|
Arsenic Lupin posted:There is a definite survivalist/post-apocalypticist thread among right-wing Catholics now. It reminds me of how gun sales and survivalist supplies soared after Obama was elected. I think Americans in general have a romance with survivalism, but I think they don't realize how crappy it really would be. I lived in Africa for seven months in 2010 and some of the things we take for granted (steady power, potable water, clean and a variety of foods, etc. etc. etc.) are breathtaking. I have little patience these days for "can't wait for the apocalypse" types. Civilization is fine, thank you very much. I kind of like Fr. Z's blog and will read it for the traddie viewpoint on things. Though my politics swing right and I prefer traditionalism in church (more or less), Fr. Z gets a bit frenetic at times.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
MoraleHazard posted:I kind of like Fr. Z's blog and will read it for the traddie viewpoint on things. Though my politics swing right and I prefer traditionalism in church (more or less), Fr. Z gets a bit frenetic at times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I read Fr. Z's blog for the same reasons, and especially for the vestment and ritual neep. Unfortunately, the election of Pope Francis seems to have driven him (and even more so his commenters) around the bend. Yeah, I don't get it. As much as I'm a bit of traddie / rightie, I love Pope Francis. I love his focus on the poor and marginalized and I don't like when hints of the prosperity gospel invade the thinking of traditionalist Catholics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I read Fr. Z's blog for the same reasons, and especially for the vestment and ritual neep. Unfortunately, the election of Pope Francis seems to have driven him (and even more so his commenters) around the bend. Have you checked out the New Liturgical Review? It's 100% liturgy-related stuff with no inane political pontificating or whining about Pius IX no longer being pope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Oh, awesome! Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Father Z, incidentally, has at least once mistranslated the Latin in order to support his points and then banned a dude who called him on it. I guess he didn't bank on readers of his blog being able to read Latin as well. I never went back. And MoraleHazard, you are entirely right about the survivalists' romance of a world without infrastructure vs. the reality. I've mentioned this in the military history thread (in this post and this one), but as an early modern historian I am intimately familiar with a world without vaccination, without clean water, without a bunch of people making sure that that water is clean or making sure your food is safe, and a lot of people died when all of that could have saved their lives. Even without modern healthcare, modern technology, or antibiotics, death rates, especially infant mortality rates, start to fall around the 1750s, when infrastructure starts getting better. (People are probably better nourished around then too, since some pretty important developments in agriculture and animal husbandry were happening.) Most of these people think that their return to nature would be the same safe, comfortable world we have now, just with all that stuff removed (and a ripping narrative of adventure and danger added), but they have no idea that this stuff was deliberately placed here over centuries because it made peoples' lives better. (These are the same people who think that they're self-sufficient but still buy fabric, salt, fuel, etc.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
MoraleHazard posted:Yeah, I don't get it. As much as I'm a bit of traddie / rightie, I love Pope Francis. I love his focus on the poor and marginalized and I don't like when hints of the prosperity gospel invade the thinking of traditionalist Catholics. Were they huffing too much incense from sitting too close to the middle aisle during Tridentine masses that they forgot about Rerum Novarum or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Were they huffing too much incense from sitting too close to the middle aisle during Tridentine masses that they forgot about Rerum Novarum or what? People like to say Catholic Social Teaching is the church's best kept secret. I'd say that it's more that Catholic Social Teaching is a dirty secret for a lot of people. I don't know if it's the fact that partnership with the religious right has led many Catholics to adopt Republican political identities, including libertarian economic attitudes, or if this is some characteristic of American life in particular (I've seen vague arguments made for both, but nothing really in depth with a lot of citations), but you could quote social justice encyclicals without context and I'm sure you would get Catholics saying you're a dangerous radical. Heck, Paul VI's encyclical says that popular revolutions against military dictatorships are completely justifiable, and right wing Catholics say liberation theology incites violence for supporting similar ideas. America magazine even had an editorial by a woman who's some business type who said that free market capitalism captures the spirit of Catholic teaching better than "social justice" types did, despite the fact that her statements go against papal teachings from the past century. CST is irrelevant to most Catholics, and upon learning about it it's often not used for anything. Even liberal Catholics see little use for these documents, though for obviously different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
IMJack posted:What's the normal age range? I did Catholic Confirmation in 9th grade, which is apparently normal, but my sister who teaches in a Catholic school is running her 2nd-graders through Confirmation almost as soon as they're finished with First Communion. I don't know if that's the new normal in our hometown, or if it's due to the unusually long school day at her school that they cram the extra religious ed into. I was actually confirmed before when I was around 16 but very much not into it. I was pretty anti-Christian at the time just hid that to make my parents happy kinda thing. I'll be getting reaffirmed this time around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Ms. Happiness posted:I was actually confirmed before when I was around 16 but very much not into it. I was pretty anti-Christian at the time just hid that to make my parents happy kinda thing. Yeah, I was 14 when I went through Catholic confirmation, and this is how I felt too. Raymond Leo Burke was the dude who led the ceremony and administered the sacrament. My grandmother was my sponsor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Yeah, I was 14 when I went through Catholic confirmation, and this is how I felt too. Raymond Leo Burke was the dude who led the ceremony and administered the sacrament. My grandmother was my sponsor. Well the silver lining for me is I'm really enjoying my second Confirmation much more. I'm really getting a lot out of it. It's really making me reconsider putting my possible future kids through it when they're teens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Roark posted:I've been away from the thread for a while, and I saw the new title and was a little scared at first...until I read the general consensus on Dreher. I think it's time for an Orthodox Convert Cage Match: Rod Dreher -vs- Frank Schaeffer Schaeffer really brought out the big guns today For those who may not know of Frank Schaeffer; he is the son of the late Francis Schaeffer, a big-time Evangelical theologian who was one of the founders of the whole Christian Dominionism thing. Before Dreher and this recent right turn in Orthodoxy, Frank was the huge "convert catch". The difference is that Schaeffer gets the Orthodox phronema in a way that Dreher doesn't and perhaps never will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Vicodiva posted:For those who may not know of Frank Schaeffer; he is the son of the late Francis Schaeffer, a big-time Evangelical theologian who was one of the founders of the whole Christian Dominionism thing. Before Dreher and this recent right turn in Orthodoxy, Frank was the huge "convert catch". The difference is that Schaeffer gets the Orthodox phronema in a way that Dreher doesn't and perhaps never will. Christian Dominionism and the rise of the post-50s Right are endlessly fascinating to me. I will hate-read books about Buckley all day long if you let me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:Catholic Social Teaching MY GIRLFRIEND goes to a Catholic college and in all her business classes they have to relate case studies to CST 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
I couldn't find an English article for this (German), but the Archdiocese of Freiburg in Germany has officially begun to allow divorced who have remarried to the sacraments as well as into the parish councils (as long as they can show that the first marriage cannot be repaired). This is especially remarkable because Archbishop Zollitsch of Freiburg is the chairman of the Episcopal Conference of Germany as well. The Holy See hasn't reacted yet, and it is to be seen if the other dioceses of Germany will follow, but I think that this is or at least could be a very important step into the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
Ok, so something happened in my anthropology class. I'm taking anthropology of food, and before when we talked about fasting, I told everyone that I was Orthodox. Cut to today. I walk into class, and the professor walks over to me and says, "You're Orthodox, right?" And I tell him, yeah. He looks at me and says, "You guys fast a lot. You like, fast more than anybody!" I told him that yes, we do fast for most of the year. Apparently he had been researching fasting for next week's lecture and just found out about it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Ok, so something happened in my anthropology class. I'm taking anthropology of food, and before when we talked about fasting, I told everyone that I was Orthodox. There is no strict religious obligation to fast as much as it says on the calendar. If you do and it is to your spiritual health, good. Great. Do it. But don't fast as an end in itself. It is good for most people to fast at least some of the year. This is a reasonably good outline. There's also a line in one of Paul's epistles, though I cannot track down which right away, that talks about how hospitality, in essence, trumps fasting. Thus if you go to someone's house and it is a fast and you find out they are serving pot roast and wine you should not reject their food because of your fast. edit: A semi-related thing is that some Ethiopian restaurants have specific fast-friendly dishes during Great Lent which is very cool. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Oct 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
From that link, and some of the perspectives I've seen on spiritual gifts, it seems that the Orthodox Church is very concerned with believers falling into sin while pursuing closeness with God. The OCA link reads,quote:The spiritual fathers, as strictly ascetic as they were, are very clear in their teaching about fasting. They insist with the Lord and the scriptures that men must fast in order to be free from passions and lust. But they insist as well that the most critical thing is to be free from all sin, including the pride, vanity and hypocrisy which comes through foolish and sinful fasting. The Wikipedia article on "Orthodoxy and the Charismatic Movement" says, quote:More recently, Holy Fathers have parted with the Apostle Paul's teaching to "desire earnestly spiritual gifts" and discouraged desiring spiritual gifts because of fear of falling into "prelest" a condition where real spiritual gifts are counterfeited. They advise, To avoid "prelest" spiritual accountability of a priest or abbot. Fr. Seraphim was cured from this condition by his spiritual father, the blessed St. John Maximovitch; as a priest and monk himself, he had people under this condition come to his monastery for guidance and prayer. Despite, witnessing real miracles in his friend St. John Maximovitch's life, Fr. Seraphim Rose, did no miraculous deeds (that we are aware of) and discouraged the pursuit of Charismatic gifts at all. Though he made many great contributions to Orthodoxy in both founding a monastery and publishing many books, arguably Fr. Seraphim taught "The heresy of pusillanimity which proposes that since we are not living in the time of the apostles, and are not in the immediate physical presence of the Saviour, it is impossible for us to become holy in the way the apostles were holy." Oddly enough, there's no cite in the paragraph. Is this a common sentiment within the Church? How about other traditions- how do you all deal with "counterfeit spirituality"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
I like that "More recently," in the article, which is almost deliberately misleading. Suspicion of spiritual gifts really goes back to the third century, with the suppression of the Montanist heresy, which is to say that "recently" is really most of the orthodox and catholic church's history. The montanists were a big deal in Asia minor and north Africa, a group that believed in continuing prophesy, and which let women prophesy in churches, much to the irritation of the establishment. (And lest anyone take the inclusion of women in the service as a good thing, it's fairly apparent that there weren't any less treated as objects for being vessels of prophecy.) Things were of course looser then - the church was still establishing itself as an institution, and the proliferation of prophets, would-be paracletes, and the like from every corner was an obstacle to that. In general though, I'd question the motive of anyone who actively seeks spiritual gifts. Wanting the power to do miracles, or to speak in tongues or whatever can only raise suspicion in my eyes. I would wager that wanting those things for yourself makes it about you, and not about god - if they happen, they happen around holy people, but I suspect that that comes only after a great deal of self-abnegation and without intention. There is a reason that a lot of the saints, as presented in the ancient Lives, could well appear to be crazy assholes; it's because in a certain sense, that labor of giving themselves to god wipes them away as normal people - god's will, not their own, and it's emphatically not because the two work together and coincide. That would imply that one could know what god's will is. I admit that I'm taking a hard line on this, but I find the whole notion, common amongst evangelicals, that one can have a personal relationship with god to be extremely suspect. God's love is infinite and all-embracing, yes, but it's precisely backwards if it becomes the grounds upon which one props up one's own ego. The whole thing seems to miss the point that we are totally underserving, and if we receive it anyway, that doesn't mean that we really deserve it after all. Christianity isn't of this world, it's supposed to be alienating and uncomfortable; and we too are of this world, or at least part of us is. Whatever isn't, well, doesn't belong to ourselves as subjects either. Which is by means of saying that I'm fairly certain that anyone who knows that god is talking to them is a crank. It might happen, but it needs always be subjected to a heaping dose of doubt - it's something that would lie beyond any assurance. Really, only through grace could one hope to discern "counterfeit spirituality" from the actual thing. In the face of the lack of any confidence, the best one can do is extend a healthy skepticism - chances are, if god's work appears where and how one expects it to, it's not divine at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Raymond Leo Burke was the dude who led the ceremony and administered the sacrament. My grandmother was my sponsor. Burke is almost worshiped by traddies as their champion of the Latin Mass. They are somewhat wary of Francis, especially after stomping Burke's Franciscans of the Immaculate, though reading through his interviews I get a different picture than the media interpretation. Math, did you get a satisfactory answer to your moral question? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Math, did you get a satisfactory answer to your moral question? Well, I really appreciate the efforts that people posting in this thread made to explain to me why the Catholic Church considers masturbation to be a sin. But I personally cannot bring myself to accept the idea that masturbation is immoral or objectionable. I also applaud the court in Sweden that recently ruled that a man masturbating on a beach in Stockholm was not committing a crime. It seems to me that declaring it a sin to respond to one's sexual arousal by masturbating is like declaring it a sin to respond to one's thirst by drinking water. Why would God equip people with such powerful sexual urges if it is always sinful to take action to satisfy those urges unless an extremely specific set of criteria have been met? If it is only permissible to engage in sexual activity with one's opposite-sexed spouse for reproductive reasons, then why did God not design us in such a way that the only people who ever have sexual feelings are people who are married to opposite-sexed partners and who wish to produce offspring? More generally, I do not understand why a supposedly loving and benevolent God would allow it to be possible for people to go to hell. Why would God make it possible for people to sin and to thereby put themselves at risk of eternal damnation? Because no human chooses to be born, it seems like it would be cruel for God to design the human experience to be a test, in which those who behave correctly are rewarded with eternal ecstasy and those who behave incorrectly are punished with eternal suffering. Why should I have to be put through such a trial when I never chose to be born in the first place? And at the very least, couldn't God have made it more clear-cut and less ambiguous as to what behaviors are permissible and what behaviors are sinful? It's really loving difficult to know what sorts of behaviors are right and what sorts of behaviors are wrong because different religious institutions, different thinkers, and different philosophers are constantly disagreeing with each other and contradicting each other over these matters. If it's actually possible to be damned eternally for believing the wrong thing or behaving the wrong way, then why doesn't God make it clearer as to what ideas and behaviors are correct and why doesn't God play a more active role in leading people away from sin and toward the correct ideas and behaviors? Thanks so much for inviting me to post in this thread again! I've really enjoyed reading this thread and I'm very glad it's here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:those who behave correctly are rewarded with eternal ecstasy and those who behave incorrectly are punished with eternal suffering. This isn't really what Christianity is about nor is it how it works. It's not a naughty and nice list. It's a "truly believes in the atoning resurrection of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God" list. The "correct behavior" part is merely a showing of love towards the one who redeemed us and has nothing to do with who goes where after death.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
So a Buddhist nun who organizes the largest Buddhist charity in the world, which provides aid globally, is less likely to be in heaven than an unrepentant murderer who happens to be a believing Christian? Well, if that's the God you want to believe in you are more than welcome, but that's a God I don't worship. I should add since this is the liturgical Christianity thread and not the "make passive aggressive swipes at other people's soteriology" thread, that the Catholic Church does not agree with that view of salvation, and I am fairly certain many Protestant Churches don't subscribe to it either. I don't think Orthodoxy sees things quite that way either but I have learned from this thread almost everything I know about the Orthodox Church is either wrong or so grossly simplified as to be wrong anyway. It is not what Christianity is about, then, the idea that salvation comes from faith in Christ alone with works as window dressing, but specific Christian theologies. Theologies that at one point in time were widely accepted, but which these days have pushed aside by many as being offensive and relics from a barbaric past. The post-conciliar view of the Catholic Church is that it is possible for those who are not Christian to arrive at Christ outside of the church. To be honest I've been so immersed in theology of religion that I can't quite say exactly how the Catholic Church is saying it happens these days. Is "anonymous Christians" still somehow acceptable to the mainstream Catholic Church? That's the idea that, through their devotion to their own faith and general human principles, those of other religions are able to be saved. The idea is that because, of no fault of their own, these people would never convert, Christ is able to save them because of their faith and works which reflect God's will. Not that their religious practices themselves have anything to do with it, it's the mindset with which they engage in those practices that they are able to be Christians anonymously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:I should add since this is the liturgical Christianity thread and not the "make passive aggressive swipes at other people's soteriology" thread, that the Catholic Church does not agree with that view of salvation, and I am fairly certain many Protestant Churches don't subscribe to it either. I don't think Orthodoxy sees things quite that way either but I have learned from this thread almost everything I know about the Orthodox Church is either wrong or so grossly simplified as to be wrong anyway. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 08:31
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:This isn't really what Christianity is about nor is it how it works. It's not a naughty and nice list. It's a "truly believes in the atoning resurrection of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God" list. You bring this point up in almost every post you make in this thread, but I'm pretty sure even you know that this view is not universal among Christians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
Hi there, Canadian Anglican checking in. I've enjoyed following this thread as well as the previous Catholic thread. I've had one question on my mind for some time, and finally found the prompting to ask it. In describing my own views, I've come to really like a description provided by the Bishop of Calgary, Greg Kerr-Wilson who described himself as a, "conservative, liberal, evangelical, charismatic catholic Anglican."Berke Negri posted:You bring this point up in almost every post you make in this thread, but I'm pretty sure even you know that this view is not universal among Christians. It's probably more widely accepted than you would think. While it's true that, particularly in the United States, the view Luigi mentioned isn't in the majority, that doesn't make it incorrect. While it doesn't speak to the related issue of salvation, Luigi's position is supported by Jesus in Luke 13. Anyhow, to my question. For me the Anglican Communion and liturgy (religion) is a support and material tool used to aid in my relationship with God (faith). For some people here, it seems to be otherwise. I'm curious how others view it for themselves, and in particular for those who've scoffed when Luigi or anyone else trots out of bible verse in support of their views, how do you respond to the Augustine quote: "If you believe what you like in the gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
PantlessBadger posted:...in particular for those who've scoffed when Luigi or anyone else trots out of bible verse in support of their views, how do you respond to the Augustine quote: "If you believe what you like in the gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself." That's like saying "If you vote for Obama for the things you like about his platform, and reject what you don't like, it's not the Democrats you voted for, but yourself." That doesn't make any sense. And that's leaving aside the part where the Bible is a collection of texts written at different times for different purposes, more than half of which have their own critical apparatus in the culture they originally came from (some of which reaches WILDLY different conclusions than Christianity did), and which also have interpretations that people who came before us have given them, which we call Church Tradition. Because it's not a single text, it's also internally inconsistent--for every prooftext Jedi Knight Luigi can trot out, I can find one about Christ becoming all in all, or whatever. Meanwhile, the entire act of prooftexting is intellectually bankrupt--how is it supposed to work that you can rip a single sentence out of its context in the passage it came from and use it to prove...something? If you tried to do that with any other book you'd get laughed out of the room.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:You bring this point up in almost every post you make in this thread, but I'm pretty sure even you know that this view is not universal among Christians. No, it's not universal. But it's of extreme importance to most Lutherans and (I suppose) most of the other protestants at least. They way we read Paul's letter to Romans, among others, is that you as a person have absolutely nothing to do with your salvation. This is in contrast to teachings that burden people by telling them that "God doesn't accept them unless they do X" or people that demand that you "must have more faith". There's nothing you can bring in front of God that could earn you anything. One way to describe this is a cup that's completely filled: Christ's work filled it when nothing else could. It's not possible to take any of it away nor is it possible to add anything to it. Now, to be fair there is the "baby with bathwater" aspect: it's very much possible to speak like living well and being excellent to one another is not required at all. That's simply not true, it's very required - demanded even - but not for your salvation. You do good because that's the right thing to do, that's how you love others and that's how you love God. It's just not even a factor when it comes to entering Heaven, which is based entirely on your connections.  a travelling HEGEL posted:"We know where God's Church is. We do not know where it isn't." This is a wonderful way to put it. We can't judge the faith of others. edit: a travelling HEGEL posted:How does anyone make any decision though? Not only in the realm of religion, in any area. You weigh the options and come to what appears to you to be the best available conclusion. Wait, are you saying that nothing in the Bible can be taken literally and that every part of it is of equal importance so that when they conflict, we can't know anything for sure, in the end? Valiantman fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:You bring this point up in almost every post you make in this thread, but I'm pretty sure even you know that this view is not universal among Christians. Which confuses me. Why be Christian when all the religions of the world are just "different rivers to the same ocean, man"? I'm Christian because I think it's the most correct way, and that particular view of entry to the afterlife is what sets it apart from every other religion out there. Mo Tzu posted:So a Buddhist nun who organizes the largest Buddhist charity in the world, which provides aid globally, is less likely to be in heaven than an unrepentant murderer who happens to be a believing Christian? Well, if that's the God you want to believe in you are more than welcome, but that's a God I don't worship. Why is the "Christian" in these examples always an unrepentant one? Don't forget about the book of James (Luther's least favorite book of the bible I might add), which says faith without works is dead. An unrepentant sinner, Christian or otherwise, is not exactly showing the fruits of their faith in Christ and the resurrection. In this case, we can't judge hearts, but we can judge actions, and that's where the basis for an excommunication can take place. I know it's just my religious-cultural upbringing (remember, I'm from the Lutheran-dominated upper Midwest), but I just find it really strange that there's a lot of Christians in this thread who don't give a poo poo about or play down the particular bible passages that address this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:Why is the "Christian" in these examples always an unrepentant one? When you are looking for flaws in an idea, you start from its weak points. The unrepentant murderer is just there to emphasize the point. It's not very hard to imagine a Christian who follows the letter but not the spirit of Christianity. (mostly because these people don't need to be imagined) It seems to me as if you see the Bible as a legal document, and it's certainly not one. I guess a good point of comparison would be fasting. It's a great thing to do, but if your friends throw a party because they had a daughter and invite you, and you know they'll serve fasting-unfriendly food, the right thing to do is to go to the party - "love your fellow man" is a pretty big deal, yes? The whole point of Jesus healing people on Sabbath is that minutiae of worship are insignificant when they stand in the way of being a good person. And the story of the Good Samaritan is there to show you the goodness in 'others'. So, a Buddhist nun running a global charity would actually be a better Christian than a lot of people who call themselves Christian (Myself included, to be honest). I cannot see God who is Love not loving such a person. That said, I'll take my liturgy the old fashioned way, with a bunch of bearded dudes who look like wizards chanting in 'ethnic' languages just like they've been doing for the last two thousand years or so, thank you very much.  edit: Don't get this wrong, I'm not saying screw the Bible - I'm saying that when your interpretation of what the Bible says stands opposed to the existence of a loving God, or requires you not to be a good person, your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Jedi Knight Luigi posted:I know it's just my religious-cultural upbringing (remember, I'm from the Lutheran-dominated upper Midwest), but I just find it really strange that there's a lot of Christians in this thread who don't give a poo poo about or play down the particular bible passages that address this. We may have a different view of the Bible, but we're not downplaying it. edit2: Man, this post sounded a lot better in my head. 
my dad fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:It seems to me that declaring it a sin to respond to one's sexual arousal by masturbating is like declaring it a sin to respond to one's thirst by drinking water. Why would God equip people with such powerful sexual urges if it is always sinful to take action to satisfy those urges unless an extremely specific set of criteria have been met? If it is only permissible to engage in sexual activity with one's opposite-sexed spouse for reproductive reasons, then why did God not design us in such a way that the only people who ever have sexual feelings are people who are married to opposite-sexed partners and who wish to produce offspring? Well, what if criteria for the use of our sexuality aren't "extremely specific", but something that could reasonably be expected to be discoverable - but modern Western society's standard vices, or a given person's particular inclinations, or some combination, make it harder to see that? More generally, the Catholic Church holds that this is in fact true for a lot of morality (and, for that matter, the existence of God): unaided human reason can examine the world, discover the natures of things, and understand that it is good for a thing to fulfill its nature and bad for it to do otherwise. (Which is why Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy is still, centuries later, absolutely intrinsic to Catholic teaching: you can't really make sense of a lot of it without that underpinning.) Part of that means that not all desires are good, responding to a good desire is not always good, and not all means of responding to desires are good. It is good for me to respond to hunger by eating - unless my doctor's instructed me to eat or drink nothing at all for a certain period of time, unless what I intend to eat will poison me, or unless I intend to get my food by stealing it from someone. Yet we don't typically think of "it is good to avoid food right before surgery" or "it is bad for us to eat lead paint" as moral restrictions, or consider it cruel to try to help someone with pica (the desire to eat things that are not food) to stop having that desire. The Catholic Church sees other desires in more or less the same light, even if those desires can't be redirected as readily as pica. (If I am habitually angry, and really want to punch people in the face when I get in arguments, it's unlikely that simply taking an iron supplement will fix the problem the way it might correct an anemia-induced hunger for clay; if my sexual desires are misdirected in some way, I might not be able at all to change that. ) As far as hell goes: the Catholic Church does not see the human experience as a test, at least not in the sense of "one of these doors has a car, and the other two have a goat!" or "here's your algebra final, get at least 75% correct to pass the class!" If we attempt to live according to our natures, we will be (to the degree we're trying to do so, and to the degree we understand our natures) seeking after God (because part of our nature is to seek for what is good, and God is the source of everything good), and "seek and you shall find; ask and it shall be given to you". This is why the Catholic Church has always held that it is possible for non-Catholics to go to Heaven - for that matter, even before that was made explicitly clear, there were three groups of people who were indisputably not baptized Catholics and indisputably in Heaven. But because living according to our natures is exceptionally difficult for some people, and merely extremely hard for everybody else, the Church sets forth how to do that, and provides graces through the sacraments to give us help (and to let us start over after we fail). That is the active role you described: God gave us a world which we could use our reason to explore, directly revealed to us things we needed to know but couldn't discover with reason alone, and provided us help in living accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Well, I really appreciate the efforts that people posting in this thread made to explain to me why the Catholic Church considers masturbation to be a sin. But I personally cannot bring myself to accept the idea that masturbation is immoral or objectionable. I personally find the Catholic definition of masturbation as "self-abuse" to be revealing. There is this urge, this drive, implanted in our nature and it is a good thing. It is a good thing to have sex, because ultimately it is for the generation of life. Without sex, no life, no us. Now self-gratification gives pleasure. Well and good. The problem is that this pleasure is addicting, and this addiction causes us to act for the sake of pleasure alone, which is a demeaning of our supernatural destiny. Basically, by choosing this pleasure, again and again, we make this our end, instead of God. And that is the classic definition of mortal sin, when we take some other good (always a good, mind you) and make that our end, our god. And let's be honest, it is an addiction, difficult to break. St. Thomas Aquinas posits sins of the flesh as causes of difficulty in intellectual pursuits. St. Paul calls masturbators "molles", which means soft. This softness, inability to bring our passions in subjection to reason, weakens our will, especially in the face of difficulties. There is a legitimate discussion to be had on the subject, but much reluctance to talk about it, since we are all subject to the same passions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:Which confuses me. Why be Christian when all the religions of the world are just "different rivers to the same ocean, man"? I'm Christian because I think it's the most correct way, and that particular view of entry to the afterlife is what sets it apart from every other religion out there. quote:Why is the "Christian" in these examples always an unrepentant one? Don't forget about the book of James (Luther's least favorite book of the bible I might add), which says faith without works is dead. An unrepentant sinner, Christian or otherwise, is not exactly showing the fruits of their faith in Christ and the resurrection. In this case, we can't judge hearts, but we can judge actions, and that's where the basis for an excommunication can take place. Okay, let's talk about another example; is a priest who molests several children, but then repents, more likely to be in heaven than the children who leave Christianity because they associate it with their abuse? The problem survivors of sexual abuse by clergy have of being in churches and receiving sacraments is well documented, as is their leaving church altogether. Perhaps some of them even curse Christ and God for allowing someone to hurt them that way. Meanwhile, the priest realizes his problems, leaves the priesthood, confesses to police, and enters medical treatment. He spends the rest of his life trying to prevent himself from repeating the same mistakes and prays to God every day to take his desires away from him. Again, believe what you want, but I'd sooner believe the priest is going to hell and the children to heaven than the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:I've even submitted an article similar to that theme to a pee reviewed journal. Well, that sounds interesting... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
I am like, 90% sure I didn't make typos like that in the article but now I am concerned.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:Okay, let's talk about another example; is a priest who molests several children, but then repents, more likely to be in heaven than the children who leave Christianity because they associate it with their abuse? The problem survivors of sexual abuse by clergy have of being in churches and receiving sacraments is well documented, as is their leaving church altogether. Perhaps some of them even curse Christ and God for allowing someone to hurt them that way. Meanwhile, the priest realizes his problems, leaves the priesthood, confesses to police, and enters medical treatment. He spends the rest of his life trying to prevent himself from repeating the same mistakes and prays to God every day to take his desires away from him. Again, believe what you want, but I'd sooner believe the priest is going to hell and the children to heaven than the other way around. I'm afraid you're reading Luigi's point from a wrong angle. I don't want to put words in his mouth but since I share much of his views, I hope I'm not off the mark if I meddle here. What's your goal with this? Why would it be productive or even possible to compare the "heaven-eligibility" of these two examples? When I accept that the only way into Heaven is through Christ and Christ alone (as he himself says, most famously at the beginning of John 14), I cannot possibly say that the priest wouldn't be saved. I also cannot say such a thing about the children because I'm not Christ. I can promise salvation for all but I cannot know if they receive it, again, because I'm not Christ. Denying heaven from any person is not right but neither is it right to promise heaven to someone who doesn't care about their salvation. It'd be stepping across a line in both cases. We're not in the position to judge one way or another but what we can do is to promise that when we put our faith in Christ, we're safe. No matter what.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
So I guess the molestee who spits in Christ's face by cursing him is better than the truly repentant sinner. The molestee has some understandable points but that doesn't mean he can blame Christ himself for the actions of an imperfect person. As for the righteous Buddhist monk, I think God has no use for him so long as he disavows (wittingly or not) the Christ and his resurrection. But you probably already knew my reply would go something like this, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about our interpretations on how important the bible is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
The point is that there are circumstances beyond our control that dictate our religious commitments. To say that salvation is through Christ alone, and to use that as a reason why we cannot say with any certainty that those outside of Christianity can be saved opens up the accusation that what's being said isn't that salvation is through Christ but instead through the Church. If you don't want to make any soteriological points with any certitude, are you really saying anything? Putting aside the question of "what is salvation?" the question of "for whom is there salvation?" is an extremely important and central one. Forgive me if I'm misreading you, but it reads like you're saying that you can't say that the priest in my example would not be saved, but that you can't say that the children for whom Christ has been taken from them are able to be saved. I should say that I didn't intentionally set it up like this, but there are places in this world that are hostile to Christianity because of western colonization. Places where Christianity as anything other than a minority religion that controls the best schools is little more than a pipe dream. Is their salvation in doubt because of the the west's lack of humanity, or is God likely to be more merciful than that?Jedi Knight Luigi posted:So I guess the molestee who spits in Christ's face by cursing him is better than the truly repentant sinner. The molestee has some understandable points but that doesn't mean he can blame Christ himself for the actions of an imperfect person. I said nun because I actually had in mind a Taiwanese woman who runs an international charity whose name I cannot remember. I don't "agree to disagree," because I think your theological position is one that is actively harmful to dialogue and impedes the work of Christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:Again, believe what you want, but I'd sooner believe the priest is going to hell and the children to heaven than the other way around. Those children have quite the extenuating circumstance that God is certainly going to take into account. That priest has quite the sin on his soul, but God does give second chances. The key however, is that we are judged on our will, our desire to do the right thing, in the circumstances in which we live. This is quite an oversimplification, but it addresses your example. If salvation was entirely beyond my control (in a Calvinistic sense), or alternatively, entirely up to me (in a Pelagian sense), then I would be in total despair. God gives grace, repeatedly, and it is up to us what we do with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Mo Tzu posted:I don't "agree to disagree," because I think your theological position is one that is actively harmful to dialogue and impedes the work of Christ. My theological position?? Do you want me to become a papist or something?  I think at this point, forums user Mo Tzu, you're gonna just have to write me off as someone actively harming the work of Christ, then, which is sad on your part and confusing on everyone else's. Post Scriptum: you can go ahead and fit your treatise-length last word reply in here now
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 02:37
|
|