences. Free will does not mean the ability to anything we please without recompense. If it were so, how would we determine in any objective sense what is wrong and what is right?

As far as the "individual-centric" sins, as far as abortion goes, the only meaningful question is "when does human life begin?" and both Scripture and science seem to agree that it begins at, or soon after, conception. Suicide, as the saying goes, is a "permanent solution to a temporary problem," and in theological terms, represents giving up hope in God's plan for one's life, and taking matters into one's own hands, instead of putting one's trust in the Almighty, it is a sort of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," which is called the unpardonable sin, cf. Luke 12:10 and others, which, in context, was attributing the miracles of Christ to the devil, but, by extension, could mean rejecting God's jurisdiction over one's life, and in favor if it receiving something else, however, the Catechism of the Catholic church states,



			
				CCC 3§2(2) said:
			
		

> 2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.
> 
> 2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.
> 
> 2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
> 
> *Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.*
> 
> 2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.



Honestly, most cases of suicide would fall under the section that is in bold above, and are subject to God's forgiveness. A sort of wilfull exit to the world coupled with a wilful rejection of God's agency in one's life and the possibility of salvation, might be a different matter altogether. The specifics are mysteries known only to God, however. But as has been said here, our body is a temple, and our lives are guided by God, it is indeed a sort of blasphemy to cut them short.

As far as drug use goes, let's look again at the Catechism, at 2291, first in the Latin, because I see some issues in the standard English translation:



> Stupefactivorum medicamentorum usus gravissimas infligit valetudini et vitae humanae destructiones. Extra indicationes stricte therapeuticas, gravis est culpa. Clandestina stupefactivorum medicamentorum productio et mercatura operationes sunt scandalosae; cooperationem constituunt directam, quoniam ad usus legi morali incitant graviter contrarios.





> The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.



_Stupefactivorum mediacmentorum_ is translated rather inadequately in the English to "drugs," the better translation is rather obvious even if you don't have any Latin. "Stupefying," or "intoxicating" drugs, the rest of it discusses use or production _without strictly therapeutic purpose_, I think we can safely interpret this in the broadest possible sense despite the language (_stricte_), and even in a harm reduction sense (OST, for instance), but certainly to include the positive use of drugs in terms of therapy and personal growth, of course _not_ to include the _soi disant_ "spiritual" use of drugs to contact spiritual entities, etc., which in spiritual terms is extremely dangerous (viz. the danger of possession by malevolent preternatural forces, something which I'll be willing to discuss here also in terms of experiences of acquaintances of mine in the drug scene), see the use of the word φαρμακεία (_pharmakeia_, from which our "pharmacy," etc.) in Rev. 18:23, usually translated as "sorcery," but better as "divination through potions," which sound an awful lot like ayahuasca. But anyways, here in the CCC, what's really being condemned here is senseless hedonism, which goes together with the condemnation of senseless hedonism at the cost of the destruction of the body elsewhere. Clandestine manufacture of drugs being "scandalous" is in reference to their use and distribution outside of appropraite grounds, and in terms of the _promotion of sin_ (i.e., scandal), that is to say, their manufacture and distribution simply to profit from people's addiction and hedonism.

(This is as good a point as any to point out that I am a seriously problematic alcoholic, and have in the past had serious issues with addiction to ther drugs, and this is both a spiritual and physical disease of mine but also a great sin, which requires both a spiritual and physical cure, both of which I aspire to.)



> What I'm really wanting to know is, where in God's teachings does it give man the right to effect another man's life? Did Jesus preach homophobia (legit question, is there anything about that in the new testament)? Is it truly necessary to try and force one's will upon others in order to be a true Christian?



In the Gospel of Matthew (19:3), discussing marriage, Jesus says: "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “_made them male and female_” Paul, more well-known, in Romans 1, states: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another..."

_Homophobia_ is a problematic term, there is no fear (_phobia_) in the Christian interpretation of same sex affection, rather, it is seen as _propensio objective inordinata_, that is, "intrinsically disordered," as the official translation has it, but better, "objectively contrary to the natural order," which points to the fact that the natural purpose of sexual intercourse is for procreation, not recreation. Only since the "Sexual Revolution" has it been seen in the mainstream as any other way. Of course, homosexuality has existed long before this, in varying contexts and with varying degrees of social acceptance. 

Keep in mind that _homosexuality_, as an inclination or "orientation," that is, _same-sex attraction_, or as a desire, is not a sin, it is a challenge given to some (such as is the predisposition to alcoholism or drug addiction), but homosexual _acts_ are seen as contrary to the natural order, and the identification with "gay" culture in the promotion of these acts is considered an occasion to scandal, that is, the promotion of sin, particularly with regards to the young, "... but he that shall scandalize (i.e., lead into sin) one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Mt. 18:6)

The Catechism on homosexuality:



			
				CCC 2357 et seq. said:
			
		

> Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
> 
> The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
> 
> Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.



However, this does not change the fact that homosexuality is in this sense seen as a deviation from God's plan for the dignified use of human sexuality, which is not for mere pleasure, but for the achievement of a higher goal, i.e. one of God's very first commandments to mankind, "be fruitful and multiply." John Paul II promulgated some very deep teachings on the theology of the body, and, incidentally, on the dignity and vocation of women. 



> I realize this touches on topics of heavy debate, and so I don't want anything more than an explanation for what gives Christians the right to effect their fellow man. I just want to know where in God's teachings it says to effect others, to _force your will upon others_, when so many major sins are sins _because_ they effect others.



Nowhere is it stated to force one's will upon others. This gets into the territory of the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, Luke 18:9 et seq.



> And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
> 
> And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.



Sexual sins are not more grave than other sins, but they are more talked about as we are, as a society, very preoccupied with sex. We, as Paul says, have _all_ sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sin cannot be legislated against, although efforts are made in the interests of a liveable civil society, but rather, approached with Christian love and understanding and evangelism.



Xorkoth said:


> One thing I'm wondering about is, if you don't believe god is "an old man in the sky with a beard", why do you still use the capitalized (and gendered) Him?  Is it just out of ritual/tradition or do you have some deeper reason for it?  I suppose I have the same question about the other traditionally capitalized words (God, Church, etc), but primarily about "Him/He".



God is not ontologically male, He is beyond male, female, or any other human category. The use of the capitalized & gendered pronoun is only traditional.



> I can only back this up with feelings of course, but I always thought it made more sense, after reading the NT, that Jesus was trying to say, look, you CAN be like me, I'm doing it, so can you. Rather than saying, no one can be as perfect as me but you can try.  Also the idea that Jesus, as a human, was perfect always felt like a device put in place after he had been deified within the hundred or hundreds of years between his actual life and when the NT books were written.  A great man, yes, a great example, but a man even so.



We are called to perfection (Matthew 5:48, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,") Christ was perfect, thus this is our goal, but we inevitably fall short, thus the need for salvation.

Not believing, of course, in the divinity of Christ, one sees him only as "a great man," or as the Muslims and some New Age types believe, the final prophet, or such, but the Church teaches the incarnation, which I will be glad to address somewhat later, but it's getting late and my time at the moment is limited ...



> I think the cultural happenings of the time during which the books were written and the adoption of Catholicism is crucial to take into account.  Rome was in trouble because Christianity was catching on and they were losing their hold over the population.  In adopting this new religion, it seems to me their goal was certainly, at least in part of not in total, to gain control over the population again.



Christianity in Rome was, before it's official acceptance, wholly a persecuted outsider movement, although it began to gain considerable ground. Constantine's acceptance of Christianity (incidentally, he was only baptized on his death-bed, which would seem to indicate that he truly believed it would benefit him in the afterlife, versus it being only politically expedient) was according to tradition related to divine intervention at the Bridge of Milvia, but even if this is not believed, came from the gradual ascent of Christianity over Roman Paganism as it better suited the spiritual needs of the people at this time. St Augustine, almost contemporary, wrote an entire lengthy book (_The City of God_) on these quite complex questions.



> Besides that, it had already been hundreds of years since Jesus's life when these things we take as gospel were actually written.  How could there be a fully accurate account of what actually went down, especially given the ultimate motive of adopting the religion in the first place?  And what is the reason for accepting some writing and discarding others, especially when some have a pretty different implication (for example, the gnostic books, which were written closer to his life)?



Will address this later and in greater detail as it is a question which deserves more attention and I don't have time now.



> Does this mean that you believe in the idea of sex as a sin?  And that conception that is non-immaculate is a sinful thing?



Sex, as I've mentioned above, directed towards it's intended purpose, is no sin but rather a beautiful thing and a gift of God. The _immaculate conception_ as a technical theological term refers to the idea that by God's grace the taint of original sin was not passed on to Mary; afterwards, she is by Church doctrine held to have lived a blameless life, thus to have been an appropriate vessel for the birth of Christ. It does not refer _per se_ to sexuality.



> Why should a ritualized object or action be necessary for these things?  Or is the ritual just the means of connecting to that spiritual idea (of reconciling, washing away previous sin, etc)?



Also will address later when I have more time, along with the balance of *@Foreigner*'s questions and the ones raised later in this thread. Also *@tokezu*'s questions especially about the _usus antiquior_ or the Latin Mass, and several other questions about the liturgy through the centuries and the spiritual importance of liturgy and sacraments ... incredibly important questions, and I want to do them justice.

More later,
SKL.


----------



## drug_mentor

SKL said:


> This is a pretty easy one for me. The teachings of Christ and the Scriptures are of course laudable and indeed, taken in totality, the most perfect moral system devised, in fact this perfection of morality is to me one of the proofs of it's divinity; however, this doesn't mean that we can just take the words that we approve of and run with it.






SKL said:


> God did give us free will. Without it, life would be rather meaningless (there was a thread in this forum that I skimmed recently on this subject.) This touches on the idea of predestination, which is more of an issue in, e.g., Calvinistic thought (or it's Catholic equivalent, Jansenism, deemed a heresy), which, in it's deviant formulation, holds that we lack free will and our actions and our salvation are predetermined before our birth; the authentic doctrine is more along the lines of this: we have our free will, but God, being outside of space and time (see my first post here), knows beforehand how we will exercise it. This does not diminish the fact that we have choices to make and we will be judged for it. God did not create us as automatons or puppets but as wholly independent moral agents, but this does not diminish the fact that He has established standards of right and wrong (as the omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator, His will is, _eo ipso_, the moral standard.) We have the ability to choose or reject God and His teachings, and may exercise it as we see fit, but we must face the eternal consequences. Free will does not mean the ability to anything we please without recompense. If it were so, how would we determine in any objective sense what is wrong and what is right?



How do you explain the Book of Job if Catholicism is "perfection of morality" and God's will is the moral standard?

I am not well informed on the bible, but as I understand it the Book of Job is about an extremely pious individual who God inflicts serious suffering upon in order to prove a point to the devil. Assuming I am not mistaken it is hard to see how causing a good person to suffer in order to prove a point is perfect morality.

Doesn't the bible also endorse slavery, or at least fail to condemn it? Again, not seeing the perfect morality thing here.

Also, safe sex by consenting adults hurts nobody. What kind of moral system would condemn people to eternal suffering for engaging in activity which hurts nobody? You say sex isn't about hedonism, it is about reproduction, but why? Why can't it be about both? Safe consensual sex does not stop anyone else from procreating. It certainly seems like an arbitrary thing to condemn people over to me.

I don't think you could outline a coherent metaphysics where omniscience is possible but free will exists. Saying "well he exists outside of space and time" is not even close to a sufficient explanation of foreknowledge, let alone omniscience. One might think that existing outside of space and time may well give a being less insight into what goes on inside it, not more. 

Can you offer a better explanation of how God is omniscient and free will exists than this? Just saying "well he exists outside of space and time" doesn't actually explain a single thing. An entity knowing what decisions we will make implies that we can only make the decisions that we do, which is antithetical to free will.



SKL said:


> Suicide, as the saying goes, is a "permanent solution to a temporary problem," and in theological terms, represents giving up hope in God's plan for one's life, and taking matters into one's own hands, instead of putting one's trust in the Almighty, it is a sort of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," which is called the unpardonable sin



Doesn't the fact that the unpardonable sin is a refusal to adhere to "God's plan" seem incredibly arrogant to you? 

One question I have always had about Abrahamic religions in general has to do with compulsory Church/Synagogue/Mosque attendance. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being have such an ego that it required all its followers to build monuments to them and spend a considerable portion of their lives congregating in these monuments and talking about how great said omnipotent and omniscient being is?



SKL said:


> Keep in mind that homosexuality, as an inclination or "orientation," that is, same-sex attraction, or as a desire, is not a sin, it is a challenge given to some (such as is the predisposition to alcoholism or drug addiction)



Why does God give some people these challenges and not others? It doesn't seem like perfect morality to arbitrarily make salvation more difficult for some people than others.


----------



## boiledfruit

SKL, you mentioned the Self earlier. Did you dabble in Buddhism, Hinduism, or both? What did you not understand about the Self?


----------



## drug_mentor

^ I don't think he is coming back.

Unfortunately, I tend to find many religious people disappear quite quickly once you start asking difficult philosophical questions about their doctrine.


----------



## Damien

Xorkoth said:


> Do you believe in heaven and hell, and eternal damnation or bliss based on acceptance of Jesus and confessing sins, SKL?  That's a concept I have never been able to get behind; to me it looks exactly like a social control mechanism and the idea that God would create that setup (why, for kicks?) really never jived with me at all.  So I'm curious about your thoughts on it.



Hey Xorkoth, I hope all is well with you and yours. 

Listen to the first segment of this podcast for some thoughts on your inquiry:
http://donjohnsonministries.org/on-hell-and-how-to-avoid-it/


----------



## SKL

No I didn't leave/forget about this thread just have been preoccupied with other things. I'll post some more tonight but I'm at work now.


----------



## SKL

Long overdue:



Mysterie said:


> as to the 'sign of contradiction', am i understanding that is right where, if your faith is challenged by someone else, it strengthens your resolve to follow it. basically if you receive criticism for your beliefs then it validates your view that you should be in the world but not of the world.
> 
> is it really worth dismissing everything that doesn't align with your current belief  system? i understand blanket statements like "the world would be better off without catholicism" are not worth giving any thought to, but do you ever find new information in regards to your relationship to god that doesn't fit in your paradigm, and listen to it?



Part of the reason that I converted to Catholicism as I believe I discussed _supra_ has to deal with questions of authority, and part of being Catholic is submitting to the authority of the Church. Part of the problem with Protestantism, New Age "spirituality," the modern trend of being "spiritual but not religious," etc., etc. is that every man becomes his own Pope. There is no objectivity. Yes, spirituality is a very personal thing, but if there is such a thing as an objective spiritual truth, which I maintain that there is and necessarily must be if there is indeed a spiritual reality, then there has to be a medium for it's interpretation and transmission to ourselves. That, for the Catholic, is Scripture, Tradition, and Holy Mother Church. Scripture we do not look at as Protestants do: in the terms that we can just read the text and divine for ourselves it's meaning - this is is a sort of _bibliotary_ and approaches the Islamic theological idea of the Qu'ran as the literal Word of God (_verbum Dei_, which in Christian theology refers to Christ himself, c.f. the prologue to the Gospel of John) - but rather that it is to be interpreted in an organic way throughout the centuries long history of the Church and it's Tradition. Tradition, capitalized, means the authoritative Tradition of the Church that is passed down authoritatively on such matters as Divine Liturgy, Scriptural interpretation, etc., "tradition," not capitalized, is things like folk religion that do not establish authoritative theological truths _per se_.

I might as well put a note in here about _papal infallability_. In contrast to many characterizations this does not mean the Pope cannot be wrong about any given topic or that he cannot sin (that would be _impeccability_), but rather that when pronouncing a theological truth solemnly, _ex cathedra_, "from the chair [of Peter]," and doing so explicitly, that he is guided by the Holy Spirit. This is very rarely done, in fact it was last done in 1950 with the final endorsement of the (long-held by most) doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.



tokezu said:


> Interesting Thread!
> 
> You said that you prefer the latin mass, right? Do you mean that in the sense that every mass should be held in latin? I mean I could (kind of) understand if you want to go to a latin mass every once in a while, because you want to honor the tradition and maybe find it aesthetically pleasing. But isn't it rather important to understand what the priest has to tell you? What do you gain exactly that is worth trading it in for the understanding of what is spoken about in mass? I assume you are not fluent in latin, are you?
> Does it bother you that the tradition of the latin mass has a lot to do with keeping people unable to question the content or do you disagree with that interpretation?



It is not just about the language. I am not fluent in Latin by any means but I have enough Latin, based on a few classes and Mass attendance, to understand what is going on in Mass. My Latin Missal has English translations whereby we can follow along. The Scripture readings and the Homily are given in English. I prefer the _usus antiquior_ because it connects me with many more centuries of Catholic history than the _usus modernus_, which while it is just as efficacious as a Sacrament, is somewhat pared down, especially in the way it is often performed (it _can_ still be performed in Latin, but the text is not the same, and the level of elaboration in the ritual is not either) lacks the same context and weight of history. I do not believe, as some more radical traditionalists do, that the New Mass is invalid, but rather that the Old Mass has, for some including myself, a spiritual benefit of connecting us with the faith of our forefathers.



tokezu said:


> other stuff



This I am going to have to defer for later as it is getting late for me and this is already a long post. The theology of Christ's sacrifice is a complex one but I'll get around to it , probably after doing some reading. Some of it will have been answerd above.



> Edit: What is your position on the good friday prayer for the jews?



The earlier and more controversial prayer is _pro perfidis judaeis_. "Perfidis" and our English "perfidious" are to some extent "false friends." A better translation would be the "faithless Jews," i.e. those Jews who have not accepted Christ as _Moschiach_ (the terms are equivalent, but clearly not to a Jew who does not believe in Jesus as Christ.) In later versions of the Latin liturgy, the word _perfidis_ was removed but the intercession of God was still asked to "remove the veil from [the Jew's] hearts." The Vatican II liturgy asks that Jews "be brought to the fulness of redemption." Really these are asking the same thing in different, and perhaps softer, language. If we are to admit the truth of Catholicism, and the Church as the spiritual perfection of God's promises to Israel, it is only naturally that we should pray for the Jews that they embrace this. This is not anti-Semitic in the sense of being anti-Jewish, but rather expresses a sincere wish that the Jews accept what is in the Catholic view the completion of the Jewish faith in it's Messiah.



drug_mentor said:


> How do you explain the Book of Job if Catholicism is "perfection of morality" and God's will is the moral standard?
> 
> I am not well informed on the bible, but as I understand it the Book of Job is about an extremely pious individual who God inflicts serious suffering upon in order to prove a point to the devil. Assuming I am not mistaken it is hard to see how causing a good person to suffer in order to prove a point is perfect morality.



I can't possibly do this justice in a forum post, but the message of the Book of Job, whether one looks at it in a literary, allegorical, or literal manner, is about "why good things happen to bad people," and is also one of the great literary works of the ancient world. If only for that reason I'd encourage you and others to read it. Job, who sees himself as blameless, puts the blame on his friends for their suffering, and then, when he suffers himself, accuses God of injustice, and then it is revealed to him that God is beyond Job's conception of justice, and his reasons are inscrutable. God does not offer Job the backstory of "proving a point to the devil," but merely affirms His majesty. This is a sort of answer to the "problem of evil," if not a satisfactory one to the nonbeliever - certain things in God's plan are beyond our ken.



> Doesn't the bible also endorse slavery, or at least fail to condemn it? Again, not seeing the perfect morality thing here.



The Bible does not _per se_ endorse slavery but is written in a cultural context in which slavery was a real thing, and thereby enjoins slaves to obey their masters, soldiers their commanders, etc. The Bible was written by men, albeit under the inspiration of God, but was written by and for men in a particular cultural context and this should effect our modern exegesis. However, read the brief epistle of Paul to Philemon, wherein Paul asks that the slave Onesimus be recieved "as a brother beloved." 



> Also, safe sex by consenting adults hurts nobody. What kind of moral system would condemn people to eternal suffering for engaging in activity which hurts nobody? You say sex isn't about hedonism, it is about reproduction, but why? Why can't it be about both? Safe consensual sex does not stop anyone else from procreating. It certainly seems like an arbitrary thing to condemn people over to me.



More on this later, under the heading "theology of the body," wherein there is a lot of good literature including some texts by the late pope John Paul II.



> I don't think you could outline a coherent metaphysics where omniscience is possible but free will exists. Saying "well he exists outside of space and time" is not even close to a sufficient explanation of foreknowledge, let alone omniscience. One might think that existing outside of space and time may well give a being less insight into what goes on inside it, not more.
> 
> Can you offer a better explanation of how God is omniscient and free will exists than this? Just saying "well he exists outside of space and time" doesn't actually explain a single thing. An entity knowing what decisions we will make implies that we can only make the decisions that we do, which is antithetical to free will.



More on this later too (it's getting late for me.)



> Doesn't the fact that the unpardonable sin is a refusal to adhere to "God's plan" seem incredibly arrogant to you?



No, to the contrary, if we accept God as per the Christian definition, the incredibly arrogant thing is to assume that we would be able to dictate to God what is and is not sin.



> One question I have always had about Abrahamic religions in general has to do with compulsory Church/Synagogue/Mosque attendance. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being have such an ego that it required all its followers to build monuments to them and spend a considerable portion of their lives congregating in these monuments and talking about how great said omnipotent and omniscient being is?



(I) _On architecture_. These physical structures and rituals are not for God's sake, but for man's. The old cathedrals of Europe, some of the most wonderful artistic, technical, and architectural achievements in human history, were made "to glorify God," but that does not mean that God, existing as He does in eternity, needs any glorification, because glory is in His very being. They are made to "glorify God" _to man_, and to be "a Gospel wrought in stone." They are something for us to observe and to meditate upon, a very slight physical shadow of the glory of God, but something which we can focus our attention upon. Building such structures is a sign of our devotion and a message to future generations (keep in mind that the old cathedrals would take several generation just to construct.) Modern church buildings, however, don't always live up to that standard.

(II) _On Liturgy_. Again, this is not because God needs us to praise Him, but rather that we need to praise Him, acknowledge our place in the universe relative to His, and make His Word and Sacraments central to our lives, by which we recieve Divine Grace, which is our salvation but also the sustinence of our spiritual lives. Sacraments is not a topic that I've gotten into much in this thread and will try later on especially if anyone has a specific question.



> Why does God give some people these challenges and not others? It doesn't seem like perfect morality to arbitrarily make salvation more difficult for some people than others.



This is a great mystery. As in, _why do bad things happen to good people_? Some are called to greater challenges than others. This is more or less what the Book of Job is about. I may elaborate on this later.



boiledfruit said:


> SKL, you mentioned the Self earlier. Did you dabble in Buddhism, Hinduism, or both? What did you not understand about the Self?



I'm not quite sure what you're asking. And no, I did not dabble in Eastern religion and my knowledge of both Buddhism and Hinduism is rather superficial, I've read the _Bhagavad Gita_ in English and have a close family member who has converted to Buddhism with whom I've enjoyed many pretty deep conversations, but I can't say I'm well versed in the ontology of either faith.


----------



## Kittycat5

Do you enjoy the rituals of Catholicism, specifically Sunday mass? I was raised Catholic and attended church nearly every Sunday until I was around 13 or so, and even though it has been over 20 years since I was a regular attendee, I can still hear our priests chanting "Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit..." and the church's musicians playing Lamb of God, You Take Away the Sins of the World as if it were yesterday. I admit the whole production of mass always interested me and I would enjoy noticing the slight differences in either the wording, rhythm, or timing of mass at different churches. 

But in many ways, the overall consistentcy of Catholic mass is a detriment. Because it is so impersonable, it becomes something like a Sunday errand and many just go through the motions rather than actually wanting to be there and worse, not even bothering to understand the words being spoken as a glorification of God from the whole community and the personal work needs to be done outside of church. This of course makes for a very poor community feeling among many parishioners, something far less noticeable in the other religious communities I have been exposed to through family and friends. Presbyterianism, Judaism, Coptic Orthodoxy, and Jainism (the ones I have seen personally) all seem to do a much better job at either creating a dynamic and varied worship procedure and/or fostering a sense of common ground among their devotees to the point many of the followers of these religions would immediately turn to their house of worship in times of need and know help would be provided. Catholics, for the most part would seek other means first and I feel it is because the monotonous, ritualistic nature of Catholic mass has trivialized faith to a chore.

You also mentioned how cosmology has an element of faith to some of its theories, as does religion. While I do not agree 100%, I will not deny the thought has crossed my mind. I assume you are speaking about the theories of eternal inflation, the multiverse, and perhaps the fine-tuning problem, of which the cosmological constant is the hardest to dismiss as mere chance. I watched a video recently on the subject of the origin of the universe which contained interviews from a broad range of scientists. Physicists, neuroscientists, philosophy of science and others were all represented and gave a nice chronology of both the origin of our universe and how we came to understand it. It started with the Big Bang and gave the evidence for it and proceeded to discuss inflationary cosmology. None of it was particularly new to me until they started talking about how we found out the universe is accelerating, how small the cosmological constant is especially in regards to theorized numbers of its value, and how it lead to the idea of the multiverse as being something other than science fiction. Again, I was aware of all these ideas but the video did a nice job of linking them together. 

But what really piqued my attention was when a physicist I have deep respect for talked about how they don't really feel comfortable or even the need to bring design of the universe even in the face of data they have no way of ever explaining and hence the multiverse was born. I immediately thought "why not, it as plausible an explanation of observed data as anything science has and thus should be considered." Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the type of scientific leap of faith you may be talking about.

But what if we could conclusively prove the existence of multiple universes and eternal inflation? What if we solve the problem of quantum gravity and this allows us to build theories and test what happened before the Big Bang and perhaps even create a bubble universe ourselves? Things like this may seem like like either untestable or unfalsifiable hogwash, but there already plans in the work to look for such things via space telescopes, gravitational wave detectors, and the Large Hadron Collider. In the face of incontrovertible scientific evidence that only natural processes created our universe, would you give up your faith in God? 

If any of this seems like mumbo-jumbo to you, let me know and I will give a bit more detail that may make it easier to answer. Don't worry, I am not going to write equations as I do not know them, but will fill in gaps to the best of my understanding.


----------



## SKL

Kittycat5 said:


> Do you enjoy the rituals of Catholicism, specifically Sunday mass? I was raised Catholic and attended church nearly every Sunday until I was around 13 or so, and even though it has been over 20 years since I was a regular attendee, I can still hear our priests chanting "Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit..." and the church's musicians playing Lamb of God, You Take Away the Sins of the World as if it were yesterday. I admit the whole production of mass always interested me and I would enjoy noticing the slight differences in either the wording, rhythm, or timing of mass at different churches.
> 
> But in many ways, the overall consistentcy of Catholic mass is a detriment. Because it is so impersonable, it becomes something like a Sunday errand and many just go through the motions rather than actually wanting to be there and worse, not even bothering to understand the words being spoken as a glorification of God from the whole community and the personal work needs to be done outside of church. This of course makes for a very poor community feeling among many parishioners, something far less noticeable in the other religious communities I have been exposed to through family and friends. Presbyterianism, Judaism, Coptic Orthodoxy, and Jainism (the ones I have seen personally) all seem to do a much better job at either creating a dynamic and varied worship procedure and/or fostering a sense of common ground among their devotees to the point many of the followers of these religions would immediately turn to their house of worship in times of need and know help would be provided. Catholics, for the most part would seek other means first and I feel it is because the monotonous, ritualistic nature of Catholic mass has trivialized faith to a chore.



Soundtrack: Palestrina, Missa Papæ Marcelli, which is not what you will encounter in an average Catholic Mass, but which follows the structure entire, this of course in the Extraordinary (Traditional Latin) form of the Mass, although the basic structure remains the same.

I have to very much disagree with you, here. I have travelled through various Christian denominations before finding Holy Mother Church, some of them more, or less, liturgical than others. Most mainline Protestant churches follow some sort of loose liturgical structure that is ultimately derived from Catholic antecedents; the more radically divergent (from the Catholic perspective) Pentecostal/Charismatic/Evangelical/Fundamentalist and similar churches try to do away with this, but, I think, to their detriment. 

The Holy Litrugy is a part of Sacred Tradition, which connects us with our ancestors and our forefathers in the faith. The Western Liturgy remained to a certain extent inchoate until the Council of Trent (mid-16th century), although the essential features were the same, which essential features are extremely ancient. The various parts of the liturgy are probably too many to discuss in any degree of detail here, but suffice to say they is definitive structure with a definitive meaning.

I am hardly qualified to get into all the theological and sacramental details here, but the point is, the structure here serves a purpose. There is a general outline which is altered according to the liturgical season which, year by year, repeats the soteriological narrative of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, together with the rest of the Scriptures. The priest's job during the homily is to expound upon the texts of the day as to impart teaching to the congregants, but the texts and the liturgy remain the same, just as they have for our forefathers going back centuries. This, to me, is the most important part of having a liturgy. If I take part in an mass, whether ordinary. i.e., in the local vernacular, in my case, English), I am following the general structure, albeit a simplified one, of the Tridentine Latin Mass, which in the 16th century codified and made into defintive forum the various local uses (or traditional forms of the Mass) throughout Christendom, or if I take part of the traditional, I take part in a ritual which stretches back to my forefathers unto time immemorial. The Scriptural texts have not changed, the lectionary has not changed, the Liturgy has undergone only minimal and essentially cosmetic changes (although for a variety of reasons I prefer 1962 Latin text) ... we, as Catholics, believe that the ritual _eo ipso_ invokes the supernatural, but even discounting matters of faith, I believe there is something essentially important in connecting with something that goes so far back in history. 

"Contemporary" worship disconnected from liturgical tradition is often banal and disconnected from our history. Our faith is not lived, existentially, in the moment, but rather in continuity with previous generations, that is part of what makes us Catholic, _καθολικός_, universal ... we are not just about our individual experience or whether we enjoy a worship service, but rather we are about connecting to a rich history that stretches back to Christ himself and throughout the history of our fathers and forefathers, lived out liturgically in an ever-repeating cycle. We, in a very real sense, are not praying only as and for ourselves, but for and with our forefathers, living and deceased unto time immemorial, and indeed all of the world, this is the meaning of the _communion of the saints_ in the Creed. This is the essence of the liturgy: there is a depth to this that goes beyond our individual histories, and in this is it's very essential appeal, and also here is the fundamental _signum contra dicere_, the fundamental offence to moderns: why should we look to the past to guide us spiritually, liturgically, morally? Have not the advances of the past century liberated us from these constrictions? The Catholic answer is no, they have not: rather, we are cast adrift in the chaos of modernity, and only by holding fast to tradition, including liturgy, may we find our spiritual mooring the chaos of today.



> multiverse, etc.



More later, as well as to the posts above, to which I have promised more later.


----------



## tokezu

That's very interesting, what you wrote about the liturgy. Thank you, SKL. But if you find the time, could you write an answer to this?



tokezu said:


> Does it bother you that the tradition of the latin mass has a lot to do with keeping people unable to question the content or do you disagree with that interpretation?


----------



## SKL

tokezu said:


> That's very interesting, what you wrote about the liturgy. Thank you, SKL. But if you find the time, could you write an answer to this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it bother you that the tradition of the latin mass has a lot to do with keeping people unable to question the content or do you disagree with that interpretation?
Click to expand...


Sure. I think I touched on it somewhere above, but it might bear some more elaboration. "Keeping people unable to question, etc." I would pretty much characterize as a Protestant canard. Yes, there was significant opposition in the Church to translation of Sacred Scripture into the vernacular, and, to be quite honest, not without good reason, especially in that era. Communication across Christendom was very slow and local power easily consolidated, so heretical sects could readily arise, viz. the Albigensians, based on false interpretations of Scripture, and a central authority was (and still is) needed to interpret Scripture to the layman. Individual interpretation of Scripture lends itself to having as many interpretations of Scriptures as they are individuals, and while this may fit in well with our subjectivist modern ideas about spirituality ("moralistic therapeutic deism" &c.) it is antithetical to the Catholic understanding of our spiritual and sacramental life as being grounded in Sacred Scripture. Now, by no means do I believe that the educated Catholic should be without Scriptural knowledge: much the opposite, but the exegesis had ought to be done under the guidance of the Holy Mother Church.

The Protestant response to this is more or less that the Holy Spirit will guide individual Protestants in forming their own exegesis, but the contrary is rather demonstrated by the history of Protestantism, i.e. ten thousand denominations mutually excommunicating one another and having their own varying interpretations of Scripture, and stepping back from excommunicating one another only in favor of accepting some sort of moral relativism. What's more, after the great break of historical continuity that occurred with Luther but especially with Calvin and his spiritual descendants in the West, it is very hard to define a standard Christianity by these standards. Who is to say that the Seventh Day Adventists, or the Armstrongists, or Watchtower, or perhaps even the Mormons (a religion which bears about as much a relation to Christianity as does Islam, but that is another topic) have not gotten at the truth by virtue of (their claim to) the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, if we are not to defer to some sort of Sacred Tradition? And if we do so, why should that Tradition make an abrupt break with a 16th century friar? 

_Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation._ II Peter i, 20.

So the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is in the hands of the Church, and has been handed down to us in a linear mode since time immemorial. Now, without a doubt, there have been dark periods in the history of the Church where truth would be threatened by falsehood and also the obscurantism to which you refer to above, but nonetheless, as Catholics we believe that. by Divine Providence, Sacred Scripture and Tradition have been preserved from their origins until this very day.

_And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved._ Mt 24:11-13.

Now, as regards the Latin Mass ...

First of all, this being in contemporary times, when I attend a Mass in the _usus antiquior_, I bring a Missal that looks something like this:





Such that, while I have a little Latin, I can follow along even when my Latin fails me. 

The Scriptural readings and the Homily are always given in the vernacular.

The bits that are in the Latin are probably in the bare textual majority repeated in each (or in the great majority) of Masses, and the Catholic who attends Mass regularly will, with or without an interpretation in the vernacular like the above, if properly catechized, will have a sense of what is going on. The Latin that is recited by the laity at Mass is mostly the same day to day, and forms the structure that is the backbone of the mass. Most of it is intelligible to speakers of European langauges even if they have no Latin proper. _Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem,_ for instance. It would have been all the more intelligible to a Mass-goer who was steeped in Christian tradition in pre-Reformation times. The idea that the faithful were unaware of what was going on in the Mass due to not knowing Latin is patently false. They were catechized about the structure and meaning of the Mass, and beliefs around this were ubiquitous as Christian practice was wholly integrated into society at this time. Preaching in the vernacular was a common enough practice, especially with groups like the Dominicans, and while at times local priests were not particularly educated to do so or diligent in discharging this obligation, the Church or local ecclesiastical authorities did from time to time distribute sermons for the less learned clergy to pass on to their parishoners. 

Also, above all, the Mass is not about reading the text or even necessarily gaining something from it in an exegetical sense, it is a _sacrament_ with spiritual power imbued within it essentially. One does not need to comprehend the language being spoken in order to partake of the spiritual gifts. I could go to Mass in (say) Japanese, a language of which I have no knowledge, and not only would I be able to recognize what is going on, but in Catholic theological terms, I would reap the same spiritual benefits.

I hope this helps ...


----------



## tokezu

Yes that cleared it up some more for me, thanks. From my point of view it seems as if the



SKL said:


> dark periods in the history of the Church where truth would be threatened by falsehood and also the obscurantism to which you refer to above


have tainted these traditions so much, that I feel like it's sending the wrong signal to still uphold them today. But this is obviously because I don't place much value on these traditions in the first place. I have to disagree with your statement, that before the reformation lay people knew exactly what was going on in mass and understood the ideas behind it, but that is a historical debate that doesn't really have a place here.

Although I find it very hard to wrap my head around some of these concepts (e.g. the purpose of the mass as a sacrament and not to bring across important content), I very much appreciate you taking the time and energy to answer all these questions. I really like discussing stuff like this, but every Christian (even theologians) I have spoken with about this seemed to subscribe to what you called "moralistic therapeutic deism" and pretty soon retreated to a position of "In the end it's really just about doing what feels right for you." whenever difficult questions arose, which I always found very frustrating.

Edit: Almost forgot... Fixed that for you 


SKL said:


> based on *imho* false interpretations of Scripture


----------



## pinkbuffalo91

From drugs to a dogmatic religion is pretty normal. Especially when is sounds as if lock up was involved, that gives you a chance to view your mortality in an exaggerated extent.


----------



## sigmond

Do you feel accepted by your fellow Catholics?


----------



## socko

SKL said:


> ...
> Also, above all, the Mass is not about reading the text or even necessarily gaining something from it in an exegetical sense, it is a _sacrament_ with spiritual power imbued within it essentially. One does not need to comprehend the language being spoken in order to partake of the spiritual gifts. I could go to Mass in (say) Japanese, a language of which I have no knowledge, and not only would I be able to recognize what is going on, but in Catholic theological terms, I would reap the same spiritual benefits.
> 
> I hope this helps ...


It's interesting you say that.  What is it about the mass that you feel and experience?  I'm not a Christian, but I went to Mass this evening and felt something very uplifting about it. It was very contemplative. It makes you want to "Ascend" if that is possible.I only listened and tried to follow along, but could not understand much. It was in Latin and the location was Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris because that is very close to my flat. On one hand, the ceremony itself as well as the art and architecture is uplifting, but there is more to it than that. You could find a visit to a museum or listening to a symphony uplifting as well, but in a different way.


----------



## SKL

Sigmond said:


> Do you feel accepted by your fellow Catholics?



Interesting question. Given my history with drugs and crime and suchlike, I feel pretty alienated from much of society. Alot of what I've done and what I've experienced I feel very difficult to share with people who haven't been in that world. As far as other parishioners at services or what not, I do feel a certain difficulty in relating as my lived experience has been so dramatically different. However, in terms of sacraments, I know that the church is not a place for perfect beings but a hospital for the spiritually sick and the sinner. In the confessional any priest has probably heard worse. At Mass, we remind ourselves that we have sinned and we are the greatest of sinners. The acceptance of God, rather than our peers, is what is important, and that comes through prayer, confession, and contrition. 



socko said:


> It's interesting you say that.  What is it about the mass that you feel and experience?  I'm not a Christian, but I went to Mass this evening and felt something very uplifting about it. It was very contemplative. It makes you want to "Ascend" if that is possible.I only listened and tried to follow along, but could not understand much. It was in Latin and the location was Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris because that is very close to my flat. On one hand, the ceremony itself as well as the art and architecture is uplifting, but there is more to it than that. You could find a visit to a museum or listening to a symphony uplifting as well, but in a different way.



Why did you have a subjective experience that is uplifting in the Mass, even if you are not a practicing Catholic?

Catholic answer: you were in the presence of the Real Presence of Christ in the form of the transubstantiated bread and wine, which exerts it's powerful presence even to the unbeliever.

Secular answer: you were in a place and participating in a ceremony who's origin which connects you, even subconsciously, with a hundred generations of your forefathers, which cannot but have a psychological impact upon you, whether you are a believer or not.

Both are important IMO. As a (relatively) secular (but nominally Christian) individual before my conversion, it was the latter part, the history and the continuity with the history of my forefathers that really attracted me to Christianity, the _hermeneutic of continuity_ as Benedict XVI put it ... from that I drew my interest in the Catholic faith or the Catholic exegesis of Scripture, tradition and Tradition.


----------



## noone1

I'm still interested to see what your answer is to the "historicity" of Catholicism. It's a fact that what we have are copies of copies of copies altered by scribes through both accident and bias. Not even getting into the council of nicea and how so many texts where expunged and chosen. 

If this was all directed by God then what does history have to do with it? You're still basing things on faith not logic and reason.


----------



## ForcePower8

I don't know if you want to continue this thread or not, but one question that did come to mind is one of prayer. Oftentimes when people are confused about religion they pray to "whoever or whatever is listening" and not to the specific god of any religion. In Catholic theology, when someone prays like that (basically sending out a signal to see if anyone responds) does the Christian god hear that prayer and respond or does the prayer have to be directed specifically at Jesus or Yahweh to be valid?


----------



## sigmond

Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God? What do you think about Lewis's trilemma?


> I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.
> 
> That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.
> 
> You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma


----------



## Xorkoth

I fail to see the logic in that argument.  What makes it impossible for him to be a great human teacher and not something beyond that?  Does the author think that humans are incapable of great insight and wisdom, and that any appearance of such is either madness, evil, or else god?


----------



## Damien

Xorkoth said:


> I fail to see the logic in that argument.  What makes it impossible for him to be a great human teacher and not something beyond that?  Does the author think that humans are incapable of great insight and wisdom, and that any appearance of such is either madness, evil, or else god?



It has to do with Jesus' message in particular; that he is the Son of God, that we should follow him, and that apart from him we can do nothing. The point is that a lot of people like to remember certain things Jesus said while leaving other stuff on the table. Check out Matthew chapter 10, in particular verses 34-39 for and example.


----------



## Xorkoth

I think that particular message was distorted for social control purposes.  My belief is that Jesus was saying that we're all god and all we need to do is treat each other right and work together and we can have paradise.  Of course I don't really know that.  It just seems to me, from reading the NT through multiple times when I was much younger and struggling with the whole concept of Christianity, that the messages are too contradictory.  Then when I found out that they were written well after his death, as much as one hundred or more years, and that many books were omitted (including ones written closer to his life that have quite a different tone), I just stopped believing that the words in the NT are actually the unadulterated words of the actual person.


----------



## Damien

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?


----------



## sigmond

Xorkoth said:


> I fail to see the logic in that argument.  What makes it impossible for him to be a great human teacher and not something beyond that?  Does the author think that humans are incapable of great insight and wisdom, and that any appearance of such is either madness, evil, or else god?



The argument does not deny that Jesus was a great moral teacher the issue is that he claimed to be the "Son of God". There were many great moral teachers who lived before Jesus but what makes Jesus unique is his birth, crucifixion, resurrection and his claim to be the son of god. 


			
				Matthew 27:39 said:
			
		

> Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”





			
				Matthew 27:43 said:
			
		

> He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God'.





Xorkoth said:


> I think that particular message was distorted for social control purposes.  My belief is that Jesus was saying that we're all god and all we need to do is treat each other right and work together and we can have paradise.  Of course I don't really know that.  It just seems to me, from reading the NT through multiple times when I was much younger and struggling with the whole concept of Christianity, that the messages are too contradictory.  Then when I found out that they were written well after his death, as much as one hundred or more years, and that many books were omitted (including ones written closer to his life that have quite a different tone), I just stopped believing that the words in the NT are actually the unadulterated words of the actual person.



I believe they consider this "The argument from history".


----------



## Jabberwocky

Ken Wilber upset a lot of people with his desire to create order out of human development, but he definitely said some things that make a lot of sense to me personally. This quote of his from "The Translucent Revolution" sums it up for me. 



> If you are in an ethnocentric stage of development and you have a unity-state experience of being one with everything, you might interpret that as an experience of oneness with Jesus and conclude that nobody can be saved unless they accept Jesus as their personal savior. If you are at an egocentric stage and have the same experience, you might believe that you yourself are Jesus. If you are at an integral stage you are likely to conclude that you and all sentient beings without exception are one in the spirit.



I like to believe Jesus taught the integral version


----------



## sigmond

The accepting Christ as lord and savior has been an issue for me. I am inclined and have a desire to believe in God although my rational self is sort of on the fence. The antecedent of accepting Jesus as lord and savior makes believing more difficult.


----------



## Jabberwocky

Yeah, it would be for me too if accepting Jesus as lord and savior had an everyday meaning of one specific individual. I just want to be clear that I never even read the bible but Jesus is in my consciousness a lot. Guess it helps to have a face and name to go along with a message, but I don't think personally it's about idolizing the messenger. I studied his channelled teachings in A course in miracles so can only speak to that. 



> traditional Christianity teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross atoned for our sins and reopened the gates of Heaven. God then raised him from the dead as proof that Jesus was the Son of God, and that his sacrifice bridged the gap that occurred between God and His children when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden. The Gospel account tells of the resurrection of the body and establishes that fact as a fundamental belief for many Christian sects.



That viewpoint isn't how I look at it and contradicts what I learned about it


----------



## sigmond

My last comments were mainly in the context of Christianity. I have been entertaining the idea of identifying as a Christian however would not want to do so in 'bad faith'. I do want to take a leap of faith in some direction rather than living as a nihilist.


----------



## Damien

Sigmond said:


> The accepting Christ as lord and savior has been an issue for me. I am inclined and have a desire to believe in God although my rational self is sort of on the fence. The antecedent of accepting Jesus as lord and savior makes believing more difficult.



I think you find a theistic God with reason but I think that belief in Jesus' divinity takes faith. You should look into classic theism. Check out people like Edward Feser or David Bently Hart.


----------



## drug_mentor

> I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.
> 
> That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.
> 
> You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.



This is a fairly text book example of a false dilemma. Lewis asserts without argument that these are the only three possibilities, and it seems pretty clear that there are numerous other things Jesus might have been instead. He may have been a benevolent liar, for example.

Even if one was to buy into the fallacy that Jesus could have only been one of these three things, is there any real evidence that he wasn't a lunatic? I mean, last I checked (admittedly some time ago) there was some credible disagreement over whether Jesus ever even existed at all. My point is that very little is known about him, much of what is "known" was written by people who did not know him personally. We aren't talking concrete evidence here, it doesn't seem reasonable to take a strong position on the state of his mental health. 



Sigmond said:


> The argument does not deny that Jesus was a great moral teacher the issue is that he claimed to be the "Son of God". There were many great moral teachers who lived before Jesus but what makes Jesus unique is his birth, crucifixion, resurrection and his claim to be the son of god.



The problem is that none of the things which make Jesus unique entail that he has to be either a God, a madman or the Devil.

Lewis's trilemma is an objectively terrible argument.


----------



## sigmond

easier for me to just copy from peterkreeft



			
				Peter Kreeft said:
			
		

> The argument, like all effective arguments, is extremely simple: Christ was either God or a bad man.Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic.
> 
> For he _claimed_ to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)
> 
> Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today? Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities: he either speaks the truth or not. If he speaks the truth, he is God and the case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak the truth, then he is not God but a mere man.
> 
> But a mere man who wants you to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either morally or intellectually. If he knows that he is not God, then he is morally bad, a liar trying deliberately to deceive you into blasphemy. If he does not know that he is not God, if he sincerely thinks he is God, then he is intellectually bad—in fact, insane.





			
				Peter Kreeft said:
			
		

> The *first* escape is the attack of the Scripture "scholars" on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Perhaps Jesus never claimed to be divine. Perhaps all the embarrassing passages were inventions of the early Church (say "Christian community"—it sounds nicer).In that case, who invented traditional Christianity if not Christ? A lie, like a truth, must originate somewhere. Peter? The twelve? The next generation? What was the motive of whoever first invented the myth (euphemism for lie)?
> 
> What did they get out of this elaborate, blasphemous hoax? For it must have been a deliberate lie, not a sincere confusion. No Jew confuses Creator with creature, God with man. And no man confuses a dead body with a resurrected, living one.
> 
> Here is what they got out of their hoax. Their friends and families scorned them. Their social standing, possessions, and political privileges were stolen from them by both Jews and Romans. They were persecuted, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, exiled, crucified, eaten by lions, and cut to pieces by gladiators.
> 
> So some silly Jews invented the whole elaborate, incredible lie of Christianity for absolutely no reason, and millions of Gentiles believed it, devoted their lives to it, and died for it—for no reason. It was only a fantastic practical joke, a hoax.
> 
> Yes, there is a hoax indeed, but the perpetrators of it are the twentieth-century theologians, not the Gospel writers.





			
				Peter Kreeft said:
			
		

> The *second* escape (notice how eager we are to squirm out of the arms of God like a greased pig) is to Orientalize Jesus, to interpret him not as the unique God-man but as one of many mystics or "adepts" who realized his own inner divinity just as a typical Hindu mystic does. This theory takes the teeth out of his claim to divinity, for he only realized that everyone is divine.
> 
> The problem with that theory is simply that Jesus was not a Hindu but a Jew! When he said "God", neither he nor his hearers meant Brahman, the impersonal, pantheistic, immanent all; he meant Yahweh, the personal, theistic, transcendent Creator.
> 
> It is utterly unhistorical to see Jesus as a mystic, a Jewish guru. He taught prayer, not meditation. His God is a person, not a pudding. He said he was God but not that everyone was. He taught sin and forgiveness, as no guru does. He said nothing about the "illusion" of individuality, as the mystics do.
> 
> Attack each of these evasions—Jesus as the good man. Jesus as the lunatic, Jesus as the liar, Jesus as the man who never claimed divinity, Jesus as the mystic—take away these flight squares, and there is only one square left for the unbeliever's king to move to. And on that square waits checkmate. And a joyous mating it is. The whole argument is really a wedding invitation.


----------



## Jabberwocky

The second escape is closer to my own thinking. I don't dislike his arguments, but Peter also writes



> [... Peter Kreeft]A *fourth* argument from history, the strongest one of all, is the argument from miracles. Miracles directly and inescapably show the presence of God, for a miracle, in the ordinary sense of the word, is a deed done by supernatural, not natural, power. Neither nature nor chance nor human power can perform a miracle. If miracles happen, they show God's existence as clearly as reproduction shows the existence of organic life or rational speech shows the existence of thought.



I'd be interested in hearing what he thinks about the book Christ "wrote" in the 70's that rocked a lot of people's minds


----------



## drug_mentor

The three subsequent passages you have posted don't make the argument any more effective, I will deal with them in turn.

The first passage unsuccessfully tries to justify the false dilemma. In my last post I named a plausible example which was excluded from this trilemma, namely that he was a benevolent liar. It is entirely possible that Jesus could have been an atheist who had a strong moral vision which he felt he would be unable to propagate without some kind of religious authority, and so made a utilitarian judgement to claim himself as God in order to spread his message. This is just one possibility, a little creativity could conjure up more which are not excluded by reason or common sense.

I would also point out that being a great moral teacher and a lunatic are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Perhaps he was a lunatic in terms of being deluded into thinking he was God, but was a great moral teacher due to his benevolent character and the moral strength of his message. Those who acknowledge Jesus as a great moral teacher are not necessarily forced to deny that Jesus was also labouring under a delusion. The fact that this trilemma presupposes that they are forced to deny this is a significant weakness of the argument.

The second passage seems question begging to me, but I admit I am ignorant on the extent to which the events of Jesus' time are considered known by historians. I take it that they are largely relying on the Bible as a source to verify the persecution of those who followed Jesus, in which case it is a question begging argument because the very thing which is at issue is whether the contents of the Bible (which claim Jesus as the son of God) are true. Furthermore, even if it is a historical fact that some followers of Jesus were persecuted, it does not necessarily follow that those who wrote the Bible and came up with the doctrine of Christianity were persecuted. I am not saying they weren't, but the argument needs supporting evidence to have any weight whatsoever. 

I don't find the third passage any more convincing. It is disingenuous to represent these weak arguments as the only opposition to the trilemma.

Now, I acknowledge due to my lack of knowledge of the history of the period and the content of the relevant scripture my critique of the second passage may miss the mark a little bit. However, the fact remains that the passage needs to provide supporting evidence that those who came up with the doctrine of Christianity were persecuted, not that followers of Christianity were persecuted. Since the passage acknowledges that it is uncertain who came up with Christianity, I do not imagine this evidence will be forthcoming. 

All you really need to see to understand that the trilemma argument is garbage is that the three positions outlined in the trilemma are far from the only beliefs which a reasonable person could have about Jesus. Moreover, even if one buys into the trilemma, nothing in anything you have posted addresses the issue I raised in my last post which casts serious doubt on whether it is credible or reasonable to believe that Jesus was not insane.


----------



## sigmond

I meant to mention miracles when I posted about what makes Jesus unique.

Regarding the historical Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth) I believe most people agree on only a few things. He was born in Nazareth around 4 BCE or First Century Palestine, he was most likely an illiterate manual laborer, and he was crucified. The fact that he was crucified which was a punishment usually reserved for the crime of sedition leads people to the conclusion that he was a revolutionary.

Lewis and Kreeft are talking about Jesus Christ from the scriptures.

How could he be a benevolent liar if he was aware that his words and actions could lead to the deaths of anyone who followed him? There is no reason to think he would have been ignorant to the consequences of his actions.

Well if he is insane there is no reason for anyone to identify as a Christian.


----------



## drug_mentor

Sigmond said:


> I meant to mention miracles when I posted about what makes Jesus unique.
> 
> Regarding the historical Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth) I believe most people agree on only a few things. He was born in Nazareth around 4 BCE or First Century Palestine, he was most likely an illiterate manual laborer, and he was crucified. The fact that he was crucified which was a punishment usually reserved for the crime of sedition leads people to the conclusion that he was a revolutionary.
> 
> Lewis and Kreeft are talking about Jesus Christ from the scriptures.
> 
> How could he be a benevolent liar if he was aware that his words and actions could lead to the deaths of anyone who followed him? There is no reason to think he would have been ignorant to the consequences of his actions.
> 
> Well if he is insane there is no reason for anyone to identify as a Christian.



There is no reason to think he was not ignorant to the consequences of his actions either, as you point out there is some agreement that he was not well educated. He would be a benevolent liar if he believed society or the lives of his subjects would improve if they embraced his teachings. There is no certainty on most of his life, it isn't reasonable to draw concrete conclusions about whether he knew the consequences of his actions, his motivations for said actions, or the state of his mental health.

Bringing miracles into the discussion is unnecessary and does nothing to strengthen the trilemma argument. Unless you have concrete proof that he performed miracles then it is not evidence that Jesus was a God.

If he was insane then you are correct that there is no reason for anyone to identify as a Christian. I would point out that this argument is aimed at non-Christians who believe Jesus was a great moral teacher, so there is no explicit reason for them to deny he was insane. As I pointed out in previous posts, being insane and a great moral teacher are not mutually exclusive, and there is far from sufficient evidence to conclusively suggest Jesus was not delusional. Bearing both these points in mind, even if one were inclined to buy into this fallacious trilemma, they would have no more reason to conclude the Jesus was a God than to conclude he was a lunatic. You might think the abundance of lunatics and lack of Dieties in society would incline most to infer the latter conclusion is more reasonable.


----------



## rickolasnice

Jesus was (and was intended to be) a fictional character invented by Mark.

http://bluelight.org/vb/threads/703413-The-New-Testament-What-I-Now-Know?highlight=Christianity


----------



## willy33

I'm always amazed by how quickly people assume their opinions on matters as profound as religion and philosophy are worthy of airing in public. Even theologians, scholars, scientists and philosophers are hesitant to weigh into debates of such magnitude.

But hey, we have all the answers don't we? After all, our generation invented Google!


----------



## drug_mentor

I critiqued an argument which relies on at least one informal fallacy. I have studied logic and argumentation theory, I wouldn't say my opinions are insightful or profound, but I do have relevant knowledge to critique the argument. 

In what sense is debating the merits of a particular argument, as I have been formally trained to do, the same as claiming, implicitly or otherwise, that I have all the answers?


----------



## willy33

Yes, you did. But that doesn't explain why you got your knickers in a twist about my throw-away remark....and I'm curious about this training. It interests me. What uni is it offered at?


----------



## willy33

Holy fuck you put up a lot of stuff! I tried reading the bible once when I was in solitary in jail.I got up to the bit where some dude's daughters get him pissed then let him stick his fatherly wang in 'em. That was enough for me.


----------



## drug_mentor

My knickers aren't in a twist, I merely sought to understand why you made such a ridiculous statement. I will take your lack of a substantive response as an indication that you just felt like ruffling some feathers.

I would prefer not to disclose the University I attend. The philosophy department has some units on critical thinking, argument analysis and logic. I don't know for certain but I would be reasonably confident that most Universities with a decent philosophy department offer similar units.


----------



## willy33

Read: you didn't actually go to uni. That's OK brother.There's no shame in doing correspondence courses. I went (to uni that is), finished, and now I have a $20 000 piece of framed paper. Oh well. I probs could have done something with it but I was in a bad head-space


----------



## willy33

But you do write well, so who knows...just a bid odd someone wouldn't say where they went to uni. But each to their own I suppose...


----------



## drug_mentor

I am currently completing my degree and don't want to give out personal information. I couldn't care less whether or not some random on the internet believes I attend University.


----------



## willy33

Oh but I suspect you do. Ya see, it's quite obviously a lie, and the more we compound it, by having to repeat it....well, it drives that thorn in your side just that bit deeper. See, you say you "don't want to give out personal information on the net". But why would ANYONE care where you went to uni. It makes no sense. I went to QUT, graduated in Journalism mid 2005. A year later I tried my hand at psychology at UQ, where I did Intro to Philosophy, which was really good. But My head wasn't in the right space so I had to drop out. My father is a Professor of Psychology who has ruffled a few feathers with his early, ground-breaking work on Asperger's Syndrome...now, he doesn't worry about revealing where  went to uni....so why should you?


----------



## drug_mentor

If you can't figure out why a moderator with over 7,000 posts on a harm reduction board, many of which admit to using illicit substances, would want to avoid giving out personal information then I would suggest that you need to work on your critical thinking skills. 

I am done with this off-topic back and forth. Believe what you want about me.


----------



## willy33

look, maybe I have a bee in my bonnet about it. I just hate it when people can't just be honest about where they're at in life. I had cancer when I was 23 and I was blown away by the number of people who lie about it!. You start askin' em questions and it's all BS. Same as when I was in jail. Ppl would go on and on about this that and the next, then when you saw 'em on the street they be heading down the soup kitchen. And drugs too, which is something we both know....ppl lying  about being clean when ya KNOW they're not. 

I guess i'm just ready for some honesty. I didn't mean to take it out on you. Really.


----------



## jammin83

yeah willy, drug mentor seems like he is totally unedjucated. doubt he graduated high school.8)


seriously though, I was kind of looking forward to a bit of back and forth between DM and SKL. 

Where you at SKL?


----------



## turkalurk

if you don't believe in the sky god who was that guy in the OT telling jews to do all that vile and evil shit.  Do you really believe god will reward blind obedience rather than virtuous action?  Would god really want you to kill your first born son to prove your obedience?  Or would he rather you risk eternal damnation to do right by your child?


----------



## Ninae

One thing that Jesus did was put an end to the temple sacrifices at his time. The only time he lost his temper, but I guess that wasn't too pleasent.


----------



## SKL

part I



noone1 said:


> I'm still interested to see what your answer is to the "historicity" of Catholicism. It's a fact that what we have are copies of copies of copies altered by scribes through both accident and bias.



Our textual sources are in their _textual_ aspects, i.e. the occasional scribal error, this is inevitable. The claims of the Jewish and Islamic traditions, however, are quite different in they both claim that a text. In the Jewish tradition, the greater part of the Pentateuch in the Jewish tradition, along with, in the more modern rabbinical tradition, is passed along _directly_ from God via Moses and is preserved _textually_, literally every "jot and tittle," and in the case of the Oral Torah, the font and origin of what is today the Talmud and other scriptures, the spiritual content of the teachings. In Islam, even more strongly, every letter of the Qu'ran was dictated to the illiterate Muhammad _inerrantly_ and then from him to scribes, then later, by a rather complex process of redaction from various sources, to our Qu'ran. This goes somewhat beyond our purposes here, but this itself is a fascinating topic in Islamic history: during Muhammad's life not much thought was given to recording the text for posterity, or as a written text at all—the transmission of the Qu'ran down to modern days has always rested upon memorization as well as writing. Redacting required traveling around the Muslim world collecitng fragments of parchment, palm leaves, etc. and yielded a text that is found in beautiful poetry, but a bit fragmeneted and, as admitted by even the most conservative Islamic scholars, in no particular chronological order. Modern fundamentalist Protestants who believe in "biblical inerrancy" tend to believe something along the Jewish lines, that the text that we today call a "Bible" was guided by the Holy Spirit from it's inceptions to be the current text that it is and thereby protected from any sort of error. This is demonstrably untrue, in the strict sense of "protect from error," textually speaking. The number of variant readings of Scriptural texts are many.

The Catholic interpretation, as is so often the case, is more complex. The Bible is held up, along with Church Tradition, as an infallible source of doctrine. Catholic tradition holds, however, that the Bible is infallabile only when interpreted by due authority. This is where many of the problems of Protestant Biblican interpreations arise—there are, then, as many interpreters of Scripture as there are Protestants, or at least Protestant pastors. This is why there are over 30,000 Protestant denominations, the most conservative of which believe in Biblical inerrancy and, in cruel irony, mutually condemn one another for misinterpreting the perfectly inerrant Scripture. The Greek text of the New Testament is particularly controversial. Many of the most conservative Protestant sects give various reasons for defending the texts which support the King James Bible, giving a variety of reasons, much of which winds up being circularly dependant upon their familiarity with this English translation. There are even, in a manifestation of Poe's Law, sects that hold that the King James Version is itself divinely inspired and other texts are not (what options there are for the non-English speaking world are often left undiscussed.)



> Not even getting into the council of nicea and how so many texts where expunged and chosen.



If this was all directed by God then what does history have to do with it? You're still basing things on faith not logic and reason.[/QUOTE]

Again, the Catholic understanding is that Church Tradition is infallabile and has evolved over the years with Divine guidance. This includes the canon of Scripture. The definitive promulgation of the canon at the Council of Nicaea, however, is myth. By 367 Athanasius (who had attended the Council,) in his capacity as Bishop of Alexandria, on of the centers of learning of that era, gave a list that corresponds with our current canon, but not in terms of being charged with doing so in an official capacity. His promulgation of this list is an indication of the widespread acceptance of these documents, rather than a cause. This canon was more or less uncontroversial down to the present day. There was no single council or individual who set it in stone, so to speak.

The development of this tradition is guided by God, and yes, I am aware that this is basing things on faith, but accepting that God does have the capacity to intervene in human affairs and cause the dissemination of an authoritative text, He could conceivably select between, _inter alia_, the Jewish, Islamic, and Catholic options as outlined above.

(The Protestant approach to the canon, incidentally, is almost universally to accept the Catholic one, which is rather consistent with the ahistoricity of Protestantism - the only way in which Protestantism could find a historical continuity to find their Scriptural canon was to turn to Catholicism.)



ForcePower8 said:


> I don't know if you want to continue this thread or not, but one question that did come to mind is one of prayer. Oftentimes when people are confused about religion they pray to "whoever or whatever is listening" and not to the specific god of any religion. In Catholic theology, when someone prays like that (basically sending out a signal to see if anyone responds) does the Christian god hear that prayer and respond or does the prayer have to be directed specifically at Jesus or Yahweh to be valid?



An interesting question. In Catholicism, prayers are offered to God directly, to Jesus, and to various saints, who are not prayed _to_ as they were "gods," but as _intermediaries_ from a person praying to God. Prayers to God of course come in many different types and with many different purposes:

Tradition teaches us four different types of prayer:

_Adoration_, in which we praise God and His glory,	for His works, His creation of us and the world, and the blessings that we enjoy in life thanks to Him.

_Petition_, "praying for ..." some favor asked for from God. 

_Intercession_, prayer for others.

_Thanksgiving_. prayers offering thanks to God for blessings He has given us, in response to other prayers, or in general, blessings both spiritual and physical.

This is a very rough outline and there is obviously considerable overlap between these cathegories.

One of the most important things to understand about prayer is that it is not done for the benefit of God, as if He needed benefits, or praise for His greatness and glory (His inherent attributes), or for what He does for us. It is incredibly presumptuous to assume that we give God glory to add to his Glory, we do so only because it has an impact on us and gets us closer to Him.

Likewise, God is not a genie in a bottle who we can ask favors and have them granted. A lot of the more pernicious heresies in modern Protestantism (the Prosperity Gospel, a/k/a "name it and claim it" or "blab it and grab it") evolve from misunderstanidng this point. 

Catholicism has a lot of different pre-written, one might say formulaic, prayers that are provided us by tradition (small 't') as well as things like the Rosary (small 'T' Tradition) and the Lord's Prayer. These can be spiritually powerful, but so can the honest petitions of a seeking soul without formula or direction.

Prayers "to whoever's out there" are "heard" by God in the sense that He is aware of them, as He is aware of everything, but absolutely they could be "heard" and "answered."



			
				various said:
			
		

> Lewis's trilemma



It's an argument with serious issues, I don't use it for that reason.



Xorkoth said:


> I think that particular message was distorted for social control purposes.  My belief is that Jesus was saying that we're all god and all we need to do is treat each other right and work together and we can have paradise.



This is a very selective reading of the avaiable texts.



> Of course I don't really know that.  It just seems to me, from reading the NT through multiple times when I was much younger and struggling with the whole concept of Christianity, that the messages are too contradictory. Then when I found out that they were written well after his death, as much as one hundred or more years, and that many books were omitted (including ones written closer to his life that have quite a different tone), I just stopped believing that the words in the NT are actually the unadulterated words of the actual person.



These difficulties with the seeming contradictions of the text and of different perspectives in the Jewish-Roman milieu of the first few centuries (from which came various contradictory "gnostic" and other Gospels which were rejected by the Church) provide a rather succint example of the problems that I believe are solved by reliance upon the Church as a source of authority, which goes back to the issue that I am perenially returning during the course of this thread: Christianity and the variety of interpretations thereof that are necessitated by 2,000 years worth of different perspectives and literature, etc. are very complex, and need interpretation. This is one aspect of the authority of the Church.

The other aspect is soteriological, i.e. having to do with salvation, which involves Jesus's transmission of the power to forgive sins to his disciples in John 20, etc. This is probably something that could be useful to discuss later on, but is not our topic here.

More on the trilemma and madman/moral teacher stuff later. It takes me quite a while to think and type these out.

Skipping over the back and forth about credentials


----------



## SKL

Ninae said:


> One thing that Jesus did was put an end to the temple sacrifices at his time. The only time he lost his temper, but I guess that wasn't too pleasent.



You're referring to his driving the money changers out of the temple, which wasn't about ending sacrifice, but ending the financial exploitation of worshippers.

However, your words have a deeper spiritual meaning that you may or may not intend. Jesus' death on the Cross put an end to sacrifices, as some esoteric interpretations of the book of Daniel put it, because His was the perfect and final sacrifice, i.e. of the son of God's human hypostasis in substitution for the sins of many (see _inter alia_, Hebrews 9:22-28 )


----------



## Ninae

He was also against the animal sacrifices which he said was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.


----------



## swilow

^I think jesus thought that was more idolatry (or heathen/pagan) than cruelty though. None of the monothiestic religions really believe that the suffering of animals is meaningful. Or, more to the point, most monothiestic religions automatically assume the superiority of humans and our corresponding rights to the natural world.


----------



## Ninae

No, but given his extremely compassionate nature towards all life, I find it hard to imagine he wouldn't be bothered by that.

Jesus was also an Essene, a kind of puritan sect, and probably raised a vegetarian. Another Essene, his cousin John the Baptist who grew up an ascetic, subsided on fruits, nuts, wild honey, and carob bread, and loved his simple fare.


----------



## SKL

Ninae said:


> He was also against the animal sacrifices which he said was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.



This is entirely without Scriptural basis.



willow11 said:


> ^I think jesus thought that was more idolatry (or heathen/pagan) than cruelty though. None of the monothiestic religions really believe that the suffering of animals is meaningful. Or, more to the point, most monothiestic religions automatically assume the superiority of humans and our corresponding rights to the natural world.



This has a great deal of Scriptural basis, "Thou hast made him [Man] but a little lower than the angels ... and put all things in subjection under his feet" (Ps. viii, 5-6)

In the Catholic tradition, however, there is of course St Francis and his compassion for animals, among others -- which goes to show just how broad our tradition in fact is.



Ninae said:


> No, but given his extremely compassionate nature towards all life, I find it hard to imagine he wouldn't be bothered by that.



Our projection of our _imaginings_ onto ancient texts does violence to the texts. I have earlier in this thread used the term _eisegesis_, which is a term derived from the much more commonly used _exegesis_, the latter literally meaning "to draw out" the meaning of the text, the former (_eisegesis_) meaning the opposite, projecting our own meanings onto the text. The text needs to be interpreted in the context of the historical, cultural, etc. space in which it was written. Jesus certainly embodied perfect compassion towards man, but the extension of this to the animal kingdom would be utterly foreign to a 1st century Jew, and nowhere in the text does it indicate that Jesus opposed the sacrifices. Christ says (Mt. 5:18 ), "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This encompasses ritualistic sacrifice as atonement for sins, which was a prominent feature of the Old Covenant. The idea of redemption through the shedding of blood is so pervasive throughouht Old Testament, so much it forms the basis for the New, with Christ's blood sacrifice being atonement for man's sin. The beautiful ca. 12th century Easter hymn goes (English translation is my quick and dirty attempt to throw one together keeping the metre) puts it thus:



_Victimae paschali laudes
immolent Christiani._
Christians, hail the paschal victim
with sacrifice of praise
_*Agnus redemit oves:*
Christus innocens Patri
reconciliavit peccatores._

The lamb redeems the sheep.
Chris the Innocent rejoins
sinners to the Father.

_Mors et vita duello
conflixere mirando:
dux vitae mortuus,
regnat vivus._Death and life, they did contend
In that duel of wonder,
Life's Lord who once was dead,
Reigns now victorious.



> Jesus was also an Essene, a kind of puritan sect, and probably raised a vegetarian. Another Essene, his cousin John the Baptist who grew up an ascetic, subsided on fruits, nuts, wild honey, and carob bread, and loved his simple fare.




It is true that the Essenes did not practice sacrifice of animals, and kept a vegetarian diet.

There is no evidence that Jesus was raised into Essenism, and in fact, since the Essenes lived what we would call a "dropped out" and "off-the-grid" lifestyle, two episodes of Jesus' early life are unlikely were he to be born and raised an Essene: (i) the entirety of the Nativity narrative, which involves dealings with the Roman and the "vichy" Jewish authorities of the time, and (ii) the Presentation at the Temple, when He was twelve, the Essenes had their own centers of worship, and not just rejecting animal sacrifice, rejected Temple sacrifice and worship entirely. 

Did Jesus study with the Essenes in the intervening 20 years? It is possible, and there are some interesting parallels here, but it is clear enough that he never embraced Essenism: he neither practiced vegetarianism (see the accounts of the Last Supper, not to mention the fact that he partook in drinking, c.f. Lk. 7:34, "The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!
") nor did he reject Temple ritual, as above, "until all be fulfilled," i.e. until after His Death and Resurrection. N

So, Jesus was not an Essene. John the Baptist is closer to the Essene type, but it seems that he lived in the wilderness in a solitary, eremetic lifestyle, rather than in the communal, cenobitic lifestyle that the Essenes and the Qumran comunity did. So, looked at critically, neither one really fits the mold.

And a word about vegetarianism and abstinence in those days and in fact down to the Middle Ages and even present day as it is practiced in monastic communities: this is not vegetarianism out of concern for animals or cruelty towards them, but more of an ascetic practice. The Franciscan tradition in keeping with their founder's beliefs may add compassion for all living beings as a concern, but fundamentally, whenever you hear of abstinence, fasting, vegetarianism as a lifestyle, or during Lent, etc. you are not hearing about anything like the vegetarianism of today which is concerned wtih the consciousness and suffering of animals, but rather with man giving up certain creature comforts for his own internal spiritual purposes to concentrate this mind on spiritual rather than (literally) carnal matters. So too celibacy. John the Baptist also wore a hair shirt and was celibate. These derive from the same impulse as did his austere diet.


----------



## Ninae

Maybe not in the official version, but Essenism is also far removed from institusionalised Christianity and not very popular. Also keep in mind how much of the facts where changed over the years to accomodate the political objectives for the religion.

But I have seen many accounts of that he was born and raised in that puritan sect. In one clairvoyant account of his life that made a great impression on me when I was young described how he loved growing up among the men in the white robes who practiced bathing 3 times a day, etc.

Anyway, to me this is closer to what I see as real Christianity and from where he came.


----------



## SKL

A "clairvoyant account" sounds like another case in which modern New Age movements have made much use of Christ and Christ imagery, but by picking and chosing elements that appeal to them. You state "to _me_ this is closer to what _I see_ as real Christianity ..." which has much to do with the "moralistic therapeutic deism" that I reference earlier in the thread, and also to the fact that without an authority for interpretation of Scripture, you have as many interpreters as you have believers, or even as many as you have people who are interested in Scriptures or who are interested in coöpting Scriptural ideas and images to fit their own ends. 

This is pretty much why, as I've stated numerous times in this thread, that we, as Christians, as people who believe in Christ and seek Him out as to be our Lord and Saviour, need not just a copy of the Bible and an open mind, nor even all the learning in the world, but an authoritative means of interpreting all of this, which is the Church and it's Sacred Tradition. Now of course, the Church is imperfect as it is made up of, even at the highest levels of the hierarchy, even in the Pope himself, of imperfect, fallible human beings liable to sin. The Church's Tradition and _ex cathedra_ pronunciations of the Pope are only infallible when they are guided by God, and they are only infallible _because_ they are guided by God. Everything else is, in the Catholic view, a morass of relativism and conflicting interpretations out of which it is impossible to produce a coherent objective spiritual truth. If you, as at least one person (perhaps you) in this thread has already stated, do not believe in "objective spiritual truth," then we are at something of an impasse, I suppose. But to throw around statements like "Jesus was an Essene" without any basis except that a later clarification "it feels good to me that Jesus was an Essene" or "I have read certain people's accounts of their own beliefs or putative supernatural experiences in which Jesus was an Essene" does real violence to the dialogue that is trying to be had here. 

The Catholic position is that Spiritual matters are not about one man's opinion or "what feels good to me," but something much greater than that, something that is handed down from our ancestors and from their own traditions influenced by innumerable historical events, controversies, and nourished by intellectual and spiritual discoveries of men and women throughout the entire 2,000 year history of the Church and the story of God's relationship with the Israelites that proceeded and set the stage for that history. To have faith (and yes, this takes faith) in this way of interpreting Spiritual truth, is to be Catholic, and not to is to be something else which, I think, is at the heart of many of my answers to many of the questions above. It will figure heavily in the post that I will make soon about Lewis's trilemma and some of the objections to that, but that is one I am still working around and kicking around in my head.


----------



## Ninae

There are many scholarly claims that Jesus was a vegetarian if you care to look into it.

“Whoever slaughters an ox is like one who kills a human being; whoever sacrifices a lamb, like one who breaks a dog’s neck” 

But as you also point out, we all tend to make things suit our own ends.


----------



## Xorkoth

SKL said:
			
		

> Xorkoth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that particular message was distorted for social control purposes. My belief is that Jesus was saying that we're all god and all we need to do is treat each other right and work together and we can have paradise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very selective reading of the avaiable texts.
Click to expand...


I problem is that I don't trust the texts.  I don't believe they had divine origin nor that their interpretation over the centuries was done with divine guidance.  It seems to me that any interpretation of ancient texts must be done with faith one way or another because of the confounding factor of human nature, and the inevitability that some humans seek control over others, and that religion is perhaps the most powerful vehicle to use to gain that control.  None of us was there, 2000 years have passed since then before any one of us was even born, and all we have to go on is, in effect, hearsay.  So we have no choice but to fall back on what we believe.


----------



## swilow

Ninae said:


> No, but given his extremely compassionate nature towards all life, I find it hard to imagine he wouldn't be bothered by that.
> 
> Jesus was also an Essene, a kind of puritan sect, and probably raised a vegetarian. Another Essene, his cousin John the Baptist who grew up an ascetic, subsided on fruits, nuts, wild honey, and carob bread, and loved his simple fare.



Sure, accounts of Jesus's life imply that he was compassionate but there isn't much, if any, evidence that he cared for animals in their own right. Why would he have? People have viewed most nonhumans as automatons for at least the last 10,000 years. Its probably the only way that we can treat them like objects and still sleep at night.

When I watched "The Passion of the Christ" I was very deeply moved by it. Tears and anger at the brutality of humans. But, I found the early scene when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemne and stomps a 'serpent' to death to be bizarre. I don't think Jesus was violent at all and I thought that scene was ridiculous. 



SKL said:


> This has a great deal of Scriptural basis, "Thou hast made him [Man] but a little lower than the angels ... and put all things in subjection under his feet" (Ps. viii, 5-6)
> 
> In the Catholic tradition, however, there is of course St Francis and his compassion for animals, among others -- which goes to show just how broad our tradition in fact is.



That is true. Christianity is exceptionally broad in application; probably the most decisive factor in it's success. Its flexible enough to form dogma about most subject matters, misguided or otherwise. But, I find the scripture you quoted disturbing though SKL. It has no supporting evidence in reality and yet it is the most widespread view regarding inter-species relationships on earth. Such scriptural arguments inadvertently condemn non-humans to lives of degradation. Surely this goes utterly against the notion of compassion and love as espoused by Christians.

According to it, animals are beholden to humans in the same way that humans are beholden to god. I wonder if animals pray for us to save them too.  



> The Church's Tradition and ex cathedra pronunciations of the Pope are only infallible when they are guided by God, and they are only infallible because they are guided by God.



That's slightly tautological to my mind. But, I do wonder what body determines whether something is "guided by God" or not. That sort of idea seems to be completely open to subjective interpretation and so we come back to the beginning again where we can argue that there is no objective way to determine whether god is actually communicating through scripture or not. You either have to take the churches word for it (which I never would) or have faith that it is the words of god.

As you see, I do not have faith.


----------



## SKL

willow11 said:


> I find the scripture you quoted disturbing though SKL. It has no supporting evidence in reality and yet it is the most widespread view regarding inter-species relationships on earth. Such scriptural arguments inadvertently condemn non-humans to lives of degradation. Surely this goes utterly against the notion of compassion and love as espoused by Christians.



You are correct that the Bible teaches that animals are inferior to humans, inherently, and are put there for the needs of mankind. However, there are number of Scriptural citations about the treatment of animals:

"*A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast*: but [even] the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." _Prov. 12:10_

"Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together" (as it would be unfair to the ass, who's strength would be overwhelmed by the ox.) Deut. 22:10

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn" (so that he can pause occasionally to eat as he does his work.) Deut. 25:4

There are several others in the OT.

And, post-Biblically, look at the works of St Francis, perhaps the world's first environmentalist. Animals are still blessed on St. Francis' day at many parishes especially those with Franciscan religious as priests, or look at his _Canticle of the Sun_, and any number of stories about his blessing animals, advocating against animal cruelty, etc.



> That's slightly tautological to my mind. But, I do wonder what body determines whether something is "guided by God" or not. That sort of idea seems to be completely open to subjective interpretation and so we come back to the beginning again where we can argue that there is no objective way to determine whether god is actually communicating through scripture or not. You either have to take the churches word for it (which I never would) or have faith that it is the words of god.
> 
> As you see, I do not have faith.





Xorkoth said:


> I problem is that I don't trust the texts.  I don't believe they had divine origin nor that their interpretation over the centuries was done with divine guidance.  It seems to me that any interpretation of ancient texts must be done with faith one way or another because of the confounding factor of human nature, and the inevitability that some humans seek control over others, and that religion is perhaps the most powerful vehicle to use to gain that control.  None of us was there, 2000 years have passed since then before any one of us was even born, and all we have to go on is, in effect, hearsay.  So we have no choice but to fall back on what we believe.



Yes, there is faith; we eventually run into it in any discussion about religion, or really, any discussion about an overarching epistemology. One of the strongest things that Catholicism has to recommend it is it's place in history, it's _universality_ (literally, in the Greek equivalent, _catholicism_) and the "unbroken chain" leading back to the time of Christ. Of course, if Christ is irrelevant to you, the Church will be equally irrelevant, and, from the Catholic perspective, if the Church is irrelevant to you, your perspective on Christ will be incomplete. There is, of course, faith here. One must have faith in something. Why not faith in the God of your ancestors? Why trust a radical break that has only occurred in recent times, in historical terms?

The issue of control is there, yes, but control, hierarchy, and authority is an aspect of pretty much all human relationships, why should it not be a part of the Church? To make spirituality a wholly individual affair invalidates spirituality as making it only a matter of "what feels good," which is no spirituality at all, but rather a sort of hedonism wrapped in spiritual garb.


----------



## Ninae

willow11 said:


> Sure, accounts of Jesus's life imply that he was compassionate but there isn't much, if any, evidence that he cared for animals in their own right.



No, but he was enlightened, and those who really are value animals as much as humans. 

Of course we won't hear about it, as that wasn't the objective of the cultures they wanted to have. There is no mention of abstinence from drugs and alcohol, either, although it's likely that he was.


----------



## SKL

Ninae, Your projection of your own values and definitions of "enlightenment" onto Jesus are highly problematic to say the least. As I've said before, it is the height of arrogance to presume that your values and idea of what constitutes "enlightenment" are a meaningful standard by which, even if we were to look at it from a strictly secular perspective, to judge a major religious figure. That just from a secular perspective. From a believer's perspective of course it is greatly offensive but even beyond that it is absurd to put your definitions of all of these things before any other, which, essentially, renders any discussion meaningless.



Ninae said:


> There is no mention of abstinence from drugs and alcohol, either, although it's likely that he was.



One might expect so, but apparently He was more fun at parties than you might imagine:



			
				Luke 7:33-34 said:
			
		

> John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and you say: He hath a devil. 34The Son of man is come eating and drinking: and you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners.  *The Son of man is come eating and drinking: and you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners.*



Which is to say, the blind and hard-hearted contemporary Jewish audience of Jesus rejected John the Baptist on account of his fanaticism, and rejected Jesus on account of the company that he kept and an earthier lifestyle. 

And Jesus' first recorded miracle is the changing of water into wine at the marriage at Cana,



			
				John 2:7-10 said:
			
		

> Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water, and they filled them up to the brim, and he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
> 
> When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."



A firkin is apparently about 8 gallons, so this is no mean portion of wine. Also, observe that the "ruler of the feast" (a sort of _majordomo_ or master of ceremonies) states "thou hast kept the good wine until now," when the crowd is "well drunk," and then perhaps unable to tell the quality of the wine being drank (you can witness this in any bar on any night of your choice.) This rather puts away the argument of certain fundamentalist sects which preach abstinence from alcohol that all the references to "wine" in the N.T. are to a sort of unfermented grape juice.

Jesus almost rather famously hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and various other undesirables: of course, not in doing so justifying sin, but in doing so illustrating that He had came to save all of humanity, and indeed, starting at the bottom ("the first shall be last," &c. and the majority of the Sermon on the Mount, from whence social interpretations of Scripture ranging from the Church-endorsed social teaching of _Rerum novarum_, which will strike the unfamiliar reader as surprisingly progressive, to the excesses of Marxist-inflected (or infected?) Liberation Theology.)


----------



## sigmond

It's somewhat off-topic but after all this is an AMA thread. Did you vote for George Bush? I thought the first recorded miracle was Jesus curing the diseased and demonized. 





			
				Jesus Heals the Sick said:
			
		

> Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed; and he healed them. Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis. Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.


----------



## SKL

Sigmond said:


> It's somewhat off-topic but after all this is an AMA thread. Did you vote for George Bush?



It _is_ an AMA thread. I didn't, and don't, vote for anyone at all. This is not for theological reasons but just out of sheer cynicism with our political system. I suppose I am still a registered Republican but I am not active in politics at all, although I pay a lot of attention to politics, read a lot, etc. and in fact my first undergraduate degree, totally unrelated to what I was doing now, was in Political Science (I had the idea of going to law school, which I abandoned eventually along the way. I was, though, the vice president of College Republicans in those years.)



Sigmond said:


> I thought the first recorded miracle was Jesus curing the diseased and demonized.



Gospel chronology, particularly between the Synoptics and John, is difficult to establish with any degree of certitude. Some of it is probably impossible to establish without any doubt, but this, generally speaking, is not problematic in terms of any important historical or theological content. This question, though, I think is one that we can work out pretty easily. The synopticists open with miracles of healing, mostly general ones (as in Mt. 4 as you cite) then proceed to more specific miracles and miracles as "enacted parables." However, in Jn 2., the Wedding at Cana, it is stated that "this beginning of miracles [which were done by Jesus happened] in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him" (v. 11, most English translations of this verse are awkward), which makes a degree of sense: this is happening just as Jesus is gathering His first few disciples, and would still seem to be in the house of Mary and Joseph, at the very beginning of his ministry, or even before his full time ministry, when He was still being called to social events by His Mother. There is some speculation as to who the groom was, some traditions have it as John, the beloved disciple, but there is no textual basis for this, nor against it. The synopticists take up Christ's adult life at a somewhat later point, when He and His disciples were more engrossed in their mission work.


----------



## turkalurk

willow11 said:


> That's slightly tautological to my mind. But, I do wonder what body determines whether something is "guided by God" or not. That sort of idea seems to be completely open to subjective interpretation and so we come back to the beginning again where we can argue that there is no objective way to determine whether god is actually communicating through scripture or not. You either have to take the churches word for it (which I never would) or have faith that it is the words of god.
> 
> As you see, I do not have faith.



there is a difference between a tautology and begging the question.  Regardless, as with any Bible believer, his logic is riddled with fallacies.  What else would you expect from someone so deeply deluded into believing in something that might as well be a fairy tale.


----------



## turkalurk

SKL said:


> Ninae, Your projection of your own values and definitions of "enlightenment" onto Jesus are highly problematic to say the least. As I've said before, it is the height of arrogance to presume that your values and idea of what constitutes "enlightenment" are a meaningful standard by which, even if we were to look at it from a strictly secular perspective, to judge a major religious figure. That just from a secular perspective. From a believer's perspective of course it is greatly offensive but even beyond that it is absurd to put your definitions of all of these things before any other, which, essentially, renders any discussion meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> One might expect so, but apparently He was more fun at parties than you might imagine:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is to say, the blind and hard-hearted contemporary Jewish audience of Jesus rejected John the Baptist on account of his fanaticism, and rejected Jesus on account of the company that he kept and an earthier lifestyle.
> 
> And Jesus' first recorded miracle is the changing of water into wine at the marriage at Cana,
> 
> 
> 
> A firkin is apparently about 8 gallons, so this is no mean portion of wine. Also, observe that the "ruler of the feast" (a sort of _majordomo_ or master of ceremonies) states "thou hast kept the good wine until now," when the crowd is "well drunk," and then perhaps unable to tell the quality of the wine being drank (you can witness this in any bar on any night of your choice.) This rather puts away the argument of certain fundamentalist sects which preach abstinence from alcohol that all the references to "wine" in the N.T. are to a sort of unfermented grape juice.
> 
> Jesus almost rather famously hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and various other undesirables: of course, not in doing so justifying sin, but in doing so illustrating that He had came to save all of humanity, and indeed, starting at the bottom ("the first shall be last," &c. and the majority of the Sermon on the Mount, from whence social interpretations of Scripture ranging from the Church-endorsed social teaching of _Rerum novarum_, which will strike the unfamiliar reader as surprisingly progressive, to the excesses of Marxist-inflected (or infected?) Liberation Theology.)



i feel sorry for you.  you actually believe his nonsense don't ya.  neither of you have a clue as to how the real jesus lived.  at least she can make Jesus into someone she relates with that personifies what the perfect human is to her.  At least the image she creates is her own.  You've allowed someone else's perspective from ages ago to dominate your pespective.  You don't know if they are right or wrong you just decided to put your faith into because you were scared and vulnerable.  you feel she offends jesus's name, but with your condescending critique you offend Jesus in your own lame way.  Like a snob sticking his nose in the air, you truly believe your Jesus is the "right" Jesus.  What a joke.


----------



## Ninae

I don't see how pointing out Jesus as the ultimate example of an enlightened human being in our part of the world can be offensive. Wasn't that the whole point of him? (And persecuted and crucified for trying to teach).

I guess your objection will be that there is no biblical agreement that such a thing as enlightenment exists, or is even possible, save for the son of God. Well, I disagree. I believe he came to show the way. And explicitly did NOT die as a sacrifice for our sins. 

The whole idea is perverse and just a remainder of primitive pagan religions. But savour-programming is still rife in this world. Or why make an effort to uplift yourself when you can rely on an external factor to take care of it for you?


----------



## SKL

]_(General: As I've been doing throughout the thread, I'm picking and chosing bits to respond to and bits that I will get to later-feel free to draw my attention to anything that I haven't addressed ... each of these longish responses takes me well in excess of an hour sometimes two to do so there is going to be a lag and I often responding to the most recent things not some things that have been sitting there waiting patiejly. I will get to it all )_



turkalurk said:


> i feel sorry for you.  you actually believe his nonsense don't ya.  neither of you have a clue as to how the real jesus lived.  at least *she can make Jesus into someone she relates with that personifies what the perfect human is to her.  At least the image she creates is her own.*  You've allowed someone else's perspective from ages ago to dominate your pespective.  You don't know if they are right or wrong you just decided to put your faith into because you were scared and vulnerable.  you feel she offends jesus's name, but with your condescending critique you offend Jesus in your own lame way.  Like a snob sticking his nose in the air, you truly believe your Jesus is the "right" Jesus.  What a joke.



Discarding the hostile bits (it's always amazing the degree of hostility that serious and sincere discussion of religion can engender among the militantly anti-religious), the sentence in bold really gets to the point of this particular tangent. God created man in His image, not the other way around -- or at least says the Christian believer, which is the perspective that I'm obviously taking here (says so right on the tin.) Not sure if you have been following the entire thread but some posts ago I made reference to *"moralistic therapeutic deism"* (in fairness, a term coined by opponents of the concept) which basically says God exists, created the world, and answers prayers, and wants us to be as good and happy as possible, and that theology does not progress much more beyond that.If this is true, organized and dogmatic religion is indeed silly and a waste of time. 

A sort of natural outgrowth of moralistic therapeutic deism, sometimes nontheistic or agnostic in character is the now clichéd self-identification as "spiritual, but not religious." If we take this approach we get to create God, Christ, and the entire spiritual reality in our own image or rather in any image that we should like to, which here I guess you are praising Ninae for ... for being a free thinker, for not being tied down to tired old dogmas and to be able to create for herself her own interpretation of Christ, that which makes her feel good. Notice the phrasing that's used here: _"*She can make Jesus* into someone *she relates with* ... what the perfect human is *to her* ... the image *she creates* is *her own*."_ This is a very individualistic, almost solipsistic kind of spirituality, and one which would baffle our ancestors. It is, in the Christian world at least, a sort of hyper-Protestantism that stretches the "every man his own Pope" aspects of Protestantism I've critiqued above almost to unrecognizeability and beyond even parody.

Individualistic, "spiritual but not religious," color-outside-the-lines spirituality is everywhere these days, including within organized religion (the Unitarian Universalists and several of the mainline Protestant denominations have been nearly wholly taken overcome by it, there is a strong thread in the Roman church since the changes of Vatican II, as well as in the more liberal strains of Judaism and even Islam and other world religions.) It is characteristic of the psyche of modernity and postmodernity, a psyche which longs for the feeling of depth and connection but goes about seeking after them only in the most superficial and disconnected ways -- from _Bowling Alone_ down to today, the hookup culture, the Facebook generation, whatever you want to call it, it's the sake thing. Swipe right for your own personal Jesus. 

What drew me to Catholicism is the rejection of all of this, the rejection of spirituality as simply a feel-good exercise, the rejection of spiritual truth as "what feels right" and my own whims. So, as my answer to nearly every question in this AMA goes, tradition. My spirituality is not just what feels right for me, or something that I have made for myself as a creative act (as you have Ninae doing for her "personal Jesus"), but rather it is grounded in history, text and interpretaton by an authoritative hierarchy which stretches back lineally to the time of Christ. We are surrounded by a "cloud of witnesses" (Heb. 12:1), those who have came before us in the faith. Chesterton, as I cited above I believe, speaks of tradition as "the democracy of the dead." Not only do we have a say in our conception of spirituality, but so do our ancestors.



Ninae said:


> I don't see how pointing out Jesus as the ultimate example of an enlightened human being in our part of the world can be offensive. Wasn't that the whole point of him? (And persecuted and crucified for trying to teach).



My objection was simply the fact that you seemed to be saying that Jesus was enlightened because he agreed with your values in ertain areas. Neither you nor I can judge Christ or God (a substantial part of the book of Job, which I'd highly recommend to even the most earnest nonbeliever to read, even if only as one of the great pieces of anceint philosophical literature, deals with this.) 

Jesus was crucified, generally speaking, for being a threat to the power of the leading political-religious party at the time, but he was _specifically_ crucified for, i.e., the opportunity presented itself for the powers that be to do the deed, making explicit claims not just to enlightenment as a human being but to divinity.



> I guess your objection will be that there is no biblical agreement that such a thing as enlightenment exists, or is even possible, save for the son of God. Well, I disagree. I believe he came to show the way. And explicitly did NOT die as a sacrifice for our sins. The whole idea is perverse and just a remainder of primitive pagan religions. But savour-programming is still rife in this world. Or why make an effort to uplift yourself when you can rely on an external factor to take care of it for you?



Having gone into much more detail about this above, I'll just try to ask this in the, most direct manner possible: why do you feel qualified to speak about these things? Or are you using Christ simply as a metaphor, an allegory of soke sort: Or as a figure (your version of which) you see as a model for people to aspire to?

I find the frequent appropriation of Christ and Christ-imagery amongst New Agers odd (I don't know if you would self-identify as such, or if it is solely a pejorative term or not, if you take offence please do let me know how I would do better to describe your belief system, which seems to be very eclectic?)

You do not seem to be very familiar with the Gospels (just the impression that I get in this conversation), so what are your sources for your understanding of Christ? If you are interested in Christ as part of your spiritual system, why not make a deeper study of the Gospels?


----------



## sigmond

I read Catholics are supposed to do this-True or False?

"Schedules are more exacting for Catholics, whose days are punctuated by no fewer than 7 occasions for prayer. Every evening at ten they must, for example, scan their consciences, read a Psalm, declare 'Into your hands, Lord', sing the Nunc dimittis (Song of Simeon) from the second chapter of the Gospel of St Luke and conclude with a hymn to the mother of Jesus 'Virgin now and always, take pity on us sinners'."

Also, curious if you have read the Quran? If so, what are your thoughts on Islam? 

Honestly if I were a Christian or a Jew I would be rather offended by the Quran. The translation I read explicitly states that anyone identifying as a Christian or Jew is a fraud and liable to damnation.


----------



## Ninae

I think I am familiar enough to speak about it. I confirmed my baptism when I was 15 and when I was in rehab I would ask for a Christian priest. 

I like the Aquarian gospel and find this seems like the most genuine account of Christ, and also very moving, and Gnosticism. I don't believe in the Sananda channeled material. I've had a few personal encounters with Christ myself, in crisis situations, as well.

Above all, I like some of the Christian mystics/interpretors, like Peter Deunov who was a true follower of Christ and only lived to be as much like him as he could. Something like this can be more applicable to modern life than the ancient bible teachings.


----------



## Jabberwocky

i know I've taken my own liberties with the topic and am not exactly helping with my random commentary. So just want to make sure you know I find your viewpoint deeply informed and a pleasure to read. Thanks for taking the time SKL. Still, we're taking about our eternal souls here, so forgive us for being argumentative.

On that note I'd like to hear your thoughts on forgiveness, which is a fundamental component of any teaching involving Christ, whether it has scriptural basis or not. Based on your studies of scripture how would you summarize Christ's message on forgiveness.


----------



## Kittycat5

I know I asked it a million years ago, SKL but what are your thoughts on how you would view God if there was incontrovertible proof of a multiverse and that our particular patch was formed out of nothing more than mere happenstance. I realize that Christianity still could exist in exactly the same form but as far as I know, it still teaches that God created the Earth and man. Proof that we are one of many negates the need for a creator and questions the supposed infalibilty of God in my view at the best and completely extinguishes his very existence at worst which snowballs into the thought that everything else that still would hold true about religion is nothing more than mere stories which have no consequences on human existence.


----------



## turkalurk

SKL said:


> If this is true, organized and dogmatic religion is indeed silly and a waste of time.



and here we are.  I am not anti religious.  I am only against religions that are absurd and stupidn which is anything based on the bible.  You dismissed my serious questions.  You act like Catholicism was around in jesus's time.  You are being a hypocrite considering your religion started out the same way the others that you criticized started.  It wasn't till the council of Nicea that they tried to come to some kind of aggreement on what the dogma should be.  i am not looking for a serious debate about such ridiculous nonsense, because essentially you take it all on faith.  There is little logic behind it at all.  But what I do find curious is that seemingly nice decent people will put their faith in a book filled with vile evil nasty bullcrap and they pass this atrocious garbage off as god's infallible word.  What does it say about a person willing to murder their child because they hear god's voice in asking for a sacrifice?  Why would a kind just god demand you cast the first stone to kill your own brother if he speaks of worshipping other gods?  that doesn't sound primitive and barbaric?  You really think a god that tells you to rip babies from the wombs of their mothers is worthy of your reverence?  If thats what god is, I will gladly suffer eternal hellfire before I would harm an innocent person for believing something different.  And, do you really have to wonder why there is hostility?  Your beliefs offend everyone who believes any different than you do.  I feel sorry for anyone in thia day and age that still believes the infallibility of the Bible.   They are either mentally disturbed or just oblivious to common sense.


----------



## Ninae

Turk, are you some kind of professional forum-provocateur? I can imagine you all around the net, riling people up, and laughing your ass off.


----------



## SKL

Well, his provocative statements are awfully cliché...age I'm being trolled, I prefer a more skillful troll to do the trolling.


----------



## swilow

I'm liking SKls calm demeanor in the face of Turks desperate attempts at 'debate'...


----------



## sigmond

I'll try to get the thread back on track, apologies if these questions have been answered already.

Do you go to confession? If so, have you been entirely honest about your sins?

Is abortion a forgivable sin? 

feel free to answer my questions about the Quran..

I appreciate all your contributions to this thread, thanks!


----------



## tokezu

I didn't read through the last few pages, so apologies if this question already came up. You stated a few times that you don't like the arbitrariness of protestantism, where everyone can interpret the bible in their own way, but don't catholics do the same thing to a lesser extent? When you read the bible don't you make your own interpretation too? Isn't that the basis of all bible exegesis, to interpret what you read on your own? Sure you can and should make use of the exegetic tradition, but aren't you forced in the end to make up your mind and decide what it means to you personally? It seems to me like you are portraying a totally unrealistic ideal, where somebody reads the bible and then consults the 'official-interpretation-handbook' and comes to a conclusion without having made a single thought of their own. That can't really be what you are proposing can it?


Also another question that I had earlier in the thread (maybe you answered it a few pages later, in that case feel free to ignore as I will see it when reading through the whole thread). Is the christian god a bloodthirsty god? I can see no other reason why the sacrifice of Jesus would have been necessary. It seems god had made up his mind that he wanted to forgive mankind right? I mean obviously he didn't want mankind to pay for it's sins itself like it is described in the OT, but instead sacrificed himself/his son. But if he *wanted* to forgive mankind, couldn't he have just snapped his fingers and make it so? This makes me ask myself if god wanted or maybe even needed to see blood before he could forgive mankind, but what would that say about the nature of god? I mean if I were challenged to come up with a good explanation I would say, the sacrifice wasn't done because it was necessary, but just because it was a powerful message, but that isn't exactly the doctrine of the church, is it?


----------



## Ninae

SKL said:


> Well, his provocative statements are awfully cliché...age I'm being trolled, I prefer a more skillful troll to do the trolling.



I just remember the spelling war between Turk and Journeyman.


----------



## turkalurk

is god bloodthirsty?

this is from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

there are a few hundred of these.  this is just a few of them.



> Genesis
> Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8
> "I will destroy ... both man and beast."
> God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17
> "Every living substance that I have made will I destroy."
> God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4
> "All flesh died that moved upon the earth."
> God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23
> God sends a plague on the Pharaoh and his household because the Pharaoh believed Abram's lie. 12:17
> God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10
> Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." 16:6
> "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
> I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn't give a damn about children. 18:32
> Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8
> God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24
> Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26
> God gets angry with king Abimelech, though the king hasn't even touched Sarah. He says to the king, "Behold, thou art but a dead man," and threatens to kill him and all of his people. To compensate for the crime he never committed, Abimelech gives Abraham sheep, oxen, slaves, silver, and land. Finally, after Abraham "prayed unto God," God lifts his punishment to Abimelech, "for the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah." 20:3-18



Anyone that believes the bible contains the word of god must be mentally disturbed.  If I were trying to troll this place I could do so much better.  My questions are legit, and he has no good answers so its easier for him to dismiss it as trolling than to explain how he rationalizes his absurd dogma.


----------



## swilow

^Your use of ad hominems really negates much of what you write Turk.


----------



## sigmond

not doing much at the moment, thus random observation regarding religion. 



			
				Reza Aslan said:
			
		

> I think the Buddha said it right: If you want to draw water you do not dig six one foot wells. You dig one six foot well. Islam is my six foot well. I like the symbols and metaphors it uses to describe the relationship between God and humanity. But I recognize that the water I am drawing is the same water that every other well around me is drawing. And no matter the well, the water is just as sweet!
> 
> It is difficult to study the world’s religions and not recognize that they are pretty much all saying the exact same things, often in exactly the same way. Some scholars think that’s because there’s something in the human mind or in human societies that longs for divine connection and so comes up with similar answers in the pursuit of God. Maybe...
> 
> But it could be just as conceivable that the reason we all talk about God in pretty much the same way (though with different symbols and metaphors) is because we are all talking about the same God!
> 
> Religion is nothing but a signpost to God. If you believe there is something beyond the material, and if you want to commune with that “thing” then it helps to have a set of symbols and metaphors to help you talk about it – both to yourself and to other people.
> 
> That is ALL religion is supposed to be. A language of symbol and metaphors to help you make sense of something that is ineffable. I just happen to prefer the symbols and metaphors of Islam. That’s all.



*Not sure if Buddha said the thing about the six foot well..

Anyway, I agree with Mr. Aslan. Many people who identify as religious, regardless of sect or creed, believe that a lot of what you read in scripture is merely humans attempting to express the inexpressible. Its actually impossible to read the Bible literally, even if you believe in miracles, God creating the heavens and the earth, virgin birth etc.-- you will still find an abundance of contradictions.


----------



## koalabear135

life is all about trying to deal with the pointlessness, i you found something that makes it all easier till you die, go right ahead.


----------



## SKL

I am still here. Expect another few lengthy replies tomorrow or the day after: Islam/Buddhism, Lewis trilemma, bloodthirsty God/substitutionary atonement, auricular confession, scriptural exegesis and authority ... as I said I don't just sit down and write them out, I mull over them, sometimes bring out citations, etc. I am mulling over a bunch of the questions asked above right now. I appreciate everyone's patience and interest.

As far as turk goes I'm not sure if "troll" is even the right word although I haven't encountered him on the forums outside of this thread. He just appears to be one of a great many militant anti-theists/anti-religion types who you run into so frequently on the Internet who get into this certain anti-theistic movement of sorts and reflexively attack religion with a truly fanatical fervour,  and who's arguments happen to be (at least on the lower levels of encountering these folks online) almost all clichéd and predictable, even the list of Scriptures that purports to show the God of the Old Testament in a negative light is literally copy and pasted from some such source. I'm fairly convinced that on the Internet at least, there is no arguing with these people, and he's said as much of me above, so he may as well disengage, as will I. I hardly expect that my humble attempts at apologetics in this internet thread will affect a great many conversions of Bluelighters to Catholicism, but I just hope to engage in an honest and intellectually based dialogue that is grounded in something more than just knee jerk reactions of believers towards nonbelievers and the opposite. It's my earnest hope and prayer that I can even begin in my posts here to scratch the surface of the complexities of Catholic thought on these subjects, of which I am only an amateur student, and which literally goes back 2,000 years into the past. Making the discussion be solely about the opinions of people in the present isn't on my agenda for this thread, and although of course as a rebuttal one might say that by posting an "ask _me_ anything" I am soliciting inquiries as to my opinion -- not really the case. I'm soliciting inquiries as to my attempt at an honest and orthodox understanding of Catholicism. I also, by the way, welcome questions of a more personal sort although I'd have to add the disclaimer ask me (almost) anything on questions of a biographical nature.

I'd also like to add a parenthesis here to say that I hardly occupy a moral high ground. I am a bad Catholic, and a great sinner. I have had in my life serious difficulties with greed, self-centeredness, neglect of obligation to others, pride, addiction, rebellion towards authority, alcohol, heroin, sex, violence, you name it, not to mention the glorification of all of the above, sometimes on this very forum, not to mention lack of faith and spiritual struggle and difficulties, down to this very day. I claim no moral high ground, only to have spent some good deal of time and effort over the past several years in study of the Catholic faith and knowledge in hope and faith that, first and foremost, that it is the Truth; and, on but a secondary level, that I hope and believe it will help me be a better person. It does not go the other way 'round -that is the person-centered, "moralist therapeutic deism" I keep going back to. Catholicism asks us to understand ourselves spiritually not merely as individuals or even individuals in dialogue with God, although there is certainly a place for the dialogue of the individual with God, but as a member of the Church, the "body of Christ," in dialogue with the entirety of the Church, the living, the dead, the visible, hierarchical parts of the Church, and the Church simply defined as believers joined by the sacraments. This is why much of what I am saying will present difficulties for people who are more accustomed to an individualistic spirituality centered upon self and subjective experience and belief. 

But for now, a good night, and a very quick one answered



> I read Catholics are supposed to do this-True or False?
> 
> "Schedules are more exacting for Catholics, whose days are punctuated by no fewer than 7 occasions for prayer. Every evening at ten they must, for example, scan their consciences, read a Psalm, declare 'Into your hands, Lord', sing the Nunc dimittis (Song of Simeon) from the second chapter of the Gospel of St Luke and conclude with a hymn to the mother of Jesus 'Virgin now and always, take pity on us sinners'."



false; this is speaking of the Liturgy of the Hours, a very beautiful spiritual practice that revolves around reading certain prayers and scriptures varying throughut the year at certain fixed times; it is considered to be a pious and spiritually beneficial practice for the laity but is not an obligation on them, but it is an obligation on all clergy and almost all of those in religious life (monks and nuns.)


----------



## turkalurk

Your book is full of ridiculous nonsense and you praise it as god's word.  This has been goin on for 2000 years.  I have a human mind like everyone else, why would you expect an original criticism at this point?  You hear the same tired cliche's and you are full of them.  That's life. If you could take a step back and look at things from a more objective perspective, you would understand why people get so riled up over these religions that claim god's word can be found in a book portraying him as a blood thirsty human-like egomaniac.

Ic it makes you feel better I am also a harsh critic of militant atheists on the opposite end of the spectrum.   I'm in the middle with a natural religion based on monism. Words like Existence, Reality, Being,  Truth, these are words that describe concepts that I equate with the concept of what God means to me.  God is beyond ego(personality).  calling me a new age spiritualist would be misleading.  I do not equate myself or any other "piece" of existence as God.  To me, God is only a word that can represent the system of qll things.  God is more than the sum of its parts, its the whole system of systems interacting in such a way that properties like conciousness can emerge.  These properties might seem to operate in an unnatural way because they can not be reduced to properties attributed to any of the systems basic conponents.  

My approach to many of Life's questions is an agnostic approach. I will even grant you the Bible god my be real.  If he is real, he is such a shitty person I deem him unworthy of my reverence. 

Let me ask you in all seriousness:
If god demanded the sacrifice of your first born son, what would you do?
I would fry in a lake a fire for all eternity before I would harm a hair or an innocent child's head.   I would do his because my god is Truth, and the truth is that's atrocious.  Virtue is about doing the right thing because its the right thing.  I don't need a good to tell me right from wrong.  I am ok that some people need a book, but what good is a book when its full of obvious vile evil shit.

Also, you should be thankful I haven't put much effort into my critique.  I copy and pasted a few things, but I could have sorted thru and picked the really bad stuff.  there were like 2000 of those verses all of which are reverenced so you can find them in the bible yourself.   

I am sorry that you believe this stuff because you sound like a smart dude.  Which is why I was interested in how you approach the absurdity of your beliefs.  I wouldn't mind a cliche response, because usually christians avoid these kinds of questions altogether.  

Ya know, if the Bible is infallible, then you are in the same boat as everyone else.  We are all gonna burn in a lake of fire because the bible is very specific about who will get into heaven.  I don't know a christian out there that would actually make the cut.


----------



## Ninae

turkalurk said:


> Let me ask you in all seriousness:
> If god demanded the sacrifice of your first born son, what would you do?
> I would fry in a lake a fire for all eternity before I would harm a hair or an innocent child's head.   I would do his because my god is Truth, and the truth is that's atrocious.  Virtue is about doing the right thing because its the right thing.



Well, then you would be doing the right thing. 

I don't think that is a story about God but about worship of the archons/djinn who feed on human pain and suffering and have been revered for so long. I think Jesus' descriptions in the New Testament comes closer to the true God and that's the only part of the bible that really interests me.


----------



## swilow

I think people miss the point of that story. Its about having faith and trusting god. No son was sacrificed.

But it is a very human god that requires such faith. I don't think the god of the old testament is the same as that of the new.


----------



## belligerent drunk

willow11 said:


> I think people miss the point of that story. Its about having faith and trusting god. No son was sacrificed.
> 
> But it is a very human god that requires such faith. I don't think the god of the old testament is the same as that of the new.



So what is the point of that story, then? That you should put some arbitrary "god" for which there is no evidence and which does not reveal itself even if it exists, before very real objects and subjects such as your family? That, in "metaphorical" terms, you should "sacrifice your son" if believing in such a god requires you to do so? Goddamn, isn't that messed up?


----------



## SKL

(1/3)

*I'm working on a long discussion of the Binding of Isaac in response to some of the questions raised here. It's long enough that it will have to span multiple vBulletin posts. So I started out discussing reading the Old Testament, and have a bit of a rough draft for that discussion here, which I'll throw up here. More to follow. We're soon getting to  the Binding of Isaac, don't worry, perhaps eventually with a detour for the Cities of the Plain, but I am skipping that for now. I hope this interests though. *

It is rather easy to find things in the Old Testament which offend our modern sensibilities, and in fact, it is not only our _modern_ sensibilities that are challenged, but the Old Testament and it's seeming infelicities has posed an exegetical challenge for Christianity since it's inception. The Bible, taken together, composes the Holy Scripture of the Church, but it is composed of different books written in different contexts split most generally, of course, into the Old Testament (Covenant) and the New, i.e. those parts dealing with the Old Covenant between God and Man and the New Covenant between God and Man through Christ. 

Pointing out difficult Old Testament Bible passages to the Christian is not merely a modern way to try to cast aspersions on the goodness of God or raise questions of theodicy. Christian faith and Christian theology have lived with and interacted with these texts since their origins. It is not as if the character of some of these texts only _now_ offends, it has been a difficulty since the very primeval times of Christianity. 

Attempts have been made to do away with these difficulties from very early on. From it's inception, the Christian church has been beset by challenges to it's doctrine. In fact, the history of first few centuries of the history of the Church is written largely in controversies between orthodoxy and heresy, but really is about the _development_ of orthodoxy in dilaectic fashion, set up by extremes on one end or the other, e.g. movements which wanted Christians to convert first to Judiasm, circumcise, and observe all the rituals of Jews, versus movements which rejcted Judiasm entirely; those which thought Christ a man, albeit the wisest and most sinless man, versus those which held that Christ had no human element and the Jesus of history was no more than a sort of 'avatar' of God, and many more questions.

Quite a few such movements struggled variously with interpreting some of the seeming infelicities of the Old Testament, most of which movements fall under the general heading of _gnosticism_, which is not a single movement or set of teachings but rather a very large and diverse umbrella. Gnosticism comes in both Christian and non-Christian variants but in general is a heady mix of Eastern mysticism and neo-Platonism, believing in salvation through _gnosis_, superficially translated as "knowledge" but more properly indicating a specific sort of religious understanding, or even "enlightenment," to appropriate a term from different traditions that have some parallels. 

Anyway, the Gnostics, or at least the Gnostics sects that I'm referencing here, originating from certain points of neo-Platonic philosophy, believed that a perfect God could not come into contact with matter, which had an inherently evil nature (thus these sects had very austere practices regarding sexual continence, vegetarianism, and such.) To connect from Man to God, there is a dizzying hierearchy of syzygies, or antitheses, allegorically interpreted as male and female elements which give rise to one another, beginning with the perfect God, and then meandering it's way somewhere to Christ, who, in most of these systems, lacks a human element, or His apparent human element was illusory and did not, e.g. eat or drink, perform bodily functions, much less die on the cross: these were all illusions meant for the enlightenment of man, but were not realities because the perfect God could not "touch" our world, an imperfect material world, tainted with sin. 

In order to explain this imperfection in a system centered upon an almost impossibly distant perfect and often wholly abstract deity, these systems invented (or rather, appropriated from neo-Platonic philosophy) the idea of the _demiurge_ (in Greek, a hired craftsman) who created the world: a villain in their narrative, as he trapped perfect human souls in imperfect material bodies. Some Gnostic systems identified the _demiurge_ with Yahweh of the Old Testament. One of the very early heresies to emerge along these lines was Marcionism, who rejected the Old Testament and the Jewish character of much of the New. He could not reconcile the provincialism and particularism of Yahweh's relationship with Israel (from whence a lot of that in the OT which is unpleasant for us to hear) with the universalism of Christianity, and thus rejected Yahweh entirely as an evil counterpart to the true God (who was immaterial and unknowable but who transmitted His energy eventually to Christ.) 

While some of the elements of this interpretation of Scripture seem bizarre, it, in the philosophical-religious milieux of the time in Eastern empire, they fit in well. The overriding zeitgeist was a fusion of Eastern and Western thought that fused such abstractions as referenced above with the more esoteric belief-systems and practicies of Eastern mystery-cults, from whence he we have the Manicheans (of whom St. Augustine was once a devotee), the Eleusian and Dionysian mysteries, Mithraism, and many more. This is indeed the intelletuctual milieu from which Christianity sprung, and it had many competitors at the time. Being connected to Judaism and the Jews, who engendered in the authorities of the day the reaction that they so often have with their enclavism, sectarianism, and particular rituals and taboos which set them apart from the host societies, was hardly in favor of Christianity. From the Roman perspective the Israelitish national war-God Yahweh would seem an unlikely father to a universal saviour. So it is not surprising that counter-currents would arise at this time diminishing or even attempting to wholly eliminate the Jewish origin and character of Christ and His teachings. What is more surprising is that these attempts were not successful. It is surprising, then, that the Old Testament comes down to us as being identical with the _Tanakh_ of the Jews, and that Jewish sacred history is of interest to Christian believers the world over who have no connection to Jews or Judaism. There could have been and even today can be little, at least at the outset, to endear this aspect of the faith to Gentiles wholly unfamiliar with Christianity. So why was it not abandoned entirely?

Once more, Christian orthodoxy tends to emerge in dialectic fashion from religious controversies of the day. The Jewish origins of Christianity form the basis of many if not most or practically all of the earliest religious controversies, and hence the first delineations between orthodoxy and heresy (the story of the development of doctrine is a dialectic one, often with the orthodox position being the middle ground between two others condemned as heretical.) The first Church council of which we hae record is the Council of Jerusalem of around 50 AD (our source for which is Acts 15), coming not long after believers in Christ were "first called Christians" (Acts 11:26), and was held between the Paul, the great expounder of the Gospel to the Gentiles, and James and Peter, who were at that time prominent in a community which cleaved closer to Jewish tradition. The issue at hand was primarily that of the Jewish Law and it's 613 _mitzvot_ or commandments, and it's applicability to Gentile converts to Christianity, or, in it's most extreme form, whether Gentile believers in Christ must become religiously Jewish as Judaism existed before Christ.

Specific controversies regarded circumcision and dietary restrictions: circumcision being particularly objectionable to Gentiles for obvious reasons, and the eating of forbidden food products a particular offense to Jews. The result, promulgated by the Apostle James, reads "we should not cause difficulty for those from among the Gentiles who turn to God, but we should write a letter to them to abstain from the pollution of idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from [eating and drinking] blood" (Acts 15:19-20.) This, for practical purposes to the average Gentile Christian, made a large portion of the Pentateuch or _Torah_, of historical interest only and no longer binding. 

The literary works of Job, the Psalms, and Proverbs are of clear use in spiritual and moral instruction and comfort. The prophets contain much specifics about the lachrymose history of the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity onward, but also much beautiful and theologically significant material about God and his relationship to Man, as well as, in Christian exegesis, a great deal of material prefiguring Christ.

What then, of the rest of the Old Testament, the historical books (Judges, Kings, Chronicles, etc. much of which make rather dry reading in large portions being military histories - often replete with atrocitiy - interminable geneaologies and such) and the laws of Moses?

Without denying the inspiration or infallability of Scripture, there are a number of important points that need to be made with regards to interpreting these Scriptures. First, Biblical inspiration is not dictation. The Qu'ran and the Mormon scriptures (one of many similarities between these two faiths which were born out of unusual and heterodox Christian contexts, something which is worthy of discussion at some length but not here.) Judiasm has different views of different texts and between different sects but in all greatly reveres the text in and of itself. But, in the mainstream Catholic approach to exegesis, those parts of Scripture which are not explicitly written as being the word of God (viz. the Ten Commandments, large swaths of the Prophetic literature and Job, etc.) are inspired by God (as is all scripture) but this interpretation is not necessarily "plenary and verbal" (contrary to the fundamentalist Protestant approach.) 

God inspired the writers to create texts which held religious truth as well as literal truth, but with an emphasis on the former, such that we can have 6 days of Creation without demanding that Creation be a 144 hour process, and that our faith is not shaken by an incorrect definition of π in a discussion of sculpture in the first book of Kings. But also, more generally and more importantly, we need to realize that we are reading texts that are written by human authors, in human literary genres. while also acting under Divine inspiration to communicate religious truths. This is one reason why much of the text is alien to us; it is written by people in a specific cultural context for their peers, not for people such as ourselves in a vastly different cultural context. This is one of the reasons why we need some authoritative interpretations of Scripture: not that the purpose of the Church is just to regurgitate interpretation of scripture as a mother bird to it's young (although there is a place for this, this approach may be necessry in the catechesis of the young or of those utterly unfamiliar with religion, just like Paul, I Cor 13:11, "When I was a child, etc.") 

But in any event, we read these [Old Testament] texts across a great chasm of cultural difference. It is not only cultural difference alon which puts us at such great a remove, but a removal of several millenia in terms of the progress of civilization, and in the OT, a civilization or type of civilization very much more alien to our own than the Judaeo–Roman milieu of the NT.

... more ...


----------



## Ninae

That's who I think the god of the Old Testament is. The Demiurge (the worst thing in the world).


----------



## Damien

SKL, I'm blown away by the effort you're putting into this thread. Good job. 


tokezu said:


> Also another question that I had earlier in the thread (maybe you answered it a few pages later, in that case feel free to ignore as I will see it when reading through the whole thread). Is the christian god a bloodthirsty god? I can see no other reason why the sacrifice of Jesus would have been necessary. It seems god had made up his mind that he wanted to forgive mankind right? I mean obviously he didn't want mankind to pay for it's sins itself like it is described in the OT, but instead sacrificed himself/his son. But if he *wanted* to forgive mankind, couldn't he have just snapped his fingers and make it so? This makes me ask myself if god wanted or maybe even needed to see blood before he could forgive mankind, but what would that say about the nature of god? I mean if I were challenged to come up with a good explanation I would say, the sacrifice wasn't done because it was necessary, but just because it was a powerful message, but that isn't exactly the doctrine of the church, is it?



Aquinas, Summa Theologica III. Question 46. Articles 1-4, may be of interest to you.


----------



## tokezu

Damien said:


> SKL, I'm blown away by the effort you're putting into this thread. Good job.


+1


Damien said:


> Aquinas, Summa Theologica III. Question 46. Articles 1-4, may be of interest to you.


That looks interesting, thanks! I will have to take some time to read through that, though. English is a second language for me and this is not quite the english I know from movies and the internet. :D


----------



## Damien

> That looks interesting, thanks! I will have to take some time to read through that, though. English is a second language for me and this is not quite the english I know from movies and the internet.



OH! Yes, that would be challenging even for some English speakers! What is your native tongue?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

I'm glad I've finally gotten a chance to sit down and read this one, SKL. I haven't read the whole thread, just your initial post.

You and I are in many regards profoundly different men, and on certain things we'll probably have to agree to disagree. For example, I'm a liberal progressive beyond redemption, have a spirituality that's much more private and idiosyncratic than socially connected, and find certain drugs helpful tools for spiritual quests _sometimes_, depending what I'm looking to cultivate within me.

That said, your testimonial struck a chord with me, and I think one thing you and I do share is a need to be a part of something greater than ourselves, on a cosmic scale.

You amply supported an idea I've had for years: that the Roman Catholic Church's greatest appeal is its rich history and unbroken lineage of teaching, going back all the way to Paul. I think one of the main functions of organized religion is to model the unmodelable, to give followers a crude hint of what The One might be like. Growing up Catholic myself, I definitely was left with an impression of the Divine that was rich with little details, with layers upon layers of symbolic depth and technicality. The long history, too, helped me grasp a sense of "this is how it has always been".

The problem, I fear, is that the Catholic Church as we know it was built largely during a time of feudal agrarianism. As such, many of the metaphors and symbology the Church uses for imparting a sense awe in the face of the Ineffable, no longer have the desired spiritual effects on many people who live in industrial or postindustrial societies. Its law and structural organization are from a bygone era. In my experience, people leave the Catholic Church because they find it spiritually unfulfilling. It doesn't speak to them and the world they know.

(You can replace "Catholic" with "Masonic" in the above paragraph too, FWIW)

I think it's going to be very interesting to see what happens to the Catholic Church in places where an agrarian way of life is not within living memory anymore. I don't believe the many people who say it's moribund. It still has a billion adherents, and I'm sure it will stick around even with only a little fraction of that number, because it has a certain appeal, for a certain type of person who approaches spiritual matters a certain way. I am not one of those people.

I grew up with two left wing Catholic parents. I watched painfully as they (my Dad, in particular) tipped at windmills, trying to mold their little corner of the Church into a humanitarian enterprise first and foremost, and got the brush off from Church leaders. Sometimes to this day I still think about how vexing it was when I went off to study at a small northeastern liberal arts college, and you were either religious, or liberal, but not both. That just wasn't the world I knew. So I can somewhat relate to you growing up in a liberal Christian environment.

I also wanted to say I admire your willingness to bare all and voice a set of beliefs that IME is not widely shared on BL. I think you have to be a little thick skinned (and thick faithed  ) to be an outspoken religious believer here. Diversity of opinions is good, because it shows that present and former drug users really do come from all walks of life.


----------



## herbavore

^So good to hear your voice here, MDAO. I always get something from your posts, as I do from SKL's. You are both very articulate writers.


----------



## swilow

SKL, fascinating post man  Thankyou...



belligerent drunk said:


> So what is the point of that story, then? That you should put some arbitrary "god" for which there is no evidence and which does not reveal itself even if it exists, before very real objects and subjects such as your family? That, in "metaphorical" terms, you should "sacrifice your son" if believing in such a god requires you to do so? Goddamn, isn't that messed up?



Hmm, I replied but it got deleted when I tried editing. But, yeah, its a very distasteful story like much christian dogma. Any god that would ask such a thing, for a father to transgress such an innate bond, is not worthy of worship or any sort of charitable regard IMO. But, the idea of familial loyalty is a threat to a burgeoning religion which needs to become paramount to achieve an end of sorts. So, as I said, the story is more about control through extreme faith than violence. The idea that the most intimate of bonds between parent and child can be/should be subsumed by worship of god. It speaks to the matrilineal inhertiance of judaism, and should therefore be irrelevant to christianity. I cannot figure out why christianity didn't try and utterly distance itself from the more troubling aspects of early judaism; as SKL mentioned, the church has struggled with such precepts since inception. Ultimately, though, the story does not conclude with the death of any children. The violence is really a threat of violence and a man's 'faith' in the face of that.

SKL, you may know the answer to this; are there any modern christian sects that have completely disregarded the old testament?


----------



## tokezu

Damien said:


> OH! Yes, that would be challenging even for some English speakers! What is your native tongue?



It's german. A very beautiful language, but I wouldn't wish learning it on my worst enemy . Little example:

*NSFW*: 










SKL, I thought of another one. I was sure it must have come up in the thread, but looking through I didn't see it. How can the catholic church's stance on condoms be justified in the face of AIDS/HIV? I think here on this forum we all agree that relying on preaching abstinence from drugs simply doesn't work and harm reduction is the way to go. Does this not apply to condoms too?


----------



## Damien

Ah, I took Deutsch in Highschool. I got a "D" (Second from the lowest mark) :D

Try this as well and you might get an even fuller meaning between the two: http://www.unifr.ch/bkv/summa/kapitel752-1.htm


----------



## swilow

Nothing I've said below is especially groundbreaking or original but I've yet to hear a truly worthwhile rebuttal of some of it.

I hope its not too offensive to christians but I simulataneously don't care too much if it is. Its just my opinion based on introspection and my own experiences being raised as a catholic.



tokezu said:


> SKL, I thought of another one. I was sure it must have come up in the thread, but looking through I didn't see it. How can the catholic church's stance on condoms be justified in the face of AIDS/HIV? I think here on this forum we all agree that relying on preaching abstinence from drugs simply doesn't work and harm reduction is the way to go. Does this not apply to condoms too?



To me, its plausible that the christian god is outright evil. If we are to accept that this entity created us entirely, than it created our sex drives. Was this creation of procreative urge a mistake? Well, according to many christians, god is infallible and cannot make mistakes. Therefore, christians are saying that god in fact intentionally created these urges in us. God created tempation, not the devil or Eve. We all might be sinners, but god apparently made us this way. Why then are humans condemned by god for doing what he made us to do? I think the answer is the clear fact that this is a human fiction and can therefore be disregarded, at will, with very little consequence. 

Of course, the rebuttal is that god also created our free-will out of love for us. We have the freedom to choose right and wrong apparently. And yet, it is ingrained not only in humans but pretty much all lifeforms that the ultimate goal is procreation and it is philosophically diffcult to determine why acting on such is wrong. To make acting on those urges a sin worthy of being tortured for eternity is utterly, completely, objectively, absolutely evil. That is not free-will but extreme coercion. This proscription has done a lot to reduce the overall happiness of our lives. We are paying dearly for the slowly dying theocracy of yore. 

I should add that I am interested in christianity but have little tolerance for it. I do not think it has bettered the world or especially the individual lot of humans. I do not understand why people follow these beliefs. I think the world might be a better place without christianity. I can't think of a worse condemnation than that.  However, I respect the rights of people to believe what they wish as long as they do not force their beliefs on others. In the example here, whereby the church is actively committing people to a life of illness and suffering, the church is forcing people to do its will at figurative gunpoint. I cannot see that as anything less then utterly wrong. It is a sincere hope of mine that christianity will fade away in my lifetime- I am convinced that we can do better than that.


----------



## Nixiam

Dear me. I do believe that it is irrational to believe in a god when there is no evidence to support his existence. But I understand some people need spirituality, or at least want it. How do you believe in god? Religion has been the cause of far too many problems, has far too many imperfections and is unquestionably counter productive when taken seriously by anyone or any group of people. I cannot assert his existence or say he doesn't exist, simply because of his nature. How could I? 

I want to believe there is a god. I want that comfort. But I am not willing to lie to myself, or rationalize imperfections or delude myself into thinking so. God is speculation, he has no effect. The people who speculate with words have some effect. The ones with bombs however...


The books were written for civilizations to take it seriously. They are radical. The Christians have mellowed out a bit, but only because the Catholic Church lost such a footing due to science. 


If there is no evidence and a person can still hold the belief as high as truth, then it is either delusion, or an accident.
Quoting the bible doesn't prove god's existnce.
Vice versa with any other religion.


"God has been killed by rationalism and science.
God is dead."
- Nietsche (not Nix)


----------



## Jabberwocky

^ I suggest you simply redefine God to something more practical in scope. If God were merely the sum of everything in existence, then you wouldn't have trouble believing in that I'm guessing, the concept would be totally demystified and you wouldn't have to build a somewhat tenuous argument about how science killed something you'd like to believe in but can't in good conscience accept.


----------



## Ninae

Nixiam said:


> God has been killed by rationalism and science.
> God is dead.



_Nixiam is dead.
- God_


----------



## tokezu

Damien said:


> Ah, I took Deutsch in Highschool. I got a "D" (Second from the lowest mark) :D
> 
> Try this as well and you might get an even fuller meaning between the two: http://www.unifr.ch/bkv/summa/kapitel752-1.htm



That definitely helps, Danke schön! (I'm sure you remember that one )




willow11 said:


> To me, its plausible that the christian god is outright evil.



Well, I think it's more plausible that this is evil or misguided people projecting their thoughts onto their god, but yeah it's kind of baffling how few people entertain the notion of a malevolent god.




willow11 said:


> I respect the rights of people to believe what they wish as long as they do not force their beliefs on others.



Absolutely! I think it's a beautiful thing when somebody, like SKL, finds a religion that speaks to them and decide they want to be part of it. But this is a really small minority of religious people, most just keep on believing what they were told as children. This is one of my biggest problems with religion, how it is pushed onto little children. I mean if you are actually convinced that there is an obvious truth to your religion that would convince anyone who is at least openminded, why not wait until your child is old enough to decide for itself? But the way religious people tend to indoctrinate their children makes me think that they, at least subconsciously, know their religious views wouldn't hold up against critical thought and therefore choose to exploit their children's vulnerability.


----------



## Ninae

This discussion is getting a bit boring. Let's look at it a different way.

I believe the closest thing you have to God is your own monad, I am presence, or highest self.






It's classic that your smaller self or ego doesn't like the idea of a higher aspect getting involved. But it does when it wants to anyway.


----------



## drug_mentor

Ninae I don't think it is fair for you to attempt to hijack SKL's thread in this manner. He has put a very significant amount of thought and effort into this thread, if you want to talk about spiritual ideas which don't relate to Catholicism then you should probably do it in another thread.


----------



## Ninae

I wasn't talking to SKL or about this thread. It just occurred to me I've had this same old discussion for a long time and maybe some would be more perceptive to see it in a different way.


----------



## SKL

(2/3)

*More on the Binding of Isaac, picking up from this discussion of OT exegesis.*

.. in any event, we read these [Old Testament] texts across a great chasm of cultural difference. It is not only cultural difference alon which puts us at such great a remove, but a removal of several millenia in terms of the progress of civilization, and in the OT, a civilization or type of civilization very much more alien to our own than the Judaeo-Roman milieu of the NT. 

So therefore, when we read in the books of military history some of the atrocities that occur in the wars ofS that era, we recoil as they seem to us to be just that, atrocities. But in the context of war in that time in history, they are considerably less shocking as if we were to imagine, say, trying Joshua, the Judges and King David under the Geneva Convention. God may be eternal and unchanging, but human civilization, being based in human free will, is not; what we today may look at through the lens of our modern liberal sensibilities as being abhorrent may well be abhorrent, but particularly in the political realm we must be conscious of the context in which this conduct occurs.

Several thousand years later, almost exactly the same thing happens with regards to charges laid against the Church and the Catholic States during the Inquisition, and, writ larger, the treatment of heretics by both Church and State from the first centuries down to the dawn of the Modern Era and the conception of freedom of conscience as a democratic and liberal value (although, it is worth noting, the holy scriptures of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all, if not precisely preaching religious tolerance, are clearly written with the understanding that coexistence with other faiths will exist: a rather different thing, from the perspective of all three faiths, than heresy or perversion of the true faith.) It is worth nothing first, in this parenthesis, that that some of the most vigorous persecutions were by the State, although always under the aegis of both Church and State, for challenge to the religious _status quo_ was inherently a challenge to the political _status quo_, as evidenced by well over a century of internecine, fratricidal warfare following the Protestant revolts, not to mention the use of violence in the suppression of heresy in Protestant jurisdictions where the State was the sole actor, which were often if anything considerably more brutal than proceedings in the Inquisition. But regardless, the Inquisition's judicial practices were far more humane than was ordinary judicial proceedings of the day for common crime. Apparently, it was not unheard of for criminals to deliberatly blaspheme or proclaim heresy so as to be brought over to the more lenient courts of the Inquisition. 

So while in the details we may not be able to make any analagous statements regarding the conduct of the Israelites in warfare, the point remains that judging such conduct by modern standards is absurd. Nor can we project modern sensibilities about animal welfare, feminism, etc. into the text. What, then, value does such a text have that we may apply to our world today if we cannot conversely apply our world today to the text? Is this not a two way street?

The Old Testament, particularly the Hexateuch (the _Torah_ or five books of Moses (Pentateuch) plus Joshua), which make up, with Job, the most ancient parts of the Bible, deals with Bronze-to-Iron age civilizations in the Levant, and in particular one, Israel, who's origins are given dating back more or less to creation. It's important to note that the issue of geneaologies in the Bible is an important one and here is the origin of the ludicrous timelines of "young earth creationism" which puts the creation of the world at ca. 4000 B.C. by adding up ages and generations of these geneaologies. First of all (although Bishop Ussher, who originated this timeline, probably did not know this), this is not how geneaologies were written in that cultural context, and second, it is important to note that these works are not histories in the sense that we, or for that matter Herodotus, the "first historian" coming about 3,000 years after, understand the term.

The historical parts of the Old Testament, so-called, are not, for the believer and particularly the Christian believer, merely or even primarily about conveying the history of these Bronze age tribes, but about the relationship of one particular tribe (or twelve tribes) and their forebears, with God. This begins with Abraham, the first patriarch, who we meet, then named Abram, in Genesis 11, a man of some substance, heir to a fortune in liestock, who was inspired by God to leave hearth and home to settle a new and and recieve the blessings of God, together with his wife Sarai and cousin Lot. Through verious peregrinations, conflicts and challenges, he was travelled the land and was given a vision that his descenedents would be "as numerous as the stars," and his name changed to "Abraham," "father of many," who of course both Jews and Arabs of today see as their ultimate ancestor.

I'll discuss two incidents which trouble the modern reader, first being the destruction of the Cities of the Plain, and the second being the Binding of Isaac, but first I shall briefly describe the concept of the "enacted parable."

Jesus, as everyone who has read the Gospels knows, spoke often in parables, sometimes to the consternation of His listeners. So too Yahweh of the Old Testament. The prophet Hosea is called upon by God in the eponymous book of the Bible (quite possibly not historical but rather an extended parable or allaegory) to marry a prostitute, which provides a metaphor for Israel's unfaithfulness to God. This lesser-known and somewhat bizarre story is worth a longer treatment than I can give it here but reading it involves some similar understandings than reading the story of the Binding of Isaac.

However, to begin, we can look to the New Testament for a less charged version of an enacted parable.



			
				Mark i said:
			
		

> [Jesus was] hungry, and when he saw from a distance a fig tree that had leaves, he went to see if perhaps he would find anything on it. And when he came up to it he found nothing except leaves, becasue it was not the season for figs. And he responded, and said to it, *"Let no one eat from you any more forever."* And his disciples heard it.



_* The Lexham English Bible is a newer, Protestant version which I, as a onetime student of Biblical Greek, particularly admire for it's combination of lucidity and faithfulness to the text, as well as it's may notes shedding light on the intracacies of the original language, so I will use it here for the most part when doing close readings._

This comes in the Gospel of Mark direftly proceeding Christ's cleansing of the temple, at first driving out the money changers, merchants and hawkers, and then preached on Isaiah 56:7, "my house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations," adding, "bust _you_ hae made it a cave of robbers," offending the religious authorities. The next morning, Jesufs and his disciple find the fig tree withered from it's roots.

What is going on here? Is Jesus wantonly destroying Israeli vegetation in a fit of pique? This would seem to be the courser medieval legends about saints and Biblical figures, like Mary holding a hanged thief's head against the force of the rope for long enough for him to make a good confession, or the sometimes charming but often blasphemous and silly stories in the the heretical _Infancy Gospel of Saint Thomas_ which has Jesus killing and then resurrecting a young boy who annoyed him, or causing dead fish being fried in a pan to dance. Much to the contrary it is out of character for the serious rabbi of the canonical Gospels, not to say the Son of God, just as it is wholly out of character for Yahweh to demand child sacrifice.

Instead of a peevish act done _in vacuo_, this is an "enacted parable," that is to say, a parable not spoken in words but done in actions, to the same end: for the instruction of the audience in spiritual truths cloaked in the readily accessible lamnguage of everday life. The fig tree is a symbol of Israel (here and elsewhere, it would have been immediately recognized as such by a Jewish audience or probably anyone living in Palestine at the time,) and it's withering a symbol of Israel's spiritual bankruptcy. The tree "bears no more fruit," and this is spoken of _after_ Jesus declares the "house of prayer for all nations" to have degenerated into a "host of robbers," because the last "fruit" that that tree would bear is Christ. This truth is given throughout the New Testament, but here it is given with particular force, and one must assume with even more dramatic effect upon the Twelve who witnessed it, as it is enacted physically rather than just spoken of in the abstract.

The precise historicity of the Old Testament at this point in antiquity is a point of debate, especially given that much of what is written here has a primal and mythological quality. In any event whether this narrative be literal or mythological the intent is the same, it is an allegory or parable about faith in God and, moreoever, "myth" is not "fiction," nor even necessarily something that did not happen. But regardless of what we can say about historicity, the best way to look at the Binding of Isaac is as an enacted parable, like the withering of the fig tree or the marriage of Hosea to the harlot. God's actions here seem singularly out of character, he demands the blood sacrifice of Abraham's son. 

We instinctiely recoil in horror from a God who would demand a child as sacrifice, and rightly so, in fact, the Jewish Law and Prophets are full of horror at and condemnations of this very thing, not only on mere human grounds, but because it was a part of the abomination of Moloch-worship, which actually inolved child sacrifice by fire, c.f. Lev. 18:21. "thou salt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch," this is a repeating motif thoughout Pentateuch and prophetical books, e.g. God condemns to Jeremiah (at 32:35) building "the high places [viz. altars] to Ba'al ... to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire unto Moloch." So when the readers of Genesis in the original context would have herd of Yahweh similarly demanding child sacrifice they would hae been most strikingly taken aback. By no means is this a portrayal of God which is in line with Scripture elsewhee, and if it were taken at face value it would be a blasphemy of the highest order, putting God in the same order as a pagan diety. As Paul would have it several thousand years later, but expressing certainly the same sentiment, "what fellowship hath christ with Belial?" (II Cor. 6:15).

So not only were the original readers of the text familiar with child sacrifice being antithetical to the worship of God, and being involved in other religious traditions considered to be idolatrious and demonic, but we also should recognize that Abraham here, who is just beginning his covenant with God, is presumably aware of the practice of child sacrifice by other cults in the area. He is further aware, as an ardent monotheist, that his God, the true God, despises this practice. So the shock that he must feel when asked to enact the sacrifice of his own son, through whom, it must be added, God has given Abraham promises regarding his legacy, must be all the more greater. 

But, nonetheless, God appears, and demands blood sacrifice. What is going on here? 

There are a number of ways to handle the objection. The first, and easist, and a particular favorite of the less refined sort of fundamentalists, is to say that anyone who would purport to judge God's demand for sacrifice has no standing to do so: being that God is pefect and can do no wrong, his actions, _eo ipso_, are morally correct. Believing in God, then, we may not discard His commandments and teachings just because something offends our moral sensibilities in our modern context, even what we would take to be unviersal human sensibilities (which in fact they are not, given that human and even child sacrifice has been a practice in a very few, but still, an extant number of civilziations throughout histhory.) Those who claim that they would do otherwise but submit when commanded to do something, even so extreme an act as child sacrifice, by the Angel of the Lord coming in his full glory, are almost without a doubt claiming more resolve for themselves than they really possess. This is not the case of a mother gaining apparently super-human strength to lift a car to save her baby, or a father facing down a grizzly bear to allow his family time to escape. This is about a face to face with the creator of the universe and His Angel (literally, His Messenger, and a word about angels - each time they appear in Scripture, the first words out of their mouthes are invariably "fear not!" This should put to bed any Hallmark-card notions about their appearance and attitude.)

Nonetheless, no child sacrifice occurs, and God does not ask for the sacrifice out of bloodthirstiness - God forbid. The most common interpretation of the story is that it is a "test of faith." Adam is commanded to, not only, transgress natural law and normal human relations, but moreover to give up not only the son who he loves altruistically and selflessly but also to give up the son by whom God promised him he would have descendents as numerous as the stars: for a man in his culture, as great a reward as he might have in this world or the next. 

So, this is a test of faith, yes, but one can only imagine the alternative should Abraham refuse. Truth be told, he lacks one. He can only proceed. Then it is his attitude that must interest us:



			
				Hebrews xi said:
			
		

> By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered Isaac, and the one who received the promises was ready to offer his one and only son, with reference to whom it was said [in Gen. 21:12], “In Isaac your descendants will be named,” having reasoned that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which he received him back also as a symbol [παραβολή.]



Here, in the New Testament, it is suggested that Abraham, believing at the same time on the promise of God that through Isaac he would be made the patriarch of a new nation and also being confronted with the same God's demand for the sacrfice of Isaac, may have, to hold these two contradictory ideas in his head, concluded that even of he had done the deed, God could have restored Isaac from the dead a "parabolē," a Greek word which should need no translation—the same one used of the parables of Christ. This _explicitly_ tells us that the Binding of Isaac was seen as an enacted parable rather than an example of the bloodthirstiness of God, or an attempt to break down family ties (and much more than domestic family ties—God's promise to Abraham to make him the "father of many," an honor greater than which no man of Abraham's background could 0probably eveen imagine to aspire), or anything else.

So, then, let's look at the Abraham story in it's entirety:



			
				Genesis xxii said:
			
		

> And it happened that after these things, God tested Abraham. And he said to him, “Abraham!”
> 
> And he said, “Here I am.”
> 
> And he said, “*Take your son, your only child, Isaac, whom you love,* and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains where  I will tell you.”
> 
> And Abraham rose up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. And he took two of his servants with him, and Isaac his son. And he chopped wood for a burnt offering. And he got up and went to the place which God had told him.
> 
> On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and he saw the place at a distance.
> 
> And Abraham said to his  servants, “You stay here with the donkey, and I and the boy will go up there. We will worship, *then we will return to you.* And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and placed it on Isaac his son. And he took the fire in his hand and the knife, and the two of them went together.
> 
> And Isaac said to Abraham his father, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.”
> 
> And he said, “Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”
> 
> And Abraham said, *“God will provide the lamb for a burnt offering"*;  And the two of them went together.
> 
> And they came to the place that God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood. Then he bound Isaac his son and placed him on the altar atop the wood.
> 
> And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.
> 
> And the angel of Yahweh called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham! Abraham!”
> 
> And he said, “Here I am.”
> 
> And he said, “Do not stretch out your hand against the boy; do not do anything to him. *For now I know that you are one who fears God, since you have not withheld your son, your only child, from me.*”
> 
> And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked. And behold, a ram was caught in the thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it as a burnt offering in place of his son.
> 
> And Abraham called the name of that place “Yahweh will provide [Jehovah-Jireh]," for which reason it is said today, “on the mountain of Yahweh it shall be provided.”
> 
> And the angel of Yahweh called to Abraham a second time from heaven. And he said, “I swear by myself, declares Yahweh, that because you have done this thing and *have not withheld your son, your only child*, that I will certainly bless you and greatly multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the shore of the sea. And your offspring will take possession of the gate of his enemies. *All the nations of the earth will be blessed through your offspring*, because you have listened to my voice.”



*Final part coming soon (a close read/commentary on the above)...and then back to regularly scheduled programming  / answers to other questions I haven't found time for yet before getting distracted by working on this longer essay*


----------



## Nixiam

levelsBeyond said:


> ^ I suggest you simply redefine God to something more practical in scope. If God were merely the sum of everything in existence, then you wouldn't have trouble believing in that I'm guessing, the concept would be totally demystified and you wouldn't have to build a somewhat tenuous argument about how science killed something you'd like to believe in but can't in good conscience accept.



I am intrigued. However, if god were just a sum or even a mere practicality, why call him god? That is just trying to make the god argument more rational. The Christian god is an irrational belief to hold true. 

I have contemplated this throughout the day. I can try all I want to justify a belief in god, but in the end we get either a result that resembles no god that still has a speculative essence, or the conclusion that it is delusional to believe in a god whatsoever. More so after being educated in why its unjustified to believe such.

Interesting concept, however. Keeps the thread of spirituality going in me. Maybe.


----------



## koalabear135

Humans make gods. It's what they do. In isolated populations people will look for greater purpose. Greater meaning. It's a pattern in humanity. Now I understand these religions caught some steam, got some writing, some wind in its sails. But from an objective view of the world. They are all systemic from a human desire to create stories and religeons. A lot of the stories are reused and plagarized from Zoroastrian/Mesopotamian stories. When we die it's a blank screen. O well.


----------



## turkalurk

when you take the ego out of the question, God is apparent.  The problem is people think of god like a person controling the world, when really its Existence itself that controls everthing by just simply being what it is.  Through the inherent properties of Nature, all potentiality is actualized.  That's what god is to me:  Potentiality-Being-Actualized=Future-Present-Past

To me, its all so simple.  All my spiritual beliefs are logically coherent and consistent.  Some may say that my god doesn't qualify as god since it lacks a personality, but that doesn't bother me because I can utilize my spiritual beliefs in any way that I could with a personal god.  There have been many panentheistic or natural gods since the beginning of language.  Nirguna Brahman from Hinduism is one example.  To be honest, if you can't develop aome spiritual beliefs that make sense to you and can benefit you with some peace of mind than you are either biased against anything that resembles religion or simply lack imagination.  God is all around you and within you.  We as humans are all similar pieces of the same puzzle.


----------



## turkalurk

the child didn't die in that story but your god doesn't give a shit about killing children. 



> Exodus  12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
> 
> 
> Hosea 13:16New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
> because they have rebelled against their God.
> They will fall by the sword;
> their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
> their pregnant women ripped open.”[a]
> 1 Samuel 15:3New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
> 
> Psalm 137:8-9New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
> happy is the one who repays you
> according to what you have done to us.
> 9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
> and dashes them against the rocks.



You are really great at ostentatious pandering.  But, you avoided the question at hand(as usual).  Its a simple yes or no question.  *If a voice in your head claiming to be god demands the killing of a child, would you obey?*  You can save all the apologetic nonsense, you have already impressed us with the regurgitation of everything you have been reading on the subject,  I wanna know howYOU feel about the atrocious nature of your Bible god?


----------



## Nixiam

turkalurk said:


> the child didn't die in that story but your god doesn't give a shit about killing children.
> 
> 
> 
> You are really great at ostentatious pandering.  But, you avoided the question at hand(as usual).  Its a simple yes or no question.  *If a voice in your head claiming to be god demands the killing of a child, would you obey?*  You can save all the apologetic nonsense, you have already impressed us with the regurgitation of everything you have been reading on the subject,  I wanna know howYOU feel about the atrocious nature of your Bible god?



You are being quite offensive.


----------



## turkalurk

what are you offended by?  A murderous god that demands the killing of infants offends me, too. 
I appreciate your input, but I disagree. I am being just offensive enough. I did read through all that articulate dribble drabble looking for the answer to my question. Maybe I was offended that I wasted my time looking for a genuine response and found only more apologetics.


----------



## turkalurk

Nixiam said:


> Dear me. I do believe that it is irrational to believe in a god when there is no evidence to support his existence. But I understand some people need spirituality, or at least want it. How do you believe in god? Religion has been the cause of far too many problems, has far too many imperfections and is unquestionably counter productive when taken seriously by anyone or any group of people. I cannot assert his existence or say he doesn't exist, simply because of his nature. How could I?
> 
> I want to believe there is a god. I want that comfort. But I am not willing to lie to myself, or rationalize imperfections or delude myself into thinking so. God is speculation, he has no effect. The people who speculate with words have some effect. The ones with bombs however...
> 
> 
> The books were written for civilizations to take it seriously. They are radical. The Christians have mellowed out a bit, but only because the Catholic Church lost such a footing due to science.
> 
> 
> If there is no evidence and a person can still hold the belief as high as truth, then it is either delusion, or an accident.
> Quoting the bible doesn't prove god's existnce.
> Vice versa with any other religion.
> 
> 
> God has been killed by rationalism and science.
> God is dead.



wow dude, you are being quite offensive!  Especially to those who have not read Nietzsche.  you should use quotations so it doesn't seem like plagiarism.


----------



## Nixiam

First off, yes it was a reference to Nietsche. If that is somehow offensive, I apologize. The way you write gives off the idea that you want to offend someone. The second scentence in what you said previously in response to SKL offered that what he said was only to impress others, and had nothing to offer except a last pitch attempt to avoid a question. Or flamboyance. 

There were better ways to go about saying something, or being more direct with more pleasnt expression of being dissatisfied with his response. 

Even if I more or less agree with you.


----------



## turkalurk

So what is your point then?  To shame me into expressing myself the way you think I ought to?  I value being genuine above all else which is why said that I appreciate your input as you are just trying to express your perspective the same way I am trying to share mine.  I was not trying to insult him, it was actually a compliment as its human nature to want to impress your peers.  All good writers can come off pedantic at times.  There is no shame in it, but if you never address the actually question in a genuine way, it lacks substance.  There is no depth, just a shiny surface reflection.


----------



## Nixiam

Just trying to diffuse conflict where no conflict need lie. Just sounded like it had too much of an edge. Nobody needs to get offended or feel disgruntled in a debate of class.


----------



## turkalurk

says the guy telling him his god is dead and he is delusional. I said he was "good" at something. i said he was "articulate." Yet, I am the one being offensive? Its all a matter of perspective. To me, its not about how you word something, its about the message you are communicating.


----------



## Ninae

So we've got one classy guy and one straightforward guy. This looks promising.


----------



## swilow

I think Turk can't help being angry. Default setting.


----------



## turkalurk

wrong again willow, if you could hear my tone it would probably sound much different in my head than it sounds in yours.  I don't think anything anyone has ever said on this entire forum has ever bothered me enough to cause me feelings of anger. I like to bust balls but its all in good fun on my end.


----------



## Nixiam

-turkalurk

Nietsche said god is dead. I simply put out what I've gathered from modern thinkers, adopting it as my opinion. I can't call him delusional, but rather the degree of belief required seems like it has a call for delusional aspects, at least for myself. And from my "perspective", it looked as if you were only saying he was good or articulate at getting to anything but your question, and conciously asserting that decision. Aka, you typed like a dick. Or at least I thought so. And for the record, the message you make incorporate the words you use. I didn't say "Stop being offensive.". I said it seemed like you were being unnecessarily dickish. But if I am to say anything else, provide any other criticism this scuffle won't end. 

p.s. Ninae
I'm 15, in other words I'm anything but emotional intelligence or class.


----------



## turkalurk

so now you are basically calling me a dick while pretending to take the high road like you didn't just intensify your insults. nice...


----------



## Nixiam

*tips hat*


----------



## swilow

turkalurk said:


> wrong again willow, if you could hear my tone it would probably sound much different in my head than it sounds in yours.  I don't think anything anyone has ever said on this entire forum has ever bothered me enough to cause me feelings of anger. I like to bust balls but its all in good fun on my end.



You really don't seem very calm. You seem angry. That's what I believe...


----------



## turkalurk

well, I wouldn't expect any different from you.  You've been telling me what I mean but what I say from day one.  But, your interpretation of my demeanor has more to do with you than it does me.  If I could show you things from my eyes, you'd be suprised.  I smoke way too much weed and wax to be angry.


----------



## Nixiam

Let go of your anger, turkalurk. You will find inner peace.


----------



## turkalurk

It must be all those flatulent cows I've been eating...


----------



## Nixiam

Goddamned cows.


----------



## swilow

Thread got weird. I like :D


----------



## Xorkoth

turkalurk said:


> I wanna know howYOU feel about the atrocious nature of your Bible god?



I would have said it in a much less confrontational way (and I removed those parts of the quote), but SKL, brother man, I also want to know what your stance is on the apparent inconsistency of the Biblical God between the old and new testaments.  The NT god seems loving and compassionate, while the OT god reads like the gods of greek or roman mythology, full of jealousy and rage and very human characteristics.  Personally, I believe Jesus was trying to overturn that idea, he seemed to be preaching against the status quo.  So to me, the OT always seemed like just a book of mythology that gave context for the story of Jesus, rather than something to be used as a basis for any religious decisions as a Christian.



turkalurk said:


> says the guy telling him his god is dead and he is delusional. I said he was "good" at something. i said he was "articulate." Yet, I am the one being offensive? Its all a matter of perspective. To me, its not about how you word something, its about the message you are communicating.



In an ideal world where we can all know each others' intentions, I agree with this.  I mean yeah, it is about the message being communicated.  But we don't know you, except for the incredibly limited scope of what you have revealed through your typed contributions to this site.  We can't even get nonverbal communication cues or voice inflection on an Internet forum.  So in my opinion it's important to understand how to word things in such a way that people will be receptive to your ideas on here.  In fact, that's an important skill even in face-to-face communication, I believe it's called diplomacy.  If you have something to say, it's best said in a manner that is not likely to invite a feeling of insult to the reader/listener.  Because most people will shut down as soon as they feel insulted and not really hear what you're actually trying to say.


----------



## turkalurk

Xorkoth said:


> I would have said it in a much less confrontational way (and I removed those parts of the quote), but SKL, brother man, I also want to know what your stance is on the apparent inconsistency of the Biblical God between the old and new testaments.  The NT god seems loving and compassionate, while the OT god reads like the gods of greek or roman mythology, full of jealousy and rage and very human characteristics.  Personally, I believe Jesus was trying to overturn that idea, he seemed to be preaching against the status quo.  So to me, the OT always seemed like just a book of mythology that gave context for the story of Jesus, rather than something to be used as a basis for any religious decisions as a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> In an ideal world where we can all know each others' intentions, I agree with this.  I mean yeah, it is about the message being communicated.  But we don't know you, except for the incredibly limited scope of what you have revealed through your typed contributions to this site.  We can't even get nonverbal communication cues or voice inflection on an Internet forum.  So in my opinion it's important to understand how to word things in such a way that people will be receptive to your ideas on here.  In fact, that's an important skill even in face-to-face communication, I believe it's called diplomacy.  If you have something to say, it's best said in a manner that is not likely to invite a feeling of insult to the reader/listener.  Because most people will shut down as soon as they feel insulted and not really hear what you're actually trying to say.



Ikr, I'm working on it.


----------



## burn out

Interesting thread. The OP is a talented writer and very good at expressing his views and very knowledgeable. 



> I would have said it in a much less confrontational way (and I removed those parts of the quote), but SKL, brother man, I also want to know what your stance is on the apparent inconsistency of the Biblical God between the old and new testaments. The NT god seems loving and compassionate, while the OT god reads like the gods of greek or roman mythology, full of jealousy and rage and very human characteristics. Personally, I believe Jesus was trying to overturn that idea, he seemed to be preaching against the status quo. So to me, the OT always seemed like just a book of mythology that gave context for the story of Jesus, rather than something to be used as a basis for any religious decisions as a Christian.



I can take a stab at this one.  First of all, I see no inconsistency, only a progressive understanding of the nature of God and his relationship with mankind. I could give many Old Testament passages that support the notion of a loving, compassionate and merciful God. 

The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love.  Psalm 103:8

But you, Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness. Psalm 86:15

For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!  Ezekiel 18:32

I could list so many more passages but hopefully you get the point. Anyway, you are correct that the Old Testament is a mythology which gave context for the story of Jesus and Jesus was very much against the status quo of scribes and pharisees who were legalistic and not compassionate, thus not actually serving God.


----------



## Damien

turkalurk said:


> when you take the ego out of the question, God is apparent.  The problem is people think of god like a person controling the world, when really its Existence itself that controls everthing by just simply being what it is.



ipsum esse subsistens


----------



## turkalurk

Damien said:


> ipsum esse subsistens



Aquinas was one cool christian cat.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

SKL, one comment I have about your exegesis of the story of Isaac's sacrifice: I know that I would not have been able to do as Abraham did. I would not have had it in me to even pretend to go along with God's request, and would have faced the consequences instead. I suspect I'm hardly the only one on this.

What's so interesting to me about this, is that most stories about great legendary people or heroes invite the listener to walk in the hero's shoes, and in so doing insinuate that I have the ability to be similarly brave, and should take the legend as a guide to my own behavior. But this story gives me exactly the opposite reaction -- I clearly am not Abraham, and could never do what he did. This instills a certain level of humility in me, as is I think part of the intended effect of this story. I am not "father of a holy nation" material. And if that means that I miss a chance to be the father of a great nation, but keep the opportunity to be the father to one vulnerable young boy who loves me and needs me, then I own that.


----------



## belligerent drunk

I find it interesting and somewhat appalling that you liken Abraham to a hero of any kind in this context.


----------



## SKL

I've been terribly busy with outside considerations so haven't had much time to attend to this thread or to finish what I guess has become my "essay" on the Binding of Isaac; but just a few thoughts jotted down about ^ this: Abraham is universally considered one of the "heroes of the faith." Not merely because he set aside everything for the direct commands of God, but that he _trusted_ in God in doing so. Consider taking Abraham at his word that "“God will provide the lamb for a burnt offering." Trusting in God, and having experienced a very high level of communion with Him, Abraham at some level may have had understood that the binding and commanded sacrifice of Isaac was not, eventually, a demand for the sacrifice of Isaac, but something else entirely: a test of faith, yes. Consider that God had promised Abraham that he would become the father of a great people, with progeny "as numerous as the stars" -- in Abraham's culture, as great an accomplishment as a man could possibly have. God's apparent contradiction to this claim in sending Abraham to sacrifice his favoured son Isaac was no contradiction at all, as it was at some level not only a test by God that Abraham would follow His commands to the end, but that Abraham would have faith that God's promise would be fulfilled, despite the apparent command that would have lead that promise to have become null and void. Furthermore, from the Christian perspective, “God will provide the lamb for a burnt offering" is a prefiguration of the sacrifice of Christ, the son of God, provided by God, for the sins of the world -- see the parallels here with Abraham: the sacrifice of the son, the absolute faith of Christ ("Thy will be done...") just as Isaac has faith in his father when his father say s that God will provide the offering; in Christ, God provides the sacrifice, in the case of Christ, God hypostatically both is and receives the sacrifice in what is one of the great mysteries of our faith.


----------



## Nixiam

Why do you think he's real to begin with? Many other more viable explanations exist.


----------



## SKL

If it is not a historically true "enacted parable," or allegory, then it is simply an allegory; the theological truth contained therein would be the same.


----------



## Damien

Hebrew Catholic has a paper that fleshes out that post a bit as well (not that you couldn't do it SKL )

http://www.hebrewcatholic.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/11.07TypologyofAbrahamSarahandIsaac.pdf


----------



## belligerent drunk

SKL said:


> I've been terribly busy with outside considerations so haven't had much time to attend to this thread or to finish what I guess has become my "essay" on the Binding of Isaac; but just a few thoughts jotted down about ^ this: Abraham is universally considered one of the "heroes of the faith." Not merely because he set aside everything for the direct commands of God, but that he _trusted_ in God in doing so. Consider taking Abraham at his word that "“God will provide the lamb for a burnt offering." Trusting in God, and having experienced a very high level of communion with Him, Abraham at some level may have had understood that the binding and commanded sacrifice of Isaac was not, eventually, a demand for the sacrifice of Isaac, but something else entirely: a test of faith, yes. Consider that God had promised Abraham that he would become the father of a great people, with progeny "as numerous as the stars" -- in Abraham's culture, as great an accomplishment as a man could possibly have. God's apparent contradiction to this claim in sending Abraham to sacrifice his favoured son Isaac was no contradiction at all, as it was at some level not only a test by God that Abraham would follow His commands to the end, but that Abraham would have faith that God's promise would be fulfilled, despite the apparent command that would have lead that promise to have become null and void. Furthermore, from the Christian perspective, “God will provide the lamb for a burnt offering" is a prefiguration of the sacrifice of Christ, the son of God, provided by God, for the sins of the world -- see the parallels here with Abraham: the sacrifice of the son, the absolute faith of Christ ("Thy will be done...") just as Isaac has faith in his father when his father say s that God will provide the offering; in Christ, God provides the sacrifice, in the case of Christ, God hypostatically both is and receives the sacrifice in what is one of the great mysteries of our faith.



No offense, but to me that sounds like a bunch of nicely worded sentences put together, yet they lack essence. Why does the god need to "test" Abraham in the first place, if god is omni-potent and can know everything, including past-current-present thoughts and actions of said subject in any possibly scenario? What adds even more ridiculousness to the story in our modern day context is the need for animal sacrifice, and even human sacrifice. It just shines more light onto the probable fact that these stories were just written by people who didn't know any better - the practices in the bible and whatnot, somehow humorously coincide with the general accepted and performed practices of the era the book was written in, as in the book is centered around that exact era, not a word about perhaps our current era or something that we (or our successors) will witness in the future. Not a word of it, considering it should be the word of god. Perhaps the easy explanation is is that it's actually a collection of words of different (not so intelligent and/or educated) people of that time. Which goes a long way in explaining why the stories bear the character they do.

Anyway, I went off and did something I didn't want to do (shit on your parade, as I understand this stuff has become important to you on a psychological level), so apologies for that. However, what I'm genuinely curious about is what you take away from these stories for yourself - what conclusions that you can apply to your life do you find in these texts?


----------



## SKL

Kind of pretentious to think that you're going to come up with an argument so devastating as to "rain on my parade" and hurt me on a psychological level, isn't it? I do actually study this on more than a superficial level and believe it or not have been exposed to a contrary point of view before.

Anyway I've been saying for 2 or 3 pages that Scripture is written within the bounds of a certain time and a certain cultural context, at the same time as it is inspired by God. God, too, has met people where they are in certain ways in revelation. The reason for this, and the reason for the need to 'test' Abraham, and the reason for any sort of unpleasantness in the world in fact, is the fact of human free will, with which we are endowed by God absolutely. 

Just woke up and saw this. Unsure how much I will post today (probably not much) given work obligations but I was kind of struck by the implication that I am so fragile or your arguments are so strong that a dialogue would "rain on my parade."


----------



## drug_mentor

SKL said:


> Anyway I've been saying for 2 or 3 pages that Scripture is written within the bounds of a certain time and a certain cultural context, at the same time as it is inspired by God. God, too, has met people where they are in certain ways in revelation. The reason for this, and the reason for the need to 'test' Abraham, and the reason for any sort of unpleasantness in the world in fact, is the fact of human free will, with which we are endowed by God absolutely.



Doesn't Catholic doctrine say that God is omniscient, i.e. knows everything? I think belligerent drunks point is that if God was truly omniscient then he would not need to test any of his followers. By virtue of knowing _everything_, he would have to know whether someone was truly faithful without the need to test them.

While we are on this topic, about 3 months ago I raised the objection that there seems to be an inherent contradiction between the idea of an omniscient God and humans possessing free will. I am still waiting for an adequate response to this objection.

Obviously scripture is written within a certain cultural context, but if it was written with divine inspiration then surely the moral content of scripture should be relatively timeless. You used the same tactic to sweep away my concerns about the bible endorsing slavery. Assuming that you believe slavery is morally impermissible, don't you think that if a benevolent God was communicating with people in a time where slavery was prevalent he would (or at least should) have made it a priority to tell people that slavery is morally impermissible?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

drug_mentor said:


> While we are on this topic, about 3 months ago I raised the objection that there seems to be an inherent contradiction between the idea of an omniscient God and humans possessing free-will.



Not necessarily. I could know exactly what you're about to do, but still let you do it. Of course this begs the question of why I'd let you go ahead and do something I find objectionable when I could see it coming and could have stopped you (which is what I think you're really driving at with your question). People do this to each other all the time, for a variety of reasons.



> Obviously scripture is written within a certain cultural context, but if it was written with divine inspiration then surely the moral content of scripture should be relatively timeless. You used the same tactic to sweep away my concerns about the bible endorsing slavery. Assuming that you believe slavery is morally impermissible, don't you think that if a benevolent God was communicating with people in a time where slavery was prevalent he would (or at least should) have made it a priority to tell people that slavery is morally impermissible?



What is divine inspiration? Have any theologians, philosophers, or literary critics tackled this question throughout the ages? Because it has to have come up in scripturally-based faiths when deciding what works are canon and which are not.

When I think of divine inspiration, I imagine a person emerging from a mystical experience, deep meditative state, vision quest, or some other sort of meeting with a higher power, and just writing whatever came to mind. Even if the experience the writer had and is using for inspiration was genuine, the final written product is still subject to the limitations, biases, and interpretations of one mere mortal mind, with a certain experience of the world, and a certain agenda in reaching a certain audience. (Compare the sneer-worthy "Based on true events" that appears at the beginning of movies.) My point is, I don't know that divine inspiration necessarily imbues a piece of writing with merit for all listeners, in all settings, for all times.


----------



## belligerent drunk

SKL said:


> Kind of pretentious to think that you're going to come up with an argument so devastating as to "rain on my parade" and hurt me on a psychological level, isn't it? I do actually study this on more than a superficial level and believe it or not have been exposed to a contrary point of view before.
> 
> Just woke up and saw this. Unsure how much I will post today (probably not much) given work obligations but I was kind of struck by the implication that I am so fragile or your arguments are so strong that a dialogue would "rain on my parade."



No, that is not what I was insinuating. Quite the opposite actually. I meant to say that my points and arguments are a result of my confusion with the whole bible and organized religion. Many people get personally offended by discussions regarding scripture or something related, whereas the discussion itself has no connection to the persons(s) taking part in the discussion. Especially if one side of the arguments questions many very important aspects of a religion. So the 





> (shit on your parade, as I understand this stuff has become important to you on a psychological level)


 Piece was a disclaimer saying that I'm interested in a genuine debate (where such is possible at all), and if there were things that you may contradictory to your belief, I did not present them for the sole purpose to offending you.

The reason for all this is, having not read much of the thread for various reasons, I still have come to the understanding that religion/Christianity has been playing a large role in the development of your psyche. From your posts I can see that you're definitely an intelligent person, and an articulate one at that too. Which is why I decided to stress that, considering the fact that I'm strongly against organized religion (yet more lenient towards "personal religions"), and even more strongly against modern day analysis of the scripture, which most often than not is unacceptably biased and adopts the cherry-picking practice all too well.

However, having said all that. There is definitely zero pretentiousness or anything of the like in my comment, and nor am I saying that my 2 little arguments can bring the whole thing down to zero wiggle room, no. It just was a disclaimer: that if I say something that may sound offensive personally or to anybody, I don't mean to start throwing ad hominems left right and centre.

After a quick browse through this thread, I noticed a lot of like-minded people sharing their ideas and bolstering their own convictions, which is fun of course. I hope I won't get kicked out and hung in public because I perhaps may post a comment or three offering a different perspective showing how something is complete bullshit. Because, let's be serious here, the book was written some, what, three thousand years ago by bronze age people who never even knew that we're living in a solar system or that our planet was more of a sphere than flat.


----------



## Nixiam

The problem with free will is, it isn't truly free will if it's predetermined. If YOU know what someone will do, their action might not necessarily be predetermined. But if an all knowing god knows what you are about to do, then your action is predetermined and renders your illusionary decision pointless. I think that's more or less what he meant.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Nixiam said:


> The problem with free will is, it isn't truly free will if it's predetermined. If YOU know what someone will do, their action might not necessarily be predetermined. But if an all knowing god knows what you are about to do, then your action is predetermined and renders your illusionary decision pointless. I think that's more or less what he meant.



I would indeed be very interested to hear how Catholic theologians have bridged this gap, traditionally. I'm going to ask my parents (who've read a lot of philosophy and scriptural commentary from Catholic theologians) about this the next time we talk.

Personally, I haven't made up my mind on free will, but I think that if it's real, it is much more limited (like most true freedoms are) than we'd like to imagine. Being of a more Gnostic bent, I believe that our separate sentient existences are a mistake, as we are each a little shard of a broken whole, and that we each have a role to play in repairing and putting this whole back together. As such, any free will we have is probably a byproduct of this brokenness inherent to our lives, and will be completely irrelevant once we all return to our source and make it whole again.


----------



## Nixiam

^^ Quite an interesting idea. Goes along with interconnection of the universe (see Existiential Frustration). I like Saturdays, I get to lay in bed and read through the forum.

EDIT: Consider taking a peek at the Free Will vs Determinism thread


----------



## sigmond

Do Catholics believe in intelligent design? I read Darwin had to encounter indigenous/aboriginal people before he 'lost his faith'- lucky guy - all I have to do is take a ride on the subway...


----------



## belligerent drunk

Nixiam said:


> The problem with free will is, it isn't truly free will if it's predetermined. If YOU know what someone will do, their action might not necessarily be predetermined. But if an all knowing god knows what you are about to do, then your action is predetermined and renders your illusionary decision pointless. I think that's more or less what he meant.



Well that's the problem with religions. They were formed way before humankind was able to at least somewhat scientifically approach such matters. Just by making the assumption, for which there is some evidence and zero evidence against it, that we're just complex chemical (thus physical) systems, that alone automatically makes all religions null and obsolete. Either god is a moron and forgot which way he created his universe, or he's just fucking around with us. Maybe his line of reasoning was to "come down" to Earth, perform a bunch of noticeable stuff that would hopefully implant into the memories of the peasants living at the time, so they'd... do what...? Nothing makes sense in this scenario whatever you want to come up with.

And then it also begs the question, is god a damn terrible scientist? Ok, say he created the universe. We now know how immensely large it is and for how long it's existed. Say, we're among the first life-forms that have developed during our universe's lifetime, perhaps the first intelligent life. So, god, instead of observing such an interesting phenomenon that happened after many billions of years of "waiting", starts playing with the newly formed intelligent life, aka humans. Instead of observing the natural course of action, decides to do a bunch of shit that messes everything up for the people living here. Sounds like a little impatient kiddo is at the wheel of this whole thing.


----------



## swilow

I proposed earlier that the Christian god seems evil.

Anyway. If a god did create the universe, why must we worship it? Why would god require the contents of its creation to worship It? Did god create us to worship it? If we fail to do this, is that not truly god's failure? Why does god blame us for his flaws? If the truth is that I have freedom to do what I will, I would suggest that god has traded in his omnipotence...

I find this this topic interesting due to being raised as a Catholic. However, I find discussing the Christian god, as a real thing, to border on the absurd. Christian theology has a lack of internal logic that is greater than mere semantics. 

Applying logic to this topic is perhaps unfair.


----------



## turkalurk

SKL said:


> Just woke up and saw this. Unsure how much I will post today (probably not much) given work obligations but I was kind of struck by the implication that I am so fragile or your arguments are so strong that a dialogue would "rain on my parade."



You have to keep in mind, to someone on the outside, its like talking to a child about the tooth fairy.  On one hand, the older the kid gets the more you wonder when he is gonna see how ridiculous it is to still believe in something so illogical.  But, at the same time, you don't actually want to steal the security blanket out from under him.  However, if logic is something that would convince and compel you, you wouldn't believe all that nonsensical bull in the first place.  So, he need not worry with you, denial and delusion already have their hold on you because I can only assume you need your religion to forgive all your treacherous sins.  Thats usually why christians cling so strongly.  they feel forgiven and thats a powerful thing for thing for those who need it.  They feel despite all their fucking up, that they will be granted salvation if only the believe.

guess they never heard the parable of the goats and the sheep:
Matthew 25:31-46New International Version (NIV)


> The Sheep and the Goats
> 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
> 
> 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
> 
> 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
> 
> 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
> 
> 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
> 
> 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
> 
> 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
> 
> 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”


----------



## turkalurk

I should say that I was raised a catholic and attended catholic grade school.  I think on paper I am still a catholic, and in the traditional sense I still think of myself as Irish Catholic.  Most the catholic people I know don't believe much of whats in the Bible, we are only catholic at weddings and funerals and during holidays.  Its mostly just a family tradition.  I'm often a Paul bearer.  I will even eat the bread and drink the wine.  My family knows where I stand, I am not shy about it.  But, they are grateful I put my family's feelings ahead of my independent ego and just share in the tradition with them.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

The point of being religious is to reconnect: With other people, with the rest of existence, and with the source of all existence. It's to overcome the pain of being a separate individual, an island in a vast ocean that doesn't seem to care. Religion serves (and has served) many other functions for people, but this goal takes priority above all others. Keep this in mind when assessing anyone's motivations for religious belief or practice. Not everyone feels this yearning. But many do, and many always will.

My main qualm with Catholic Church is that I question whether it has the flexibility to allow for radical reinterpretations of ancient texts, in light of what we know now that we didn't know then. People will always try to grasp at an understanding of the unknown based on what _is_ known to them. As we learn more and try more things, our crude metaphors for grasping at the great cosmic mysteries evolve accordingly. If we're far past the point as a society where we can reconcile the portrayal of a loving God as an authoritarian chieftain, then the institutions which enshrine these stories need to be open to this level of honesty, rather than clinging to the past.

The problem that many ancient institutions fall prey to, is pandering to market for *certainty*. The legacy, reams of law and commentary, and complex hierarchical authority chains typical of ancient institutions of all stripes, lend an air of absolute certainty, about matters which elude certainty. True faith is not being certain, it's being comfortable with being uncertain.


----------



## Xorkoth

^^ Great post.  It's one of my qualms with religions also.  In my mind, one must never assume the status quo is absolutely correct and never open one's mind to the possibility of change, or greater understanding.  Particularly when something is thousands of years old, especially in light of the vastly greater knowledge of the universe that we now have.  Humans wrote the bible, in many different parts with many different people in many different times.  It's unavoidable that people wouldn't have put their own worldview and understandings into those texts.  Everything is always changing, and we should be able to understand and roll with that.


----------



## swilow

I dunno, I think the 'point' of religion is not so spiritual. Surely rote recitation ala Catholic mass partially subsumes deeper meaning. As a child, the Lord's prayer was just a sequence of sounds to me. I never examined or was lead to examine the actual meaning. Mass was boring. Where is the connection to the non-material? I can't see it in grandiose, opulent cathedrals. Almost the opposite.


----------



## sigmond

willow11 said:


> I dunno, I think the 'point' of religion is not so spiritual. Surely rote recitation ala Catholic mass partially subsumes deeper meaning. As a child, the Lord's prayer was just a sequence of sounds to me. I never examined or was lead to examine the actual meaning. Mass was boring. Where is the connection to the non-material? I can't see it in grandiose, opulent cathedrals. Almost the opposite.


The cathedrals are one aspect of Catholicism which I find endearing, enchanting, some of them-mesmerizing. I believe the point is to honor God.

(I'll elaborate on this post later - having trouble thinking at the moment.)


----------



## swilow

To me, its contradictory to speak of charity for the impoverished in such opulence. I dont feel that it honours god as much as human creativity. But, it is hypocritical for the Catholic church to preach poverty in that environ. Why would poor use of resources honour anyone? 

A church outside in a forest honours the divine better Imo.


----------



## sigmond

willow11 said:


> To me, its contradictory to speak of charity for the impoverished in such opulence. I dont feel that it honours god as much as human creativity. But, it is hypocritical for the Catholic church to preach poverty in that environ. Why would poor use of resources honour anyone?
> 
> A church outside in a forest honours the divine better Imo.



yea, you're correct, it gets even more ridiculous when you consider how many churches and miscellaneous properties owned by the Vatican which are not even being used and are slowly wasting away. Might be worth mentioning in a lot of places poor, homeless folks are not even allowed to sleep outside on the ground.

All that aside..  

(have to finish later again..)


----------



## Kittycat5

willow11 said:


> I dunno, I think the 'point' of religion is not so spiritual. Surely rote recitation ala Catholic mass partially subsumes deeper meaning. As a child, the Lord's prayer was just a sequence of sounds to me. I never examined or was lead to examine the actual meaning. Mass was boring. Where is the connection to the non-material? I can't see it in grandiose, opulent cathedrals. Almost the opposite.



I agree wholeheartedly with this and mentioned it previously. And I do not believe religion's purpose is to reconnect. I believe salvation is its reason for being and the various doctrines are how to achieve it. There are plenty and often better ways to reconnect with people and existence. Religion can accomplish this reconnection but I find it a bit more devious as many are born into religion, taught its concepts at an early age or even forced into it. Because of this early indoctrination, many lack the ability to question their religion or more broadly feel no need to think critically, can cause heavy guilt when one acts on their natural instinct or desires, and cause real emotional and psychological harm when someone does finally starts questioning the validity of their faith.

I feel this leads to entire masses of people who simply go through the motions of religion to avoid the problems that arise from ceasing to be religious which makes a mockery of the religion to which they belong. And Catholicism leads the pack.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Kittycat5 said:


> And I do not believe religion's purpose is to reconnect. I believe salvation is its reason for being and the various doctrines are how to achieve it.



Semantics. What is it that people want to be saved from when they take refuge in a religion? From an existence where they feel very alone, left to toil and hurt for a lifetime, for no apparent lasting good. But any hardship becomes bearable when it's for a higher purpose, as part of a greater plan. Being religious is putting one's hope in someone else's idea or vision of what this higher purpose might be.

I agree that religious institutions which are no longer very good at bringing people together under a common vision of a cosmic purpose, should either be overhauled or allowed to fade into history. And let new ones grow to take their place. Because I think it is wholly unreasonable to expect any given person to forsake any and all notion their their life is part of some greater cosmic plan.


----------



## swilow

Salvation from? According to Catholics, god created us. He created our natures. Do we then need to worship god to save us from the flaws of our nature that God himself created? That circular logic totally dismantles gods benevolence and makes him appear evil to me. Creating something to punish is malevolent.


----------



## belligerent drunk

willow11 said:


> Salvation from? According to Catholics, god created us. He created our natures. Do we then need to worship god to save us from the flaws of our nature that God himself created? That circular logic totally dismantles gods benevolence and makes him appear evil to me. Creating something to punish is malevolent.



You're terribly correct and it is appalling how few people manage to realize the absurdity of religion.

To MDAO: do you not think that it is childish to want to believe in a fairytale in order to feel better about yourself? Like a child believing in Santa Claus who is all excited as Christmas comes around. Make no mistake, believing in religion most definitely requires the shutdown of the bigger part of one's mental faculties, those responsible for rational and critical thinking, but most importantly those responsible for evidence-based thinking. It is astonishing how certain people can believe in religious teachings and do science, use products of science (read: everything in our everyday life) etc like it is not utterly fucking crazy!? It's like an astrophysicist who believes in flat Earth and a geocentrical universe. Is it not bloody nonsense?

I think it is cowardly and, as said before, childish to resort to comforting fairytales to come to grips with life. Why not face up to life for what it is based on our best available evidence and knowledge? Why sit around like a child, sucking on a dummy of ignorance, hoping and waiting for Mommy (god in this context) to make everything right for you? Why not take responsibility for your own life and accept that the only thing we have is NOW, THIS life. That we should be savoring the moment and enjoying it to the fullest, while making sure that our successors will also have a chance to enjoy and live a good life (e.g not mess Earth up so that coming generations have to clean up after us).

Life is beautiful, and I dare say more beautiful, without myths made by illiterate peasants some few thousands years back. Remember, they are the product of limited imagination of people who knew less about the universe than a modern 2nd grader does. It does not compare to the real beauty of our universe, which is something human mind can barely begin to understand let alone fully imagine.


----------



## tokezu

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> My main qualm with Catholic Church is that I question whether it has the  flexibility to allow for radical reinterpretations of ancient texts, in  light of what we know now that we didn't know then. People will always  try to grasp at an understanding of the unknown based on what _is_  known to them.





Xorkoth said:


> In my mind, one must never assume the status quo is absolutely correct and never open one's mind to the possibility of change, or greater understanding.



Absolutely! The bible is first and foremost a historical source and as such open to interpretation. Of course every interpretation is flawed on some level, we all know (hopefully) about the power of confirmation bias and stuff like that, so we should be humble and not act like we are representing the pinnacle of human knowledge. But at the same time we have to remind ourselves how much less knowledge people in the past had.
This is what I just don't get about SKL's approach to tradition and bible exegesis, because it seems that he does reserve the right for himself to do his own exegesis. In my eyes there are only two choices, either the "democracy of the dead" prevails, which renders all further bible exegesis useless because you are simply not allowed to come up with a new interpretation. Or the right to interpret on your own prevails, which in the end means you can pick and choose the traditions that you like and drop the ones you don't like, leading to the protestant idea of "Everybody is their own pope." You can't really have both, can you?




belligerent drunk said:


> Life is beautiful, and I dare say more beautiful, without myths made by  illiterate peasants some few thousands years back. Remember, they are  the product of limited imagination of people who knew less about the  universe than a modern 2nd grader does. *It does not compare to the real  beauty of our universe, which is something human mind can barely begin  to understand let alone fully imagine.*



This is exactly how I feel.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

belligerent drunk said:


> To MDAO: do you not think that it is childish to want to believe in a fairytale in order to feel better about yourself?



I do not see it as any sort of failing to being open to the idea that one's life here on earth is part of some greater cosmic plan, if that's what you mean.


----------



## Ninae

The funny thing about this is for a while I was seeing a Pakistani/Muslim guy. And he was, well, a believer (not in a crazy way). 

So one time I asked him if he was a good Muslim and he said "I don't know, are you a good Christian?" And I just had to laugh because there are no good Christians. Or hardly. And we have practically abandoned religion in our part of the world.


----------



## sigmond

hey - if im not on your ignore list - any interest in reviving this thread? i'd actually like to join the church but i'm afraid people will think im up to something nefarious.

What sins are unforgivable? I never robbed, raped, or killed anyone, nor do i have any desire to do so. am i good?


----------



## Xorkoth

According to Christianity, all sins are forgivable, if you confess them to a priest.  I don't agree by the way.  A lot of things the church considers to be sin are things I disagree are even bad things, but they must be confessed too.  As long as you confess to a priest, everything is forgivable, but if you don't, or if you're not a believer, you'll go to hell.  I can't get down with that.

I believe you're good if you live your life with positive intention towards others, and do your best.  Everyone makes mistakes.  But most people don't ever rape or murder people.


----------



## SKL

*Some background and thoughts about Catholic teaching on Sin, part 1*
_
This is a much belated response to some questions above. I apologize for the length of time it took me to respond, and to respond to some other things people have posted here; these long posts take some time to compose. I hope they benefit people; if they don't evangelize or revive faith, I at least hope they help people to understand that Catholic faith and it's teachings a little bit, even though I am a lay person and hardly an expert, just a good memory, have read and consumed a lot of other media and information, good with the abstract metaphysical concepts and languages and stuff.

BTW In the footnotes I put some discursive material but some of which I think is pretty interesting (otherwise I'd have left it out ) and I hope you'll consider them worth reading.

Please don't be put off if I use technical terms or languages or whatever, I assume most are easily Google/Wiki'd or just ask _

OK, on several occasions I saw this bumped, looked at it, and never got to it. My apologies. I'll now do another longer, digressive post. Part of the reason for my hesitation, perhaps, is that my spiritual life is not what it should be these days - faith is for almost all of us a constant internal struggle, not a simple decision to will oneself to believe (as the Arminian-type Evangelical Protestants and their theological descendants have it, this is what you will hear a lot of in America, "simply accept Christ as your personal savior," &c.), nor is it simply bestowed upon the predestined according to a providential plan (the Calvinist position, which you do _not_ hear as popularly here, and for good reason, it's a rather unpleasant teaching that God has predestined some to Heaven and some to Hell; there are Biblical passages which vaguely support this, but the Catholic position is always not to merely pick a verse*

Catholic teaching on sin, grossly oversimplified, and once more disclaimed that I am not a theologian or a priest, is as such;

*We are born in a state of Original Sin.* As most will know, this derives from the narrative of the Fall of Man in Genesis (at chapter iii.) 

Let's do a close read of the essential part of this narrative (the classic "eating the apple," although nowhere is it actually called an apple, and the following curses placed by God on mankind.) Let me state ahead of time that I am not necessarily saying these are _literal_ historical events, they can just as well be treated as an allegorical explanation of the sinful nature of mankind, and indeed, very interestingly, contain within them the germ of Christian soteriology.

In the garden of Eden, there were _two trees_; the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God gave the Tree of Life to Adam and Eve; presumably, this would give they and their descendants and immortal and perfect existence in the Garden of Eden; but, of course, things didn't go down like that. The serpent—read as Satan, although he is not called Satan in Genesis—the Judgment Day scenario of Apoc. 20 calls him "the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan." In the same part of the Apocalypse, a very vivid vision of the end-of-the-world scenario, there are two books involved in the final judgment of "the living and the dead," one of these books being the Book of Life, and the other a book recording men's deeds; these do correspond rather neatly to the two trees of Genesis. 

This scripture can be read in a rather forthright meaning, but the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" is particularly interesting. The following is a bit of my take on it, but follows along with Church doctrine. So, to reader at first glance, knowledge sounds good, right? And for God to deny knowledge to man would seem wrong, wouldn't it? Indeed, there have been heretical sects since very early in the Christian era and perhaps before who believe that interpreted in their particular esoteric fashion the eating of the "knowledge-fruit" to be a positive development, and see the serpent3 as the real hero of the narrative, and God to be a sort of tyrant; this is a forever-returning idea that's been hold by certain ancient Gnostic sects4, but this is contradicted about the entirety of the Scriptures, and creates a new religion entire. But, especially to the modern reader, "knowledge of good and evil" doesn't seem like a bad thing—or knowledge in general, full stop. The word is more complex, though; Hebrew *דַּעַת*, in the Septuagint (LXX), a pre-Christian translation of the _Tanakh_ (OT) into Greek2, it is _γιγνώσκω_, from which γνῶσις (_gnosis_, as in gnosticism.) Neither term means "knowledge," exactly, in the general sense of the English word, "acquaintance" has proposed as a translation, in terms of having a particular sort of _intimate_ knowledge. Essentially, by eating of the tree of knowledge, man not only gains knowledge, but capability, of good or evil, prior to that being sinless, although in some ways limited. 

The text of actual conversation between woman and serpent is interesting5:

The serpent, the most cunning animal the LORD God had made, spoke thus to the woman:

—Did God really said to you, that you may not eat of any tree in the garden?  

—We may eat from the fruits of the trees of the garden, but as for the fruit of [the Tree of Knowledge], God said, "You shall not eat from it, or touch it—or you will die the deatha!", [she answered.] 

—You will surely not die the death! See, God knows that on the day that you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like a god, knowing good and evil.

The woman looked the tree over, seeing that it was fine food, and beautiful to look at, and worthy of desire in that it would grant understanding. So she took some of it's fruit and ate it; likewise, she gave some to her husband beside her, and he partook as well; whereupon both of their eyes were open, and they realized they were naked, so they sewed together fig-leaves to make loincloths.Genesis, iii

Afterwards, God walks through the garden "at the time of the evening wind," which can be translated as _at the time of the evening spirit_. See two things here; God is _walking among men_—we hear otherwise in the Bible that to behold the face of God would strike a man dead (as was told to Moses in Exod. 33) this can taken (_a_) to be the second person of the Trinity, who would become incarnate in Jesus Christ, or (*b*) to show that man, before being cursed by God and expelled from the garden, shortly thereafter, could see the face of God without dying; perhaps both interpretations are true, or another, but clearly, as throughout the very beginning of the Bible, man enjoyed a much closer relationship with God; secondly, we can read alternatively "the evening spirit," (*רוח* = _πνεύμα_, both can be read as "spirit," "wind," "breath") and imagine that God visited our first parents every evening.

Next, the consequences. God calls after Adam, Adam comes forth, saying he hid himself because he was naked, God asks (rhetorically; not that He did not know, of course,) "who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I forbade you from eating from?"

Adam says, "the woman who You gave me, she gave me some of the fruit, and yes, I ate it."

So God asks the woman, "what have you done?" and she replies, "it was the serpent! He deceived me!"

Witness (_a_) the business of the nudity. Adam and Eve were naked in the garden before. They "realized" they were naked upon eating from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Their nakedness was innocent before, because they knew nothing of shame, because they lacked this knowledge, or rather, this "acquaintance" with good and evil, their now dual nature; seeing nakedness as shameful because they now knew of the sins that could involve or be provoked by it.

And (_b_) the blame game. Nothing unfamiliar to the modern couple. God asks Adam, basically WTF? He externalizes. He blames his wife. His wife blames the serpent. Nobody takes responsibility.

Then God curses the serpent: "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than any livestock and more than any wild animal.You will move on your belly and eat dust all the days of your life. I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel6."

There's some interesting stuff going on here: "Your seed" directed as a woman doesn't make sense, taken literally; especially in the very patriarchal culture of the Jews at the time all of this was written. _Seed_ means, in the most literal sense, semen, but more commonly as used in the Bible it means the children a man has sired by that means. So a "woman's seed" makes no sense, because the seed comes from a man, right?

Only one case in which that computes ...



And what about this business of striking the head, and the heel? Notice the bottom of the depiction of Mary before. Why is she standing on a snake? Her seed, Jesus, has defeated the Devil, "striking his head;" he died on the cross, but was resurrected. Only so much damage done. Striking his heel, metaphorically. A blow to the head is much more powerful than a blow to the heal. Mary, _mater dolorosa_ is "struck" (this is also intimately related with the prophecy given by Simeon while Mary was with child, that a "sword would pierce her heart," meaning the grief of standing at the bottom of the cross watching the death of her son.) The snake at her feet is dead, though, having been struck down by Christ.

But that's all a long way off.

God then curses Adam and Eve to the difficulties we now know in life—her difficulty in childhood and subjugation to her husband; his needing to labor daily to "eat bread by the sweat of [his] brow"; even the ground is cursed, no longer bringing forth plentiful food for mankind to eat, but requiring intensive labor. God says,

You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow
until you return to the ground,
since you were taken from it.
For you are dust,
and you will return to dust6.

Remember all the business about "dying the death?" Most translations have this just as "die." In Hebrew, doubling the word is a way of intensifying or placing extra emphasis on it, "die!" So, the deception of the serpent here—he is not literally lying when he says that "you shall certainly not die…," as in, be struck dead immediately upon eating the fruit, but "…die the death" is a different matter. This means the introduction of mortality into the world. "For you are dust"—from which Adam was created—"and you will return to dust," die.

Saint Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, chapter 5: "… sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned." 

The dual nature of acquaintance with/knowledge of good and evil were passed on from Adam and Eve onwards to all mankind. In a variety of places in both the Old and New Testaments (including a statement of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, "be thou perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.") St. James says, "whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all," God at various places in the _Torah_ demands perfect obedience to the law, "walk before me and be blameless," he asks of Abraham at one point.

Now, with "acquintance" with good and evil, who can be perfect?

Not a single one.

"All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God," St. Paul writes again in the letter to the Romans (ch. iii)

This is the matter of original sin. All are tainted with it. A specific Divine miracle gave Mary her "Immaculate Conception," which is _not_, as per a common misconception, a term for the miracle of the Virgin Birth. The Immaculate Conception prevented Mary from inheriting original sin, and she too, "a virgin without spot," remained sinless, and gave birth, miraculously, still as a virgin, to Jesus Christ, likewise untainted by original sin, and who lived a blameless and sinless life; his sacrifice on the Cross, via what is called the _substitutionary atonement_. The first letter of Peter, the first Pope, states, Christ "Himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, … [He] died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God," the same concept is found in the letters of Paul and elsewhere in Scripture, including many times allegorically (e.g. the Passover and the blood of the lamb—the Last Supper was, of course, a Jewish Passover meal, _Christus innocens Patri reconciliator peccatores_, as the beautiful Easter hymn _Victimæ Paschali_, has it.)



Some Evangelical Protestant Christians believe that one merely must "accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior" and then will be saved. Some Methodist and Holiness Pentecostals believe that after this is done, if done honestly, than one will no longer sin, citing verses like "No one who lives in Him [Christ] keeps on sinning." (I John iii, 6). But yet, even the holiest of people struggle with sin. St. Paul speaks honestly of his own struggles with the flesh in his letter to the Romans and elsewhere. Even priests and the Pope go to confession, and often. Frequent confession is encouraged by the Church and all recent, and most in general Popes have preached and practiced it. Pius XII and John Paul II, among others, went every day. 

How do we reconcile this with the idea that "no one who lives in Him keeps sinning?" The spiritual life is a daily struggle. We are not at all moments living with Him, we are tempted by the flesh. Catholic theology calls this _concupiscence_. The word is often associated with sexual lust but does not by any means mean so exclusively. It means our own inborn inclination to do things that are contrary to the teachings of God, nature, and even our own well being. The Church teaches that human nature is originally good, tainted only by the fall, which, by virtue of knowledge/acquaintance with both good _and_ evil, lead to the possibility of concupiscence, which by itself isn't a sin, but a strongly inclination to, although Jesus taught us that lusting after a woman in our heart (specifically) is akin to the sin of adultery, and sustained anger to murder. 

One aspect of Catholic teaching that is not found in most Protestant denominationsis that of mortal versus venal sin. The First Letter of John speaks to this, "All unrighteousness is sin, and [_or_, but] there is sin that does not bring death," but also speaks of "sin that brings death" as a much graver matter. _Death_ in this context can be understood in a similar sort of way to "dying the death," but herein is meant condemnation to Hell, as mortal sins do; venal sins rather add to time spent in Purgatory. Both should be confessed sacramentally.

Almost all people not dying in a state of mortal sin will spend time in purgatory before Heaven; there are Catholic teachings about specific lengths of time spent there, but in more modern teachings, time is more or less meaningless there (as it is for God, in Heaven, or in Hell.) _Purgatory_ means a place of _purgation_, i.e. _purging_ the soul of sin. It is not something to be feared so much as a step on the way. Catholics in fact pray for the "Holy Souls in Purgatory;" if there are "Holy Souls" there, it is not a place of punishment, but rather a part of the spiritual journey to blessedness and dwelling with God.

The Gk. term for sin, _ἁμαρτία_, etymologically means "missing the mark," as in shooting an arrow and missing the target. Sin is "missing the mark," the teachings of God and the guidelines set by Him for living a Holy life

There is no exhaustive list of what constitutes a sin, but there are several notable enumertions of serious sins. The "seven deadly sins" are compiled from various places in the Bible, and are: envy, gluttony, avarice, lust, pride, sloth, wrath. Other compilations of serious sins in the Bible include this one in the letter to Galatians, chapter 5: "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar. I tell you about these things in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." 

Add to this, of course, the Ten Commandments; another list is found in Proverbs 6, very similar to the seven deadly sins, "… the Lord hates … a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren." These are for the most part counted among mortal sins, but are not an exhaustive list. Venal sins are more minor matters, but still important deviances from God.

Baptism, which can only be performed once, removes sin; in the Catholic church, it is usually practiced on infants, otherwise on people converting to Catholicism who did not previously have Christian baptism (the Church teaches that any Baptism "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost8" is valid, even if not done by a Catholic priest, and can be done in cases of emergency by laypeople, i.e. in a baby who has been just born but is dying.) This removes the "stain" of original sin, although not the possibility of concupiscence later on; Baptism of an adult removes all previous sins, as well. After that, Confession is needed. The Bible mentions "confess your sins to one another," but does not specifically call for a priest, but this has been the practice of the Church since time immemorial. This somewhat lengthy lecture by Dr Scott Hahn, a former Protestant minister who has converted to Catholicism, deals with confession in much more depth and with much more knowledge than I can here, and I'd highly recommend it; Dr Hahn's videos and other materials were instrumental in my conversion to Catholicism.

"Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" is much spoken about, as the unforgivable sin. It comes, generally from one verse Matthew 12:31-2, "I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the one to come." Context is important (see fn. 1) The context is that the Pharisees are accusing Jesus of being in league with Satan and, basically, using black magic to cast demons out of people. They are attributing a very important act of God, and one pivotal in the history of salvation, to Satan, rather than God. In the book of Isaiah, God, speaking to those people in Israel who were leaving the true faith, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (ch. v) This is not a sin that one can commit unknowingly. The Pharisees should have known better; they were well acquainted with Scripture and it's teachings and the expectation of _moschiach_, the Christ, but when He came, they accused him of being in league with Satan. This is not the sort of thing that an ordinary person is going to run into.

Apart from that, just as Christ says in the same passage, _people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy_. What is required is confession, penance, and a sincere act of contrition. Confession is just that. When you go in to the box (and many places will do away with that, sometimes just sitting back to back with the priest, or even face to face), if you are unsure of what you are doing, the priest will help. They have heard all sorts of things, and almost certainly have heard worse than anything that you have to say. They are not judgmental. They may give some advice, but the confessional is not for counseling. You need not get into a lot of detail, just name the sins that you have committed, what sort, how often ("number and kind" is a traditional phrase.) The act of contrition, there are various prewritten prayers, some long, some short, some more traditional, some more modern, but can also be a prayer of your own, but the prayer in essence is to tell God that you are sincerely sorry for having "missed the mark" and that you want to do better. This has to be sincere. You can't keep sinning and just figure, oh well, I can go to confession once next week, and be absolved. The confession and act of contrition have to be sincere. The penance can vary from the priest, classically and typically, it involves reciting some prayers, but sometimes it will be something else, I have been in confession and given a penance as simple as "do a nice thing for somebody today."

More later. Consider this part one; and I'll of course try to participate as best as I can with any questions or responses people give.

I also have something about the binding of Isaac but I lost it with a broken computer and intend to fix that up again, but these long posts do not just flow, there's a more than a bit of time and effort involved. This one took a few days (not constantly of course but I have to be in the right space and use the right part of my brain which is a bit tired now but I promise I'm going to return here with some more posts of the length/depth of this one, assuming people are interested)






________________________________________
*Notes*
1 It is worth noting that the chapters and verses in our modern Bibles are rather late innovations. Various methods of partitioning out the books for easy reference have existed for a long time, but they were usually specific to a specific manuscript, and those which were copied after it. Our chapters date to the 13th century (a very productive and beautiful century in Church history), verses in the NT date only to the famous Gk. publication of Stephanus in 1551 (also one of the first books published in the typeface Garamond, a modern permutation of which you almost surely have right on your computer.) OT verses developed by Jewish rabbis came only a little earlier, but in any event well into post-Biblical times. Why does this matter? It's a common fallacy to use these verses out of context in "proof-texting," where a circle of quotes from various sources is connected to formulate a doctrine rather than reading the Scripture in it's totality, and in it's context, and through the lens of Sacred Tradition. Biblical interpretation is called _exegesis_ ("bringing forth"); reading one's own ideas into the Bible is called _eisegesis_ ("bringing into,") which is never the right way to interpret Scripture. There's a humorously exaggerated anecdote that makes the point rather well. There was a man deep in depression seeking spiritual solace from Scripture, but he went about doing so in the following manner. He flipped he book open, and blindly pointed his finger to a spot on the page, finding himself at the book of Matthew, xvii, 5. _And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself_ Disturbed, he tried it again, moving forward in the Bible to the Book of Luke, x, 37, which says in part, _Jesus told him, Go yourself and do likewise._ The final effort brought him to John, xiii, 27, which, again in part, has Jesus saying, _Go and do likewise_. Prof. Israel Shahak (_Jewish History, Jewish Religion_, chapter 3) relates that the Orthodox rabbinate interprets Exod. 23:2, "thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment," by reading only the last words of this sentence, "decline after many to wrest judgment," quite literally inverting the meaning. Shahak writes that the "text plainly warns against following the bandwagon in an unjust cause … [and is twisted so as to be] interpreted as an injunction to follow the majority." The moral of the story being be very careful of literature and preachers who constantly are citing single verses to prove one point or another, without context—historical, traditional, and in the text _surrounding_ the verse. The Catholic and Orthodox attitudes toward the Bible tend to be more holistic, while still believing, when it comes to Scripture, than Protestants; one of Luther's bywords was _sola scriptura_, but this is a self-defeating fallacy—to say, _sola scriptura_, one must define _scriptura_, which necessarily invokes extra-scriptural Tradition; not to mention that the whole concept of Bible interpretations being personal or subjective (even to a pastor preacher); not to mention, in Scripture itself, the second letter of Peter warns strongly against "private interpretation" of Scripture, meaning that Scripture and Prophecy are interpreted _inside the Church._

2 The LXX is especially important for the study of the Bible, as is the Latin Vulgate (which is the standard text for the purposes of the Church.) Available texts (that is to say, actual physical manuscripts that still exist) of the LXX are much, much older than any Hebrew manuscripts; also it was translated at a time where Hebrew was a living language, and, as it is pre-Christian, there is no question of the bias resulting from conflicting interpretations of Jews and Christians. The controversy over the interpretation of the word *עַלְמָה*, translated as _παρθένος_, "virgin," which some Hebrew scholars—mostly Jewish, or liberal/modernizing Christians who would deny the Virgin Birth, a cornerstone of the faith—maintain means only "young woman" without an implication of virginity. The translators of the LXX would be unlikely to make the mistake, especially as a virgin conceiving is such a striking statement, and would have no reason to do so in order to promote Christianity, unlike the Jewish and Modernist scholars who have an agenda to _disparage_ it.

3 Books could be written about the symbolism of serpents in the Bible, both positive and negative. A serpent raised on a pole in the book of Numbers gives divine protection to the Israelites, Jesus instructs his disciples to be as "wise as serpents and [but] harmless as doves." But of course the term is also used to refer to Satan, the tempter and adversary.

4 _Gnosticism_ is an incredibly broad term when used historically to describe historical groups with a very wide range of beliefs, but mostly of a syncretic character combining Christianity with neo-Platonic Greek philosophy, Eastern mystery cults, and Jewish mysticism, resulting in a strange brew of multiple male and female "emanations" of God (see again Shahak, loc. cit.), pyramids of different divinities with an inacessible and abstract divine entity at the top, and God relegated to a mere _demiurge_ (a Platonic concept), a creator; sometimes, like in some Eastern religions (cf. _Maya_), reality is seen as an illusion to be overcome; but the overall concept of Gnosticism is salvation not by works, not by faith, but by _γνωστικός_, having "knowledge," but the concept is much deeper than that (see text.) Gnostics had very different ideas about sin than mainstream Christians. For Gnostics, their practical exercise of their faith ranged from extreme asceticism (abstinence from various types of food, sexual relations, and other worldly things) to extreme libertinism. Gnosticism survived well into the medieval era, where it was the subject of many inquisitions against heresies and even the bloody Albigensian Crusade, and afterwards; much modern New Age philosophy is just gnosticism repackaged and rebranded, and many New Age teachers specifically refer to gnosticism or explicitly claim the term.

5 This rough translation into contemporary language is my own, drawing upon several sources with reference Hebrew (MT) and Greek (LXX) text. I mix some dynamism with literal translation of Hebrew idiom, i.e. "die the death," discussed _supra_; my main English sources are the NASB and the HCSB.

6 Most of the following Scriptural quotations will be from the HCSB, NASB or occasionally the KJV.

7 καί, a conjunction which can, dependent on context, mean either. 

8 Ghost = Spirit = *רוח* = πνεύμα; "Holy Ghost" is somewhat more traditional, but "Holy Spirit" is synonymous.


----------



## socko

SKL, my understanding of Christianity is that the core beliefs are summarized in the Nicene Creed of 325 and then were made more specific in 381 particularly regarding the Resurrection. To be a Christian, you MUST believe in everything in the Creed, including a physical Resurrection and Ascension. 

I don't believe in the Resurrection. It's one of the most difficult parts of Christian doctrine, but it is part of the core. I could cheat by trying to convince myself that He wasn't really dead but in a coma and woke up the way people sometimes wake up in coffins at their own funerals due to a mistake, or maybe His appearance was a ghost. 

So, how did you or Christians in general, come to terms with the Resurrection?


----------



## tokezu

Very interesting stuff SKL, I have a few points if you want to humor me. 



SKL said:


> The Church teaches that human nature is originally good, tainted only by the fall, which, by virtue of knowledge/acquaintance with both good _and_ evil, lead to the possibility of concupiscence, which by itself isn't a sin, but a strongly inclination to


 
But how can you characterize it as being good without having the knowledge of good and evil? Wouldn't naivety be a more fitting description than goodness? I think the only meaningful way to 'be good' is to be so by choice. Isn't that a much higher standard, than not doing evil simply because you don't know of evil, and therefore what God would truly expect from us? Wouldn't this so called fall then be in fact a crucial and necessary step, albeit maybe a painful one, towards God's true goal? Likewise parents of young adults might cringe looking at the choices their kids make, but still understand that making your own choices is the only way to grow as a person.
If a state of childlike naivety is what God really deemed to be best for us, then he would have made sure that would never change. Otherwise we're at the old argument of "He is either not omnipotent or not benevolent", no?



SKL said:


> God gave the Tree of Life to Adam and Eve; presumably, this would give they and their descendants and immortal and perfect existence in the Garden of Eden; but, of course, things didn't go down like that.


 
Is this your private speculation or widely assumed in catholic theology? I have watched parts of a lecture series on the Old Testament recently (the title is misleading though since it deals with these texts exclusively within the context of ancient Israel, not as part of the christian tradition). One point the lecturer made was that at times the text is subverting, maybe even making fun of, myths that were well known in the ancient near east. One of these is the widely held notion of  a tree of life and the general idea that immortality is the highest goal humans could strive for. So the writers (or originally the orators) of these stories introducing the tree of life but then seemingly just forgetting about it, can be seen as purposefully setting themselves apart from their environment, playing with the listeners expectations of what a typical myth works like (obviosly happening at a time when these stories only started to get spread around). Maybe the tree of life not being important, is exactly the point they wanted to make, what do you think? 

This probably opens a whole other can of worms, but what are your thoughts on the historical-critical method of studying the bible? Is it important what the ancient Israelites believed these texts to mean or is all that pointless because regardless of their understanding at that time, God "wrote" it through divine inspiration already with a christian reader in mind?



SKL said:


> Biblical interpretation is called _exegesis_ ("bringing forth"); reading one's own ideas into the Bible is called _eisegesis_ ("bringing into,") which is never the right way to interpret Scripture.
> [...]
> not to mention that the whole concept of Bible interpretations being personal or subjective (even to a pastor preacher); not to mention, in Scripture itself, the second letter of Peter warns strongly against "private interpretation" of Scripture, meaning that Scripture and Prophecy are interpreted _inside the Church._


 

Does this also refer to the idea of contextual theology? Because to me it seems quite obvious that every theology is a contextual theology, because no bible exegesis, no theology can be done in a vacuum. How could any human or group of humans (like the church) come up with an non-subjective interpretation? For that they would need to be able to step outside of their own cultural context, which is impossible. Liberation theology for example came from a situation in which the questions of poverty and oppression were of great importance and naturally that influenced the way they read the bible, nothing else would have made sense to them. But the point is they were aware that's what they were doing and didn't claim their interpretation was the only objectively correct one. Early missionaries on the other hand often didn't stop to think how much of their theology was coloured by colonialism, for them it seemed like the objective way to look at the world. 
The only possibility I see, to argue that any humans or organizations interpretation is objectively correct, is to posit direct divine intervention, God effectively speaking through them. But that still doesn't let you of the hook, because there are quite a few people as well as organizations claiming that God is speaking through them. It is still _you_ who has to decide which one to follow and all you have to go on is your own subjective view of things because that's all you can ever have.

I just find it hard to imagine, from how confidently you defend your own point of view, that you would just accept the party line, if the catholic church adopted a particular interpretation of scripture tomorrow that you believed to be wrong. Or is it rather that you can't imagine that to ever be the case?


----------



## swilow

Such a great post SKL  I'm only halfway through but thanks for all the detail. Ill be asking some questions.


----------



## jammin83

havent read your more recent posts yet but i doubt youve answered my questions. 

I would be interested to know more about your eschatological views. Do you reject futurism? I would assume you are not fond of dispensationalism but would be interested to hear your reply. 

How do you feel about the current pope? and the second part of that same question would be how do you feel about the jesuits? 

i cant help but feel that catholicism isn't entirely in line with what the Bible actually says. im sure youve dealt with such sentiments before. but in Rev there are passages that reference intertwining paganism with christianity. Can you see that the catholic church might be involved with this?

My personal feelings are that Catholicism has and always will be about using Christianity as a control mechanism. Control, IMO, is what a typical non-believer would bring up when discussing Christianity. and they would be correct in some aspects, while dismissing Christianity as being ultimately about freedom. 

As ive mentioned before to you, i believe that there is direct link between satan and pedophilia. there is more than just a smidgen of evidence that the catholic church has been involved with pedophilia and child trafficking. i love me a conspiracy, but these are not unsubstantiated claims. combined with the symbolism in the vatican, a pope calling for a NWO, forgiveness of abortion, etc...there seems to be some weirdness going on with it as a protestant outsider. it seems to put men in the place of Jesus. 



> Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.




Vicarius Filii Dei 

EDIT: After doing some research, I am not entirely sure that an eternal hell is Biblical. I kind of feel like this is a common misconception about Christianity that has been spread much like futurism has. I think this can play into the fear aspect of religion which seems to conveniently play into the control aspect I mentioned earlier.


----------



## jammin83

I guess im going to have to fly to manhattan to have a chat with you about your false religion thats run by crypto jews. its not too late to repent. its not about protestantism vs catholicism and differing ideologies. catholic leadership is the synagogue of satan.  i think you have the ability to see that considering your pope is the new leader of the far left which is beyond ironic.


----------



## SKL

in terms of longer responses, I owe them to this thread and will get there

"Vicarius Filii Dei" is actually not an official papal title and 666 = Hebrew/Aramaic for "_neron chaiser_" = Nero Caeser, which will also give you an idea of my approach to the Apocalypse of St John, I am more or less inclined to partial preterism as is most Catholic teaching although the approach to the exegesis of the Apocalypse (traditionally Catholics call the book "Apocalypse/Apoc." not "Revelation/Rev." which is the more literal incipit) is not so much officially defined or even focused on by the Church as it is in many Protestant sects; the "Vicarius..." = 666 is mostly an SDA thing ...

but anyway, certainly I find some things about the current Pope to be troubling, but also, a lot of the things that he's said, e.g. about homosexuality ("what do I care?"), have been treated rather inaccurately by the media and his economic ideas which are interpreted as modern-day leftism are actually in line with Catholic social teaching of 100+ years (cf. _Rerum Novarum_ and others, and the spirit of the Church's attitude towards the poor, following after Christ's, of course, throughout history) 

but the Church can and has survived less than great Popes. we've had bad popes and questionable popes and morally wicked popes and political popes (especially when the pope was not only the Pope but also the prince of an Italian city-state) but always they have been guided by the Holy Spirit in terms of their solemn government of the Church in spiritual matters. I loved the now-emeritus Benedict XVI and converted during his papacy; his resignation was to say the least rather traumatic; Francis PP is well-loved and has many great facets including a great humility and love for the poor. the Jesuits in general, and not only the Jesuits in terms of special movements and orders inside the Church, have been theologically, politically and otherwise controversial and/or problematic from time to time but he does not adopt the more problematic things very common in the SJ of the 20th century; the really central issue right now controverted in the Church with regards to Francis vs tradition is about divorce and is extremely nuanced and complicated about pastoral care and the administration of communion, etc. 

as I've said repeatedly here, the Pope has the charism of infallibility only in pronunciations made solemnly _ex cathedra_; not everything he says or does is necessarily right, morally or theologically; Popes have even at times arguably gone into heresy (cf. the rather complicated situation of Liberius PP and St Athanasius around Arianism), which is not to say that the current one has, but not _ex cathedra_ and they, and the Church, has always repented of this; Francis PP has not given any pronouncements _ex cathedra_ that are unorthodox although he is dealing inliturgical and pastoral practices  sometimes troubling to the traditionalist mind. a lot of what went in Vatican II, obviously, is troubling, but going back to the actual texts versus what actually went on in many churches especially in America there is a stark contrast.

we must trust, though, in Holy Mother Church, to sort this out, as she has over 2,000 years. the modern world and the mass media do the Church often grave injustice so it is very important to study and understand and to have priests who do so and who can provide proper spiritual guidance and teaching. 

a great blog, which touches, and particularly during particular moments of controversy, often about issues to do with modernism, traditionalism, the two most recent Popes, etc. but above all about spirituality and liturgy is "Father Z" at http://wdtprs.com he can obviously articulate many things better and with more authority than I.

there are groups within the Church who reject recent Popes. I am not among them. there is the SSPX which rejects much of Vatican II, but is in communion but in irregular status with the Church (it's complicated and I wouldn't dare to try to sum it up here) and there are even "sedevecantist" (literally, empty-seat-ist) groups as I said who believe that all popes after VatII are invalid, they often break up and ironically in their splitting off resemble Protestants; the great changes after VatII are very complicated and still resonating in the Church today. the Catholic part of my family, many of them just stopped going to Mass after it was changed, very sad. the idea was to renew the Church, but the pews emptied, instead, while more people flock to more traditional avenues more and more often, many of the most thriving congregations and groups are traditionally-minded, whereas the, e.g., groups of heretical modernist nuns are literally dying off and find no young women as postulates.

the Church is indeed in turmoil. it has happened many times before; there have even been times when there have been multiple claimants to be Pope, the removal of the Pope from Rome, there was the division of what's now called Eastern Orthodoxy, a schism yet to be healed, schisms now healed, and of course the great Protestant schism, producing an entirely different Christian religion with hundreds of thousands or millions of "popes"; there's been the "Babylonian Captivity of the Church" (Luther used this phrase but it has  a different meaning in orthodox Catholicism) in Avignon ...

the Church is complicated. like life and history and the world. the Church is not otherworldly, it is made up of people. the hierarchy is not made up of perfect men. sometimes chaos waxes and wanes and it's difficult to know spiritually what's happening. but the Church remains the Church, after 2,000 years.


----------



## Crankinit

What are your thoughts on the Eastern Orthodox Church and why did you convert to Roman Catholic over Eastern Orthodox? My insight into both is fairly limited (I was raised Roman Catholic until the age of 10 or so, and I have family members who converted to Eastern Orthodox as adults and with whom I discuss religious matters occasionally).

I'm not sure where I fall on most of the complicated theological and historical disputes, but I will say that the Eastern Orthodox Church seems, to me, to have have done a better job at producing, and to still be producing, individuals of genuine spiritual insight, to the extent that even though I am far from Christian I can appreciate much of the works of an individual like Saint Paisios, which contain a lot of principles which seem very much universal. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church is still producing such individuals _in this era_ makes it all the more remarkable.

 By comparison, I struggle to see anything coming out of the Roman Catholic Church which makes me think that the institution is actually inducing spiritual development or fulfillment of any kind in it's membership - it all feels highly intellectualized and politicized, even secularized to a great degree. A good comparison I think is that of Saint Paisios to Saint Theresa. Despite them both having been awarded the status of Sainthood and arguably being the penultimate examples of their respective denominations in the 20th century, I, a non-Christian, can read Paisios' work and appreciate the guidance contained within it, and find much in there which is common with other spiritual traditions around the world.

 By comparison, Saint Theresa does not appear to be someone who developed any real degree of spiritual insight (at least in my admittedly un-expert view), who was primarily concerned with the "real world" work of the Church (that is, she didn't do anything that hasn't been done by plenty of secular charities), and in fact is generally understood to have wavered in her faith considerably in her adult life. Putting the metaphysics aside, I can look at Paisios and say "yeah, I can see why they decided to canonize him." By contrast, the move to canonize Theresa seems like it was largely political.

Anyway, I'm not trying to attack Theresa specifically, or the Roman Catholic Church through her (I didn't intend for my post to go down that road at all but it's a comparison which comes to mind whenever I think of the issue), but it seems to me that she's somewhat emblematic of the general state of the modern Roman Catholic Church - disconnected from any conception of the divine, devoid of spiritual insight, overly focused on intellectual or worldly & political pursuits, constantly embroiled in controversy (although of course the Orthodox Church has it's own far share of controversy as well). I'm curious about what your perspective, as a believer, is on these issues.


----------



## What 23

Per my posting in CE&P, that you suggested I ask here, so you can shed your light on it. 

From Matthew 15-

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Is Jesus showing his priority was to the Jews (or, who are the Lost sheep of Israel)? Or is this purely a teaching moment for his apostles, and testing her faith? If these are the case, are his words, calling her a "dog", nullified?

I will let you explain how you will- I don't expect my exact question(s) to be answered (I also don't want to detract with it/burden your answering unnecessarily with it), but please feel free to explain it how you know/understand. 

Thank you.


----------



## ecstacylover

SKL, I've always enjoyed your posts in PD and I had always wondered your reasoning for choosing Catholicism so I was excited when I stumbled upon this thread today. 


My parents are very devout Catholics (though I suspect they have loosened up a _bit _as the years have passed) and Catholicism had its imprint all over my childhood. I was homeschooled though much of my adolescence if that says anything. Hell, we used to drive 2 hours both ways to Sunday mass because they didn't find any of the priests in our city orthodox enough. I don't remember the exact age when I began to question the religion but I started refusing to go to church at some point in high school. Having two younger siblings, this among other things extremely strained my relationship with my parents. Although we are on better terms these days, it still saddens me that I'm not closer to my parents and I find it frustrating that this is mostly due to their religious beliefs.


I think that spirituality is an essential and extremely personal part of the human experience. In contrast, for all intents and purposes religion is a corruption of this IMO. I don't believe that everything in our universe is quantifiable and I think it naive to hold otherwise. To me, this is where spirituality comes in. Others in this thread have stated that life has whatever meaning you give it and I think this holds true here. 


Your body is a machine blindly designed to replicate itself, so of course fear of death should be natural (or else it would not be a very good machine!). Take a step back though and truly contemplate eternal life from your current reference point, in some ways it seems almost a curse. Now consider this was your only existence, then wouldn't you try to make your mark and enjoy it as much as possible? To me, that's almost liberating.
The way I see it, religion is the ultimate lottery. I always hear religious people ask, "what do you have to lose by believing"? By basing my entire given existence on a completely and utterly faith-based religion's afterlife (not even considering the countless logical fallacies for each one as others have already mentioned), my answer would be: "Everything!"


SKL, I do have a couple questions for you.


1. If God does have a plan for each and every person, how does free-will fit into this equation? If my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. are already accounted for, then it seems when and with who I reproduce (and consequently almost every other aspect of my existence) is predetermined.


2. How do you feel about the compelling evidence for natural selection? Fossil records correlate perfectly across strata and natural selection has even been observed on the timescales we experience in our day to day lives. Natural selection offers the only logical, plausible, but most of all _satisfying _explanation for why we are here today - given the initial physics of the universe.


----------



## -=SS=-

Hi SKL, could you respond to my questions quoted below? They were on the 1st page of the thread but never got answered I don't think. Cheers! 



-=SS=- said:


> Would you ever consider branching beyond the Catholic faith? I don't mean rejecting it altogether, but investigating other faiths and seeing if you can find any similarities or correlations which could go towards you making your own moral code? I think the church does play an important role in bringing people together and binding communities, so obviously if you left the faith to stand alone you might potentially lose that social belonging.
> 
> Also you gave some background here on yourself, and I got impressions from your posts in other threads.. have you had an emotional or salvation type experience prior to just joining, or since you've joined the Catholic faith? You said you had some bad habits and they've been lifted from you.. was this a tangible experience for you, as I've heard about people praying or sincerely throwing themselves down to Jesus or another faith and having all their burdens instantly lifted, resulting in great emotional rapture. Just curious if, given your background, you've had that experience.
> 
> How do you feel towards Protestantism? The perspective usually comes from the other direction, and I don't know any Catholics personally so I've never had the chance to ask someone about how they feel. In what way have they diverged from what they should be doing or thinking etc?


----------



## LucidSDreamr

do you still use drugs? what kind? do you feel guilty about it from a religious standpoint?


----------



## Jabberwocky

Why does Christ perform Miracles and yet the Bible speaks against magic and magical remedies. What is the difference as you understand it?


----------



## swilow

Christ understands the laws of physics.


----------



## DoctorMolecule

The type of church history we should emulate is that before edict of Milan and the Pentecost in the book of acts. To sum up my beliefs I'm a nondenominational Hebrew roots follower of Yeshua Messiah.


----------



## DoctorMolecule

jammin83 said:


> havent read your more recent posts yet but i doubt youve answered my questions.
> 
> I would be interested to know more about your eschatological views. Do you reject futurism? I would assume you are not fond of dispensationalism but would be interested to hear your reply.
> 
> How do you feel about the current pope? and the second part of that same question would be how do you feel about the jesuits?
> 
> i cant help but feel that catholicism isn't entirely in line with what the Bible actually says. im sure youve dealt with such sentiments before. but in Rev there are passages that reference intertwining paganism with christianity. Can you see that the catholic church might be involved with this?
> 
> My personal feelings are that Catholicism has and always will be about using Christianity as a control mechanism. Control, IMO, is what a typical non-believer would bring up when discussing Christianity. and they would be correct in some aspects, while dismissing Christianity as being ultimately about freedom.
> 
> As ive mentioned before to you, i believe that there is direct link between satan and pedophilia. there is more than just a smidgen of evidence that the catholic church has been involved with pedophilia and child trafficking. i love me a conspiracy, but these are not unsubstantiated claims. combined with the symbolism in the vatican, a pope calling for a NWO, forgiveness of abortion, etc...there seems to be some weirdness going on with it as a protestant outsider. it seems to put men in the place of Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vicarius Filii Dei
> 
> EDIT: After doing some research, I am not entirely sure that an eternal hell is Biblical. I kind of feel like this is a common misconception about Christianity that has been spread much like futurism has. I think this can play into the fear aspect of religion which seems to conveniently play into the control aspect I mentioned earlier.


Question on futurism and stuff, I think the book of revelation both is the prophesy of what was to happen to roman paganism and the fall of Rome in general. But the way I feel the Bible works is like a computer, we input data into it and it gives us as much truth as the Holy Spirit see's fit. So I believe history is cyclical, in a Hindu esq sense.
The current pope is an anti pope. Meaning that one moral man or women is the leader/ elder of the Body of the messiah on Earth. Not that I'm dissing our pope at all, I'm just saying the traditions of electing the pope not the law of god dictates the process. All of the feast holiday's used to be other feast days of Roman gods, to ease christians did not persecute they kept the same feast days.
On Hell, the burning and suffering and torture people tend to think about hell is not in the Bible. The lake of fire is for Satan and fallen angels. death is what it is, soul destruction.


----------



## Love Potion

This is the most expressive and revealing internet forum topic Ive ever come across. I am not prepared, nor will I ever be to ask the questions I may have, or to argue with anyone on these matters. I find that this thread has been for the most part extremely diplomatic, which goes to show some amount of respect that is rare. 

A lot of heavy stuff was laid down in here, after reading through most of it, I can say I've learned quite a bit and i really enjoyed all the Q and A's. Humans are weird, SKL is brave for stepping up to the plate and religious buildings are insanely ornate. Thats all I have to say. Godbless!

PS- the part that talks about Jesus hanging around prostitutes/ tax collectors was quite comical.


----------



## Ziiirp

Lol, first they take the native religion from the indigenous people (of central Europe [where many Americans originate from, if you are American] in this case), people get miserable because they slowly are loosing their own spiritual roots and traditions and choose wrong paths, that lead to a miserable life, then ~2000 years later those people are thankful to the oppressors for helping them getting out of the purposefully injected misery. Classic.


----------



## DoctorMolecule

Ziiirp said:


> Lol, first they take the native religion from the indigenous people (of central Europe [where many Americans originate from, if you are American] in this case), people get miserable because they slowly are loosing their own spiritual roots and traditions and choose wrong paths, that lead to a miserable life, then ~2000 years later those people are thankful to the oppressors for helping them getting out of the purposefully injected misery. Classic.


Which is why we need YHVH to free us from our slavery to sin and money and church main main doctrine


----------



## Foreigner

The Christian God, Yahweh, is just one god among many, all of which are in the foreground of an unspeakable unified whole. Yahweh is pretty capricious, vain and cruel. Everything you ask of him has to be on his terms and has to play into his image or he will issue various retributions on you. His attitudes are demonstrated by his followers throughout time, how they have destroyed and assimilated cultures. Most of the other deities hate Yahweh and you can't even utter his name in their temples. 

I don't buy the idea of original sin. We are born with certain things we individually must take care of, one might call it past karma. But it's not punishment, it's just your growth trajectory in this life. A priest can neither declare your sin for you or absolve you of it. The inner work is yours and yours alone. It's between you and the divine. The only real sin is living a life that runs contrary to the way god created you. As long as you are true to yourself you can live a pretty blissful life. It doesn't mean you won't be challenged but your true nature will always be something you can count on. 

I see the seed of truth in the Bible but it is so heavily distorted that you can't extract precise truth from it anymore, not without rigorous study and a lot of inward reflection; but the Church does not want you to reflect that deeply. You should bring your thoughts and confessions to them, so they can tell you what they mean, and what god is telling you. Middle men, basically. 

Jesus is real, he is an enlightened being. I don't know if the stories about him are exactly true. He's also not the only enlightened being out there. He's in a sea of many. It's possible to experience liberation through working with him. But to do really do so, you have to decouple yourself from Christianity and its codified systems. You could also choose to work with others, or none. There are many possibilities.


----------



## Xorkoth

DoctorMolecule said:


> Which is why we need YHVH to free us from our slavery to sin and money and church main main doctrine



I don't see how that had anything to do with the post you quoted...?


----------



## sigmond

SKL, I hope you're well; my question is about hell.

Do you believe in hell? If so, what do you think it is like? Im starting to believe hell is real though its not_ literally_ a lake of fire and brimstone, the earth looks identical to the pre-hell earth but now almost everyone is either an enemy or indifferent. I think this is what Sartre meant when he said "hell is other people" 

The main question I have is do you believe there's any way out? 

I was reading this



> 3. Are the "Flames" of Hell Literal?
> 
> It should be understood that both the joy of heaven and the pains of Hell are indescribable this side of eternity. And just as the Church warns against seeing heaven as a “worldly” sort of extension of life on this earth, so it is with Hell. The inspired authors cannot describe Hell adequately using human language; thus, the “flames of fire” are simply the most painful things we can imagine on this earth used to attempt to describe the indescribable to some degree.
> 
> So, are the “flames of fire” of Hell literal? No, they are not. In fact, it should be obvious that they are not literal right now because the souls in Hell do not presently have bodies. You can't "light up" a soul with a match.
> 
> If this is true, then, what is the nature of "the pains of Hell?"
> 
> CCC 1472 answers this question succinctly:
> 
> These two punishments [the Catechism is here speaking of both Purgatory and Hell] must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.
> 
> Again, the Catechism emphasizes the fact that Hell is primarily eternal separation from God. As CCC 1033 says,
> 
> *“The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed.” It is absolute emptiness and isolation beyond anything we can fathom. The "pains" that are quite real, quite literal, and consist of both the pain of loss, and the pain of sense, i.e., they involve the body after the resurrection of the body, "follow from the very nature of sin," or, they arise from the inside out, not from the outside in.
> 
> What is mortal sin but the rejection of the love of God and neighbor? It is ultimate selfishness. Ultimately, the damned will simply get what they wanted—themselves for all eternity!*
> 
> It is said that a man will go insane if he is kept in isolation for too long because human beings are so ordered toward communion with God and others. Hell will be that isolation that would lead anyone to insanity, but the condemned will never be able to lose their faculties. They will be fully cognizant of the pain of their isolation.




sounds about right..


----------



## sigmond

still a Catholic? 

Bump.


----------



## darkkoon

<quote> blaa blaa blaa... </quote>

So, what made you think that this vengeful pschyopath described in Bible (OT) is the Creator of the World?


----------

