Post #319,486
1/4/10 5:39:39 AM
|
I went to church yesterday.
.
Ah, the epiphany. The kid was singing. She cracked
on Noel twice before she wrestled it in. Whoever puts
those prayers to music is a sadist, especially when someone
is presenting them 1st time. After maybe hearing
it a thousand times in her life, at a different church, to
different music. Cantoring them hundreds of times.
And then going to a new church, with a new music director,
who plays it differently, and then has 20 minutes of practice
before walking out and having to perform for about 1/2 the
service.
Oh, and it was cold. I left my gloves and jacket on. The
kid was in short sleeves.
I would have shit myself.
Instead, I had some mixed feelings. Depending on the priest
and the time of year, Catholic services seem to be a call to
war. Sure, they talk about helping the poor and weak. But
that's only AFTER all the nations acknowledge the new king,
and send camels full of gold. Hmmm. I wonder if those people
really want to keep their camels and gold.
So anyway, I learned the are 3 types of people in the world.
Those that hate Christ, for their own evil reasons, such
as Pontius Pilate.
Those that dislike Christ. The lovely example was those selfish
Jews. He spent quite a while on them. And then he lumped in
modern evangelical political assholes using the religion for
their own selfish means. Jeez, not only am I part of the core
selfish group of people who dislike Christ, now I have to hear
that those biblethumping assholes who want to run the government
are ALMOST as bad as me.
And then we have those that love Christ. Those would be the
shepherds and the wise men.
So maybe my face wasn't poker straight at this point. Maybe
I'd occasionally scowl and/or laugh (silently) when I heard
something silly.
And it seems that while the church was pretty full, the priest
spent a lot of time looking at me. Maybe it was the fact I didn't
mouth 1 prayer, sang nothing, and never responded in the call and
response.
Or maybe it was the fact when the entire congregration got down
to kneel, I merely sat back and locked eyes with him, slightly raised
an eyebrow (as if to say, how silly), gave a slight smirk, and
shook my head slightly side to side.
And when they went for communion, of course I don't. And they
have to file around me. I try to be friendly, mildly smily without
any hint of the fact I'm surrounded by people who live inside a
fable. It is their entire lives. Every time they ask for mercy,
I think. From what? From the possibility of hell that they
created themselves?
They give away everything. The core of their being, their
ability to interact with the soul of a loved one, they give
this way. They look with adoration to a lump of plaster,
yet they will never look that way to their husband or wife.
They reserve that for their god.
I've heard the term, God is Love. They got it backwards.
Love is God. The question is, who do you give it to?
When it is returned at the same level, it becomes mutual
adoration. Love creates your own god, but religion
co-opts the feelings claims them as their own, and
controls you forever if you allow them.
You want an epiphany? Fall in love. You want a lifetime
of rapture? Make sure you are worthy of that person
loving you back at the same level.
Those bastards stole love, and turned it into a promise
of heaven that they can't give you.
And then we have the cultural ones. They were raised in it,
feel there is benefit in going to church, but wrestle with
the level of their belief. They pick and choose the rules
they follow, and depending on the pope of the moment, may or
may not bother to pay attention to Rome.
While that attitude works in my religion, that's because we
were raised to argue against authority. The rabbi better have
a good argument to back the attitude, and we have no problem
splitting off a new temple when the older generation tries
to impose their will on us. And don't forget, the congregation
hires the rabbi. It is more likely the rabbi is a reflection
of the social makup of the congregation, than the regional
authority from a remote king (pope).
So when Catholics act like that, it doesn't work too well. If
they are vocal, then they risk simply being thrown out of church
by the priest, with very little room for appeal. So they
stay quiet (out of respect is the claim, I'd say fear is
more of a driver).
Pray, pay, and obey. Other than that, shut up.
So anyway, I'll be back. I'm sure I'll have some lovely
coversations with this priest. I wonder if he'll be giving
the Easter homily?
Easter is a special time for Jews that go to church with
their family. They get to hear how they killed Christ.
And then they get to feel the murmer, the generally unhappy
crowd. The crowd that says that they have no problems with
Jews in general. If only those selfish bastards hadn't killed
Christ, the world would be a paradise.
Yup, no problems with the Jews.
The boy is amazed I haven't been stoned to death yet.
|
Post #319,488
1/4/10 7:33:56 AM
|
Glad you found it interesting.
I keep forgetting your heritage. You may already know this, but most Protestants who've been in several different denominations tend to regard Catholics as almost another religion. Orthodox churches, too. Despite the otherwise common ground.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,490
1/4/10 8:21:52 AM
|
I was
Why did you point to the difference between Protestants and Catholics?
Is it because you are a Protestant?
Hmm.
I know just enough to be scared.
http://en.wikipedia....ws_and_Their_Lies
At least the Catholics usually fake it. Yes, I know, modern people blah don't feel that way blah holy shit, they killed the babies and drank their blood blash blash they killed the economy blash blash they put us in a war we shouldn't be in in blah blah.
Oh, that's right, you are on the sane continent. Something tells me your version is nothing like ours.
|
Post #319,529
1/4/10 5:14:35 PM
|
I was reminding myself, too.
I happen to be Protestant, yes, and your descriptions of Catholic ritual sounded like something other than a Christian church... :-/ But then I know in theological literature, catholics won't usually refer to themselves as "Christians" - they call themselves "Catholics".
I really don't know about Catholicism in Australia, but I would be surprised if it were radically different to Catholicism in other Western societies. Practitioners of Catholicism are widely known to put a lot of stock in their rituals, which is kind of the opposite of Evangelical (and Charismatic) Protestant teachings.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,537
1/4/10 6:42:30 PM
|
I know many Catholics
I'm pretty sure most, if not all, also consider themselves Christians.
I know the ones in my household do.
|
Post #319,541
1/4/10 8:49:38 PM
|
In the same way Texans are also Americans
As in, "Well yes, of course, but we're the good kind."
--
Drew
|
Post #319,562
1/5/10 9:41:39 AM
1/5/10 9:41:53 AM
|
Hmm, that's not quite right
Most Catholics, if you asked them, "Are you Christian?" would probably answer, "No, I'm Catholic." If you pointed out that Catholicism is a Christian faith, they'd say, "Well of course, but when you said 'Christian' I thought you meant protestant."
In other words, it's not that they don't consider themselves Christian. They just think that since non-Catholics call themselves Christian, that's what people mean when they say it: non-Catholics.
This is probably hard to understand if you weren't raised Catholic. Think IROC-Z. "Do you drive a Camero?" "No, I drive an IROC."
--
Drew
Edited by drook
Jan. 5, 2010, 09:41:53 AM EST
|
Post #319,593
1/5/10 6:57:52 PM
|
It took us a little while, but we got there! :-D
Evangelical and Charismatic/Pentecostal groups have been loud and proud about taking the "Christian" label... and the result is that Catholics call themselves "Catholic" first and "Christian" second. It's the other side of many Protestants seeing Catholicism as much more different from them than merely another denomination down the road.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,600
1/5/10 10:51:51 PM
|
I may be wrong, but I think you're not quite right.
I think the difference you believe is present between Catholics and Protestants that call themselves "Christian" first aren't as great as you believe.
I attended many churches in my youth - Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and probably a couple others. I've attended Catholic mass a couple of times.
http://en.wikipedia....ass_%28liturgy%29
Each denomination has their own rituals and traditions, their own emphasis on what they think is most important, but ultimately they're all Christian even if they can have (nearly or actually) violent disagreements. Political preachers who like to demonize others have made up many stories about Catholics that simply aren't true.
Over here, one can see many different church services on TV on Sundays. It must be similar down under. Tape a Catholic service sometime and check it out. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #319,606
1/6/10 2:26:11 AM
|
Quite so.
For some reason, I was playing up the differences. But there are more similarities than differences. This is known: Ecumenical efforts have always found it fairly straightforward to get mainstream Protestants together, and more work, but not a lot more work to get Catholics involved, too. And Orthodox is a little harder again. Of course, this is a potted summary of a summary of a summary... :-/ As far as basic basic basic theology goes, one of the biggest stumbling point is the question of ultimate authority. Catholics put the Pope above the Bible. Protestants don't.
In middle-class suburbia (where I live and have grown up), most Protestant churches are remarkably similar, as are the more relaxed Catholic services. A church I used to attend had periodic combined churches with most of the others in the area. The combined size meant the charismatic churches tended to run things, as they usually know how to run services that size. But attempts to included the Catholics always stumbled over, of all things, song selection: they just don't know the same worship songs and hymns as everyone else. If we could have solved that, I think they would have willingly, if perhaps a bit bemusedly, joined in.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,618
1/6/10 8:41:03 AM
|
Again, I think you're relying on what "authorities" say...
As far as basic basic basic theology goes, one of the biggest stumbling point is the question of ultimate authority. Catholics put the Pope above the Bible. Protestants don't.
You're using very loaded language in your posts, though you may not realize it.
One of the defining characteristics of almost all Protestant denominations since Luther is rejection of the authority of the Pope. (I'm tempted to throw in a Dreaded Car Analogy here, but I don't think it's necessary.)
In a real sense, all Christian denominations ultimately put their leadership "above" the Bible even if they claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. They pick and choose what to stress and what to downplay. Baptists emphasize the importance of baptism more than Lutherans; etc. All religions that rely on sacred texts also rely on authorities to interpret them. The Southern Baptists have a convention which comes up with pronouncements on various religious and social topics. They have had leaders that say things like "women should submit to their husbands". More here: http://www.sbc.net/a...ionstatements.asp
Is a SB who is devout putting their leadership "above" the Bible?
Again, see for yourself what Catholics believe and practice in Mass. Don't take the word of critics or those who have left that church - too often they have an agenda of making Catholics look bad.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #319,643
1/6/10 3:50:29 PM
|
I see.
And my attempts at simplification to show that there is a difference at a very low level without having to argue exactly what that difference is seems to be wasted. Your list of differences is correct, of course: Luther's rejection of the Papal authority was a rejection that the Pope can make edicts that overrule scripture.
You're using very loaded language in your posts, ...
Could you please explain how I am doing that.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,646
1/6/10 5:56:24 PM
|
As Box says...
there are things said about Catholics over here that may not match your experiences.
Sorry if I'm rubbing you the wrong way on this topic. I understand that you're trying to be careful. :-)
There's a very long history of Protestant antagonism against Catholics here. I probably don't need to review the long history. A brief flavor can be found here: http://en.wikipedia....ed_States#History
When you said that Catholics put 'the Pope above the Bible' or 'Catholics consider themselves Catholic first and Christian second', that is very close to some of the anti-Catholic things that I heard growing up: "Catholics aren't Christian. They don't pray to God, they pray to their priest who prays to his bishop who prays to his cardinal who prays to the Pope." Catholic politicians over here are questioned all the time about whether their loyalty is to the US or to the Pope, or whether their votes are compatible with the Church's doctrines. Mainline Protestants don't get such scrutiny. And the things Box mentioned, and so forth.
We all understand that you're not meaning to cause offense. And I don't think most of us are taking offense. It's just that some of the comments you're making about what other people have said about the Catholic church in your church seem to be easily taken as anti-Catholic in a US context.
HTH a little.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #319,650
1/6/10 6:47:17 PM
|
Oh yeah?
Well my invisible sky fairy can beat up your invisible sky fairy with one arm tied behind him!
--
Drew
|
Post #319,652
1/6/10 7:05:12 PM
|
not hardly
as a short story about armageddon where lucifer wins the final battle a shocked cleric goes "that isnt what was written in scripture!" and the devil replies "I didnt write that propaganda"
thanx,
bill
|
Post #319,655
1/6/10 7:20:46 PM
|
Yes, it helps.
*sigh* I've been tripped by cultural differences. :-/ Thanks for the heads-up.
I can honestly say I have not seen or experienced anti-Catholic sentiment in Australian Protestant churches. The closest would be pop-vox responses in the mass media to the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney. I have seen what could cause it, but that was when I was eight years old and involved a classmate in school who acted like catholics were superior to everyone...
I really wasn't thinking I would be offensive when I posted. They were intended to be dry, theological observations, some derived from serious inter-faith efforts.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,623
1/6/10 9:38:10 AM
|
incorrect
the catholic does not put the pope above the bible. It puts the pope as the sole interpreter of the bible.
Protestants believe it is self determined what the bible means. This leads to praying with snakes and speaking in tongues and Koresh, and Jones.
Just for grins go to a mass sometime. You wont burn in protestant hell for it :-)
|
Post #319,642
1/6/10 3:42:56 PM
|
We're talking past each other.
That's what I said. It's a shame when the same language can be used by two people to misunderstand each other. >:-(
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,644
1/6/10 4:50:44 PM
|
Re: We're talking past each other.
sorry about that. Common misconception over here, prods think that the pope issues non biblical marching orders and catholics dont use a real bible.
thanx,
bill
|
Post #319,616
1/6/10 7:14:43 AM
|
What about the the whole reason..
There have been so many "splits" in the Baptist Church, the Reformed Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, <insert other churches>
These have all gone through huge upheavals when something as controversial as letting women have their hair down. Or letting Gay/lesbian members participate in service proceeding (communion in one case). Or just acknowledging that Gays/Lesbian exist and need help...
Simply stated, it only takes one preacher/priest/pastor taking offense/exception and steering his congregation to split and form a new branch of the church
|
Post #319,557
1/5/10 7:58:12 AM
|
Kinda what Drew said.
But I realized later I meant that Catholic theologians who are exposed to the writings of non-Catholic theologians are the ones who tend to not call themselves "Christians" but "Catholics" as a way to distance themselves from non-Catholic thinking.
Which didn't answer the question much, if at all. Sorry.
I don't currently know any overt Catholics. Those that I have known through the years that I know to be Catholic have kept their church life and their non-church life quite quite separate. Mind you, many non-Catholics do this, too. It is also possible for people to come to a genuine, life-changing faith from the Catholic teaching and be truly Christian in their outlook whilst remaining Catholic. I guess for some temperaments, the ritualistic nature of Catholicism resonates well. But for many, that's all they know and all they believe they are allowed to know.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,560
1/5/10 8:45:27 AM
|
are you talking roman oe eastern?
|
Post #319,594
1/5/10 6:59:29 PM
|
Roman.
I think. The lot with the Pope.
What's "eastern"? Do you mean Orthodox? I have even less experience with them.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,599
1/5/10 10:15:39 PM
|
They're the Catholics whose priests can marry IIRC
--
Drew
|
Post #319,624
1/6/10 9:39:26 AM
|
and their pope is in byzanteum
|
Post #319,601
1/5/10 11:27:18 PM
|
Sigh
It is also possible for people to come to a genuine, life-changing faith from the Catholic teaching and
be truly Christian in their outlook whilst remaining Catholic.
Sigh. And that is the cornerstone of why you don't know any Catholics. They don't want to know you.
Since I'll never be a Christian (all hail the Great Spaghetti Monster), I can't be damned with that kind of faint praise.
I hate being put in a position of defending any organized religion. But in this case, I guess I don't have a choice.
You are part of a branch of a sub-group of people. Guess what? So are they. They are like elder cousins on a branch on a tree.
But you consider them not to be Christians. From your perspective, it is probably (now I'm making shit up) a deep loss, since hey, they're gonna end up in hell and they were so close, just so close, if only they believed a few more things they would have made it. And maybe you even have a couple of people you consider your friends, that you flew across the poind to see, who are Catholic. And they're going to burn.
That was the generous interpretation.
No matter what, while you may never see how a little bitty comment may make people not talk to you about their beliefs, it happens.
|
Post #319,608
1/6/10 3:10:41 AM
|
I led you to mis-interpret me.
My apologies. I inadvertantly fell into theological terms, without providing context. Basically, I failed to distinguish between "Christian" meaning regularly attends a recognised christian church, and "Christian" meaning one who adheres to a faith outside or alongside the religious trappings seen.
What I meant was that there are adherants of the Catholic tradition who have acquired a faith which the rituals hold genuine meaning. They are not Catholic or Christian because they do the rituals, they do the rituals because they believe. There are also people in the Catholic church who have acquired a faith in spite of the problems of their organised religion. Yet they remain in the Catholic church with rituals that might not have much if any meaning.
In other words, I was referring to Catholics who they themselves believe are Christians whilst believing most of their fellow Catholics are not.
I do not profess to be able to tell the difference so I do my best not to even try. If someone calls themselves "Christian" but does not have any interest in comparing their "Christianity" to mine, then I try to just take their declaration at face value and leave them be.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,611
1/6/10 5:27:36 AM
1/6/10 5:48:48 AM
|
Oh, I accept you are doing this with best intentions
In other words, I was referring to Catholics who they themselves believe are Christians whilst believing most of their fellow Catholics are not.
Except you don't know any. Or very very few. And you certainly have an outsider's view, with very little research, so you are delving in an area you could not possibly know.
And then you made a broad assumption about select people within the group, what they believe, and even sillier, what they believe about other within their select sub-group.
You guys came later and grabbed the term, the broader one, the first one, and then decided it applied only to you. Note: The you here is the historical group of people that came before the "individual" you. And this term, being a christian, is used by every religion that has Christ as a cornerstone. I've met many, of varying branches, and I'm always willing to trigger a religious discussion to see where it goes. To tell one of these people they aren't christian is an incredible insult. Any of them.
At least when this group of people broke off from the Jews they didn't simply decide to call themselves Jews and the elders needed to come up with a new name.
You seem to feel it applies just to your subgroup (or any-sub group that shares your beliefs, but certainly not the Catholics) in the specifics. Which sets them up nicely as being "others", and not part of your core group.
This comes down to identity. Who gets to choose their own? And when an outsider is labeling the group, and the group competes with the outsider, someone is going to lose. Go read up on "The Whore of Babylon" to get a feel why some people may be touchy about it.
So there seem to be a couple of problems here.
#1 - You don't get to appropriate such an important historical term while denying it to others. Especially if they were using it first. Wars get started over this. It is a direct provocation.
#2 - You make assumptions about levels of deeply held beliefs in others that seem to be very contradictory to their stated beliefs to justify these assumptions. I suggest you try to get to know a few. As much as this broadly shared delusion may cause damage, I've found that the Catholics (when they aren't running the inquisition or supporting Hitler) usually aren't the ones trying to kill the Jews. That is usually the later splits. So I have an affinity to that branch as opposed to most of the others.
Remember, from an outsider's point of view (an outsider who doesn't believe that Christ was any more special than any of the thousands of prophets babbling in that time frame) whether or not you are Christian is really easy. It means you went to a church that has a cross on it, said a few select things, the priest (and/or congregation) said a few select things back, and poof, you're a Christian. It doesn't mean that on a day by day basis you are a "good" Christian, people can judge you on your actions for that, but only the individual gets to state the claim that they are a Christian. At that point, if they are part of the sub-group that believes in hell (a large portion of them), if you tell they they are not a Christian, you are telling them they are going to hell. It's pretty clear.
To me, the varying Christian branches can be shown via a Venn diagram of overlapping beliefs, with the center being the belief in Jesus being something special that is shared by all of them.
Oh well, as long as you guys are fighting amongst yourselves, at least the rest of us have a bit less to worry about.
Edited by crazy
Jan. 6, 2010, 05:48:48 AM EST
|
Post #319,615
1/6/10 7:13:11 AM
|
I do not speak from a position of *no* knowledge.
One of the things that happens in churches is the concept of visiting speakers. I'm sure you've heard of it; it is not a phenomenon isolated to churches. Some of my knowledge about what Catholics believe and how they behave and think are from such visiting speakers who are or have been Catholic and are there to teach, amongst other things, how other christian groups behave and what they believe. My exact example about Catholics who believe they are Christian whilst they believe that those around them in their own Catholic church are not, was directly from people who really believed this (much like there are Jews who also believe Jesus is the Messiah, but otherwise remain Judaistic Jews). Most other knowledge I have is from theological writers who identify themselves as Catholic, even to the point of having office in the Catholic church, and writers who have cause to discuss the image of the Catholic church in the wider society.
Now, as to who are "christians" and who are not... in my experience, for most people I have spent time with who identify as "christian", it is not a daily concern as to whether they consider attendees of a catholic or orthodox church as "christian" or not. I couldn't even say whether most would say 'yes' or 'no' on the question: most of the time, it simply doesn't come up. But most such people I have known would include Catholics as part of the Christian Church, just in a "more distant cousin" kind of way. I have seen this slight differentiation cause problems. Note this requires the distinction made between being "christian" in belief and being an attendee of a Christian Church. Most Protestants I know and have known through the years will make such a distinction, as do I (usually), regardless of what others may do.
OTOH, once the topic turns to church history, the Catholic church is always acknowledged as an irremovable part. In fact, "catholic" is nearly as old as "christian" and is applied by some to refer to all who call themselves "Christian". It is why the organisation based around the Pope is called the Roman Catholic Church so as to avoid ambiguity and perceived bias.
Surely I don't need to remind you that the history of the Christian Church(s) is a highly complex story with many points-of-view. I also have not mentioned at all desires to kill Jews, as this is a topic in church history I feel I do not know enough about to comment on.
I notice you have your discussion.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,620
1/6/10 8:56:36 AM
|
Tada!
|
Post #319,617
1/6/10 7:18:26 AM
|
Its about faith, not belief.
There is a difference.
Faith does not require them to believe. It helps but is not required.
Belief *does* require faith, as without it nothing would be believable.
|
Post #319,619
1/6/10 8:52:10 AM
|
Thanks
|
Post #319,493
1/4/10 8:58:57 AM
|
the priest prolly has no idea you were there
caveat I was married at the side of a catholic alter. Means I had to swear by my guy that I wouldnt interfere with her or the kids seeing their guy.
Go there on special days.
dont kneel, dont mummer with them. Lords prayer sure
have never felt unwelcome
never had the anti jew rant
always noted that the ethnic makeup is much more diverse than in general population
how much of what you felt was what was in your head instead of outside it?
not criticizing, just questioning as my experiences over the years has been decidedly different.
Of course none in yankeeland so things may be different up there
|
Post #319,498
1/4/10 10:20:09 AM
|
Lord's prayer NO
You still have no clue.
You are one of them, already.
|
Post #319,499
1/4/10 10:22:10 AM
|
And note:
I do the same thing to Rabbis and Cantors in synogogue, when they push anything that I consider dangerously seperatist. Just it is tougher to catch their eye. And yes, they are aware.
|
Post #319,500
1/4/10 10:33:01 AM
|
Oh, and how convenient
When you prove my point.
caveat I was married at the side of a catholic alter. Means I had to swear by my guy that I wouldnt interfere with her or the kids seeing their guy.
She will never look at you the same way she looks at her God.
And you agreed to give your children to the church, and not interfere with her or them in their dealing with it. Yeah, maybe they are rational and took the culture without the brainwashing. But it is the chance you took. Unlikely the guilt deamons didn't do any damage.
And that confession (or private pastorial counseling) she goes to? She'll tell him things she won't tell you, and takes direction, advice, because it is what her God tells her to do (not because it is the best thing for her or or family, nope, it will be the best thing for the church). You are an outsider in the most important relationship in your life.
They have the ultimate control over you, you gave it willingly, why?
|
Post #319,501
1/4/10 10:56:41 AM
|
Why do you bother?
And why do you care about the others that are there. You think they are deluded...leave them to their delusion and move on.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #319,502
1/4/10 11:06:09 AM
|
I think he does it for his daughter...
|
Post #319,503
1/4/10 11:07:24 AM
|
I have to straddle the worlds
I'll be going to church a lot.
Because my daughter will be singing a lot.
I'll nod and smile for the most part, and encourage her on.
And I don't care about the delusional part, until it becomes a tool of oppression.
Then I care deeply.
|
Post #319,504
1/4/10 11:12:03 AM
|
Re: Oh, and how convenient
you have no idea about mj :-)
wrong all the way, but thats fine.
|
Post #319,506
1/4/10 11:20:13 AM
|
You are correct
I don't.
But it doesn't matter.
Your access to her was controlled by your willingness to make a public commitment. Did you really mean it, or were you bullshitting?
No matter how wonderful she is, and how close you are, and even if she DOES adore you over her God, you were willing to accept less. And you indoctrinated your children to provide the next generation of supplicants.
They won.
|
Post #319,508
1/4/10 11:44:45 AM
|
No, they didn't
You are making grandiose assumptions based on your own view of reality. I would say his willingness to do that would be a good sign to her of his devotion, especially if she knew (which I'm sure she did) that it wasn't really "his thing".
You seem to have a problem with anyone thinking/believing/having faith that there is more than themselves and that this belief compromises their ability to devote themselves to another member of the species completelyu...
There's plenty of delusion to go around in this thread.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #319,512
1/4/10 12:19:36 PM
|
Close, but no cigar
I have issue with people following any authority blindly. Especially when the authority is based on something that can't be demonstrated. This would be all organized religions that don't allow for questioning of orders.
And it is really keyed off when there is a central individual that is annointed, he gets to talk to God, and then relay the message. That's the ultimate red flag.
Of course, it doesn't help when you review the history of those individuals, how some of them killed to get there, and how the organization evolved.
So either you believe that all of those individuals were simply the right one for the moment, chosen by God, and no matter what they did, or, you start to pick and choose which ones REALLY are talking to god.
If you feel that option 1 is correct, and that they were chosen and talking to God, then I gotta tell you: Your god is insane and doesn't deserve the followers. And he/it certainly should be opposed in matters that affect public life.
If you feel that option 2 is correct, then, you are mouthing the words, but you don't believe. Faith is all or nothing.
|
Post #319,514
1/4/10 12:35:14 PM
|
Option 3
You believe the basic premise, and that for the most part the people in charge are doing the best they can. But you recognize that every now and then something/somebody slips through the cracks. That doesn't invalidate your belief, it just reaffirms the fallibility of humanity. Sort of like a contract, where invalidation of one portion of the contract does not invalidate remaining portions.
Of course as a believer, you get to decide which events are human failings and which are examples of God's plan. Non-believers don't get to question it like that. The fact that the "God's plan" vs. "human failings" decision tends to line up with the preconceptions of the individual believer is a coincidence.
--
Drew
|
Post #319,517
1/4/10 1:03:55 PM
|
We seem to have a definition problem
http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/BELIEVE
And in the case of religion, this rises to the level of faith.
http://www.merriam-w.../dictionary/FAITH
So, do you agree so far or have I missed something?
If so, then we move on to: "the basic premise".
Since I don't claim to be able to differentiate between items within "the basic premise", I take that to mean the "We believe" prayer that ends most Catholic services. Kind of all or nothing, expressing your faith and devotion, with specific words. Someone I'd term a true believer will agree with EVERYTHING stated in that prayer.
Someone I'd consider a partial believer might take issue with occasional items. And poof, that mean a no believer, since I'm pretty sure lying to god while prarying to god it pretty high on your list of sins. Or maybe not. So I guess it isn't that sinful to lie to god. Or not as dangerous as you've been led to believe.
Either way, option 3 seems pretty self delusional.
|
Post #319,518
1/4/10 1:24:26 PM
|
Re: We seem to have a definition problem
yes we do have a definition problem. Religion and the practice thereof is personal as well as organized so cannot be defined externally by a non believer. I dont believe a bath in the ganges is a requirement to personal salvation but some folks do.
Now if you want to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin the answer is 12
|
Post #319,519
1/4/10 1:29:20 PM
|
No, the answer is 42
And you didn't like what I said and started an agument with me, not the other way around. I merely described my experience and my interpretation.
|
Post #319,522
1/4/10 2:03:47 PM
|
sorry about that
wasnt trying to argue, just seemed that you were taking it too personal. The answer is 12 42 would be too crowded for cool moves
|
Post #319,524
1/4/10 2:47:13 PM
|
No crowding
The mice see to that.
The head is really a multidimensional portal.
And I ALWAYS will take personal threats to my freedom, however indirect.
|
Post #319,523
1/4/10 2:10:52 PM
|
"Delusional" works
The other way to put it is that anyone who questions that "We believe" thing is not a "good Catholic". The organization dictates an all-or-nothing acceptance of what it teaches. "Good Catholics" reconcile the fact that "the Church" has at times changed its mind or done bad things with the explanation I gave: Those were cases of human fallibility, not an indictment of "the Church".
When "the Church" does something good, it's evidence of God's will working through true believers. When "the Church" does something bad, it's cases of imperfect humans refusing to follow God's will. When "the Church" decides that something that was true before is no longer true, or vice-versa, it's evidence that the previous "truth" was based on imperfect understanding of God's revealed wisdom.
In all of that, feel free to replace "good" with "things I agree with" and "bad" with "things I disagree with" to get the practical reality of how most Catholics live. People don't generally do things they don't want to, nor refrain from from things they do want, just because the Church tells them to. See divorce, premarital sex, and birth control for the easy examples.
--
Drew
|
Post #319,530
1/4/10 5:20:21 PM
|
+5, Insightful.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,531
1/4/10 5:28:23 PM
|
Do you think protestants are different?
I know Catholics better, having been raised that way. But most of what I said applies to most religions, in my opinion. I agree with your point above about Catholics and ritual, but most "believers" of any flavor seem all too willing to disregard inconvenient pieces of the scripture they claim to believe in, and to disavow any supposed fellow believer who isn't practicing the "right" way.
--
Drew
|
Post #319,534
1/4/10 6:06:48 PM
|
Yes and no.
The short answer is that Evangelical Protestants would say they're not so tied to ritual, but when they are, they hide it better both from themselves and from others. They would probably not see that arguments over when in the service that communion is held is much different. I've seen a church lose a lot of people because of huge frictions over the teaching: it could be argued that some people were trying to disavow their own pastor but the methods employed were indirect and thus unpleasant for many. :-/
A lot of people attending any sort of church would match your description. Those steeped in organisation, process and ritual would tend to emphasise the Do The Right Things At The Right Time approach that you see in Catholics. AFAIK, High Anglicans do the nearly the same things and I'm sure most Orthodox churches would be in a similar mold. Even JWs and Mormons would be similar.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #319,535
1/4/10 6:34:33 PM
|
Rent 9
http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=wcKD7Wh14Xs
"Sometimes fear is the appropriate response"
The guy saying it is their token religious dictator wannabe.
But not really.
|
Post #319,610
1/6/10 3:22:15 AM
|
The Credo is in the middle
not the end of the service. "Credo" is just "I believe" in Latin.
I've been thinking about that bit lately, in light of the fact that I am both a Catholic and a radical fundamentalist Agnosticist.
Not really hard, actually. "I believe" all this stuff, and I am aware that, like everybody else, I am probably wrong. I recite the credo sincerely, but with humility.
-----------------
RFA: I know for a fact that not only don't I know, I know you don't know even if you think you do, your certainty offends God whether He, She, It, or They exist or not, and the fact that you and I don't know must be a guiding principle of government and I'm willing to kick ass to make that happen.
|
Post #319,612
1/6/10 6:42:55 AM
1/6/10 6:45:58 AM
|
Seems to be common
"I believe" all this stuff, and I am aware that, like everybody else, I am probably wrong.
You quote the believe so you can redefine it at will, and then state that you feel strongly (probably > 50%, right? > 80%? >90%?) that you're wrong.
Hell of an internal inconsistency you live with. Is it stable (which means you probably live in a state of unease), or are you always receiving more information (pro or con) that might sway you one way or the other, and if so, did you ever lean strongly in one direction or the other, and almost abandon the split viewpoint?
Doesn't baby chick imprint syndrome suck?
Did you offer up any kids to it?
Edited by crazy
Jan. 6, 2010, 06:45:58 AM EST
|
Post #319,613
1/6/10 6:57:42 AM
|
I just stumbled onto this
http://www.dilbert.c....strip.sunday.gif
This seems to be the general attitude. When someone tells you something that seems insane and expects you to act on it, you resist, you argue your point.
If that person is an authority (parent, religious leader (appt by your parent), boss, cop, etc) you shut up and if possible act on it, since the hassle to resist isn't worth it (usually).
And sometimes, the craziest shit ends up being true, which knocks your foundation out and you have to rethink the world around you.
|
Post #319,665
1/7/10 1:06:38 AM
|
Internal consisency is for well-engineered systems
I'm using a brain optimized for maximum reproductive potential. Currently running on a blend of hydrocarbons that includes some long chain molecules that don't enhance its effectiveness.
The inconsistency is stable at this point, it took some fluctuations to get there. It does not make me uneasy. I deeply love my almost certainly wrong faith. Not the official version, the real community and tradition. Consider Dante's section of hell reserved for Popes. How many religions have something like that? We pretty much assume out leaders are damned. With our current Pope, is there any doubt? Aquinas, wrote volume after volume of theology, the core of the Catholic system. And then one day he told his colleagues theology is bullshit and retired. Then there is Mr. God Himself. Questionable birth in a freakin' barn, short career as a heretical rabbi, offed by a Roman governor in the boonies, then Rome turns into the center of His cult and is now just a city in an otherwise has-been country.
For a guy who wants to be right and make sense, this is a real bad religion. Me, I know I'm almost certainly wrong. You want me to go through the cognitive work of changing that baby chick imprint so I can be wrong a different way? I'm not wired to be right, and this faith is gloriously wrong!
Yes, I did sacrifice children to it. I wasn't going to, but then I heard the REM song and realized I had almost denied them the experience of losing their religion, almost didn't give them that to rebel against. One almost died a Jehovah's Witless, but we worked that out on her deathbed. One takes Catholicism seriously for now but I think she takes her zombie-fighting training more seriously and she has my sense of surrealism, the other two have rejected it from a position of knowing what they are rejecting. I raised them Catholic but I raised them questioning more. And odd way more.
|
Post #319,677
1/7/10 10:49:23 AM
|
I deeply admire you
|
Post #319,839
1/10/10 4:05:14 PM
|
Aquinas has company..
In another metaphysician's attempt to script a saner model of the Universe -- one demanding that acolytes Test By Experiment-on-Self each tenet, or don't bother to play:
The intellectually-centered cohost of one G. I. Gurdjieff was named P. D. Ouspensky (Russians both.) G. always described himself (being er, 'moving-centered') as, "I am a teacher of dance."
There are some Interesting algorithms within this arcane opera (how many knew that the plural of 'opus' IS 'opera'?) The enneagram for one; then, a theory of 'body types' wherein bipeds are much like breeds of dogs (though the planets were used as labels, in the event.) Nomenclature is always trivial, if you know there's a thoughtful [referent] behind each. one.
So their efforts and repeated observations had produced certain +5 Insightful additions to the lore re the exasperating self-delusional homo-sap [-erectus too ... as often as can be contrived.], while safely remaining free of the burden of staffing YAN new religion cha cha cha. Thus free of burdening future generations with cathedral building and supporting millions of priests forever on the dole -- while telling you how to run your sex life (and how much to tithe for the priests' appetites re young boys + the sacramental wine which aids in the seductions.)
As O. lay dying, yet forcing self to get up and walk around -- despite every instinctive urge to do nothing of the kind! -- (it appears that) his epiphany arrived.
He announced to the 'students', "I am abandoning the System." QED
It's ALL a Play; the Bard knew that more surely than all the didacts and other Authoritarian breeds (frequently these ranters are 'saturn-mars' body types and their performance with microphone or at a dais -- is as predictable as that: your cocker spaniel Will fetch that stick whenever you throw it.)
You do the work to Know Thyself -- or go through the entire Play as a marionette == 'plaything', so it seems.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, and I'm happy, Doctor, I finally won out over it.
-- James Stewart (Elwood Dowd) in Harvey.
|
Post #319,532
1/4/10 5:30:12 PM
|
Why not tell your daughter you have only so much tolerance?
Why not tell your daughter you have only so much tolerance of delusional? Just tell her you have no problem with her singing in that world but the rest of it is too much. Life is too short to spend brain power dealing with this shit.
--------------------------------------------
Matthew Greet
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
|
Post #319,536
1/4/10 6:39:02 PM
|
I have infinate tolerance for the delusional
I'm usually entertained, and even when I'm not, I'm educated.
And then it gives me something to whine about, a double win.
|
Post #319,814
1/9/10 7:55:56 PM
|
Harrumph..
Y'know, this-all seems like a pointless exercise in semantics -- except that the [referent] for each word in the sentence is utterly different in each homo-sap's psyche depending on the day of the week and whatever source of endorphins is, or isn't present.
'Religion' -the concept- in recent years has morphed into a veritable Free Ticket excuse to run amok -- and for every raging lunatic to invent his own 'God', imbue that construct {even with.. his own visage! quelle hubris} -- and then attribute to the Only-True-chachahca: all his personally accumulated/inculcated prejudices via tha magic mantra: Hey.. that be what Gawd wants.
I Believe counts for shit (while the race to the bottom in many survival aspects of these so-called civilizations.. garners most of the attention of the proles, 24/7.)
Under the new-rubric of religion, the planet is now roiling with legions of wannabe Visigoths. These precisely-sociopaths are armed with all that transistor toy-conceived techno which panders to playing Siva Yourself:
Look I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds ...
These, now all-around and within ... the Cheneys and Rushmouths and other incarnations of Father Coughlan ... are on a jihad as surely as the yout promised 17 virgins
(though these locals more often seek that Corner Office, the Armanis and obscene net-worths; screw the philosophy scene -- and there are no virgins here.)
Ya wanna talk dogma and tenets and doxologies .?. meanwhile the library has already been mined for detonation and every single member of these sects you are trying to psychoanalyze: are SURE that His-version is the One True ____ and all the rest of the folks are, at best, doomed to bask in a lake of imaginary fire while the One Trues sit next to their fav myth's er right homo-sap-like hand, enjoying vicariously the torture being inflicted on all those Others not-like-me. Unreality Tee Vee.
What we have here is a global failure t'communicate, and what we have to pay attention to is: how, when and how effectively, coalitions of Visigoths-II next begin to live out their ahmagonnagettya-geddon fantasies with real weapons and all the stuff learned watching Murican Action movies, the litmus test for innate viciousness and the mindless abandon which affluenza catalyzes..
Or so it seems from this quarter.
Let us prey,
I Who Be
|
Post #319,840
1/10/10 4:07:22 PM
|
Glory! A-men!
|
