Religion Re-Envisioned

[Blacksheepboy]

I make constant concessions to people about religion almost daily on my Facebook page. I often, although being a Catholic, refute what Catholics believe about divine providence, and that Jesus Christ was God as man. They typically contain concessions about concessions, and about some hot topics that people have with the Church. Hopefully some of this will be interesting.

I'll edit in a new message every day or so, so if you miss one, I have it all backed up in a word document. This will be to avoid it becoming massive and unreadable.

June 28^th:

If Jesus Christ founded the church he saw fitting to instigate (by his innumerable teachings to the apostles), then it is truly the church of Jesus Christ. Even though I don't believe he was directly, literally, God Himself, he was arguably the first confirmed by the Holy Ghost, and therefore had very much clout in what he did in his UNERRING life. To be sinless is to follow the one straight path, often influenced by the decisions of others (be it sin or likewise, because you have to react to either dilemma to be fitting amongst brethren). Jesus therefore died on the cross for the decisions of others, be it sin or perfection--to cooperate in the salvation of mankind. Because he did not err, everything he did was for this cause, much like his mother, Mary, and anyone else who was sinless in the history of mankind. To be perfect was to live for God and mankind: for the exemplification of what God was like, and for the instruction in conjunction with love of mankind, both essential (if man was to err).

But back to the Church: it is supposed to build off of what truths it was founded upon--what we take to understand from the apostles, because revelation ended with them, and the counsels are meant to clarify those revelations. What Vatican II has done is to say those countermanding those revelations: such as, that everyone must be baptized to more fully live the faith; that everyone must be Catholic, even if only in heart, because if Jesus Christ had divine revelation. and therefore began the Church (upon this rock... etc.), then in order to more fully fulfill our lives, we ought to replicate for our interior selves these distinctions; that the Church needs to be hierarchical rather than democratic (thereby putting the bishops, cardinals, and popes in their proper places).

These are things that Vatican II went against. Vatican II purports that baptism is unnecessary in certain religions, that religious freedom is tantamount (that other religions are fine), and that man is foremost, sort of undermining the teaching that God is first, then man (love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself etc.).

So, if Jesus Christ was to institute a hierarchy (thou art Peter and upon this rock... etc.), then instruct his apostles in the way of being confirmed by the Holy Ghost (to stay in Jerusalem), we can be sure that they were able to carry out his teachings, and therefore the Church.

To further back up Jesus Christ's life, the Catholic faith believes that certain choices, such as God's counsels, could be made or not made without the consequence of sin, although it will make getting to heaven more difficult if God's counsels are not followed (such as living as a religious or priest). So Jesus Christ CHOSE to be confirmed (when the dove descended upon him), therefore increasing the already profound virtue of his life. You see, if Jesus Christ wasn't God in the literal, it makes his life EVEN MORE profound, because he did have the capacity to err. If anything, believing Jesus Christ was literally God takes away some virtue of his life (though God redeeming mankind in such a fashion is incredible if it were so).

Now, in order to follow his path and redeem any brethren by his example, Catholics say that even one drop of blood shed for this purpose was sufficient due to his exemplary life, but if the cross was on Jesus Christ's path, he diligently chose it, again to be the primary example of how strongly love desires to redeem EVERYONE. We are well aware of his exploits in this regard.

Being "Catholic" does not essentially mean being part of the physical Church. Specifically, I, for 6 months, did not have a church to attend because I wouldn't worship at Protestant churches, and I was having it rough with another person at the local (non Novus Ordo) church. So in this respect, there are many more "Catholics" in the world than don't go to the physical Church. Keep in mind, being Catholic is a lifestyle and choice in its essence. The more you learn about morality, the further obligated you become to faith and good works, much like anything learned--you take it in and react and adjust accordingly. You learn how to walk: you walk; you learn how to budget and save money: you change spending choices, because you've learned a method that causes you to save money for your new car... Much like attaining heaven, or simply living godly, these morals define the decisions you make according to others and yourself. It's like learning how to diet.

This is the aim of the Catholic faith: to teach people the moral essentials.

Some people say that the conscience is already imbued with knowledge of what to do, but according to Catholicism, this is only sufficient, and not an abundant means to morality. There are people to have saved their souls without much teaching, but again, Catholicism holds that learning allowed for a more "direct path" to salvation, and a better life altogether (morally and gratuitously), as you acted in a greater, more well defined confines.

Essentially, learning about faith and the truth holds you to moral obligations. God loves much, he expects much love. If the Catholic faith, IN ESSENCE ONLY, is a church instituted for the salvation of souls (regardless of bad popes, because they are the Catholic faith in specifics) it may be beneficial to join it. The purpose of the Church is to assist in the salvation of souls. Like God's counsels, for some, this may not bind under the acquisition of sin, but if you find a [non-corrupt] Catholic church, you may be impelled to join it.

This brings to light the topic of being "compelled" to do something, and herein lies the downfall of many ideals. Essentially, the Church holds that, due to God's grace, some things are revealed to us by virtue of the people who have lived as God might live (and thus examples have been passed down through generations), and that, taking the saints and Jesus Christ into consideration, we are sort of compelled to follow after their example, if we are not acting as saints already.

While the Church is not the same as it used to be (in saint's times), much of it is still intact.

The chief argument is: why should I be a part of the Catholic Church? And, in regarding the Novus Ordo churches, maybe you would be better off staying Protestant or Agnostic (seeing as Novus Ordo priests have been known to accept birth control, and the turning of the altars toward the people, following a sort of democratic change, and then communion in the hands, if that gets you). This is actually harsh, but many "traditional" Catholics hold this view. I am not exactly sure about the Novus Ordo churches, seeing as I have not attended very many... and the respect I have received at those churches has been fair, even in confession.

But, most Catholics say that, if any church was to be worthwhile, the Catholic Church holds the most potential validity for it being a church, if that's what you are interested in. If you want to find the most history-backed and traditional-to-its-roots church, and if you can find a "society" church, you could probably find something of interest to you. Being apart of the Catholic Church is, in itself, a lesson, and some come out of it staying Catholic.

[jrgp]

I was born and raised catholic and dragged to church and sunday school and stuff as a child. I never really protested it that much, except for when i was in the middle of coding/playing soldat.

since becoming an adult, i'm not a "practicing" catholic. i don't go to church except for weddings and funerals and when my parents drag me there when i come home to visit. i still consider myself catholic though, despite all of the sins i commit on a regular basis and not attending mass

with regards to evolution vs creation, etc, i believe in evolution with the caveat that "god" made the stuff leading up to the big bang/etc. that stuff about him creating humans in his own image can kind of go fuck itself too. i'm selective in terms of the amount of stuff my religion says that i choose to believe/follow.

that said, i really don't like talking about religion much. i refuse to partake in such conversations at work or tell people that i'm catholic since almost everyone in the tech field is an atheist apparently and the last thing i feel like dealing with is a debate or a 'lets agree to disagree' convo

[DarkCrusade]

Just two question by a church-doubter:

1) Who needs church who has God in himself?

2) If prayer is a conversation with God, why do we need the holy communion? One can commit to prayer in solitude.

~

My personal opinion on religion is that it is very much like with sports teams. You're born in a town and dragged into crowded arenas, told to cheer for your parent's team. You grow up with friends who all love this team, and so you stick with it. You don't grow up in Germany telling your parents you would rather watch Manchester United play, right? You just don't.

[jrgp]

Just two question by a church-doubter:

1) Who needs church who has God in himself?

2) If prayer is a conversation with God, why do we need the holy communion? One can commit to prayer in solitude.

~

My personal opinion on religion is that it is very much like with sports teams. You're born in a town and dragged into crowded arenas, told to cheer for your parent's team. You grow up with friends who all love this team, and so you stick with it. You don't grow up in Germany telling your parents you would rather watch Manchester United play, right? You just don't.

1) church backs up and helps to maintain your belief in god as well as brings likeminded people around you. i hear it's a nice place to pick up chicks too anyway.

2) you don't "need" to partake in relgious activies. if you're fine in solitude you can just not go to church, like i do. it's all a combination of tradition and so on

~

why not? my dad was a fan of one football team and i was that of an another. what about all of the kids who grow up with relgion but rebel and become an atheist early on? you can do what you want. i thought, not strongly though, of becoming jewish because the programmer who taught me linux was jewish and they don't have a hell or something.

additionally, i despise people who try to convince religious people that it's stupid hocus pokus and a waste of time almost as much as i hate people who try to make nonreligious people religious. both parties can go to hell and suck my ambivalent dick.

[DarkCrusade]

You of course are old enough somewhen to decide for yourself, but before that, others decide for you. Jewish boys are cut for example without their free will, because the religion they are born into demands it. That's what I was talking about.

[Blacksheepboy]

I was born and raised catholic and dragged to church and sunday school and stuff as a child. I never really protested it that much, except for when i was in the middle of coding/playing soldat.

since becoming an adult, i'm not a "practicing" catholic. i don't go to church except for weddings and funerals and when my parents drag me there when i come home to visit. i still consider myself catholic though, despite all of the sins i commit on a regular basis and not attending mass

with regards to evolution vs creation, etc, i believe in evolution with the caveat that "god" made the stuff leading up to the big bang/etc. that stuff about him creating humans in his own image can kind of go fuck itself too. i'm selective in terms of the amount of stuff my religion says that i choose to believe/follow.

that said, i really don't like talking about religion much. i refuse to partake in such conversations at work or tell people that i'm catholic since almost everyone in the tech field is an atheist apparently and the last thing i feel like dealing with is a debate or a 'lets agree to disagree' convo

There's a lot to say about being Catholic. I mean, I was exposed to an rigorous traditional Catholicism as a child, and for whatever reason, I grew to like it. But there's stuff to say about not attending Mass. If it's a "Novus Ordo" mass, the traditional Catholics wouldn't fault you actually. Basically, I believe, and others do too, that being in a religion is meant to serve as a means for learning the truth, and if the religion you are is not a fulfillment of that search, then I suppose you are okay to leaving it. But of course, traditionalists say that the search may eventually lead back to the Church. But, it's sort of up to the individual.

So there's that. Basically, a search to the truth is what people consider to be the human condition, and where some fulfillment lies within or without religion.

Just two question by a church-doubter:

1) Who needs church who has God in himself?

2) If prayer is a conversation with God, why do we need the holy communion? One can commit to prayer in solitude.

Church is supposed to increase the fulfillment of staying within and finding the truth. It is common practice by churches to have adult Catechism, the priest gives homilies for the education and teaching of the perish... and there are lay people within the church who hold discussions about debatable doctrine. And Communion is said to increase spiritual virtue, regardless of how many times it is taken.

1) church backs up and helps to maintain your belief in god as well as brings likeminded people around you. i hear it's a nice place to pick up chicks too anyway.

---

additionally, i despise people who try to convince religious people that it's stupid hocus pokus and a waste of time almost as much as i hate people who try to make nonreligious people religious. both parties can go to hell and suck my ambivalent dick.

That's legitimate... And yeah, the picking chicks part too.

[Adam]

praying is worthless unless you know how to meditate properly

[Mittsu]

being in a religion is meant to serve as a means for learning the truth

hah

I think you phrased it incorrectly, you should have said "being in a religion is meant to serve as a means for learning how to deal with tough reality by wishful thinking"

some religious people would openly agree that's how it is, "I know it doesn't make sense but I wish it was like that, if it's untrue then there's still nothing to lose"

[DarkCrusade]

Choose your truths, but don't force them on anyone else is what I go by. What is true and what is not is in the eye of the beholder, up for his judgement, interpretation, analysis, whatever.

That being said: how can you learn truth?

[Blacksheepboy]

That being said: how can you learn truth?

I guess either by divine revelation, or a teaching that mirrors dormant internal checks. Much of it is based on, "What did people of the past believe, and where did they get their knowledge, and is the divine revelation of the apostles legitimate?" I mean, I take into question the deity of Jesus Christ because, who is to say otherwise, and what backing do they have? It can be argued that the early Church fathers didn't believe Jesus Christ was literally God himself--much like married priests was a thing some 1000 years ago.

But I guess this doesn't get us closer to that question. Much of it is trusting in the past. For me, Catholic teachings fulfilled a desire I had for truth, and so I settled on them, and gave to learning more. Since then, no other religion has proved itself either practical or legitimate to me. I don't like Protestant thinking that's like, "Whatever I guess such and such is correct because either I feel it or the Bible says so," when the Bible was compiled by the Catholics. Of course, feelings can be useful, because like I said earlier, Catholicism filled some desire (being pretty much feelings)... So yeah.

I think you phrased it incorrectly, you should have said "being in a religion is meant to serve as a means for learning how to deal with tough reality by wishful thinking"

Wishful thinking? I guess I don't get what tough realities you mean.

[Mittsu]

tough reality is that you most likely will not go to "heaven" once you die

[DarkCrusade]

Oh yeah, the thing about heaven... just say you have more than one religion that either sends you to heaven or to hell - and there are a quite a bunch of them - and if you do not believe in the god of that specific religion, you automatically go to hell. Does that not mean that everyone is doomed? Or is this hell, and no one noticed? Or is there only one true religion, and all other religions are born out of mental derangement?

Is there really a universal truth that applies to each, and everyone, and everything? Or is this universal truth not another form of religion in which you worship a greater being, in this case a question which is of your choice? Maybe my great truth is that we all live in different ways, but die the and go nowhere! -- what then?

Every question raised in the matter of truth raises another question until the question in question is that if truth is a measurable instance or a subjective matter of personal projection, or in other words: a mirror of our selves.

Thoughts?

[Blacksheepboy]

tough reality is that you most likely will not go to "heaven" once you die

Yeah, well, I believe there is no heaven... I guess I'll avoid going into my alter-explanations though.

Thoughts?

There comes the problem, where does absolute truth stem from? What religion, and so on... Yep.

[Mittsu]

did you watch a movie The Man From Earth? It has an interesting twist on Christianity, kinda like in The Master and Margarita

[DarkCrusade]

@Blacksheepboy: My main point is that either, there is a 'true' religion and everything else is fake, or there is but one religion with many names (or multiple gods with the same face), or none. Since truth is nothing Men could ever hope to grasp, belief becomes a subjective matter which needs not be debated or argued on, lest to fall into a cycle of logical fallacies, ignorance and shame when the conclusion finally must be: there is no real approach to the subject.

[Blacksheepboy]

Yeah, definitely, some persuasive individuals believe the second bit.

[DarkCrusade]

Yes, but I deem those rather ignorant. Like muslims who use the term 'allah' in any language that is not Arabic. Before anyone feels offended: 'allah' is yet another word for 'god'.

[15th_account]

with regards to evolution vs creation, etc, i believe in evolution with the caveat that "god" made the stuff leading up to the big bang/etc.

At the risk of sounding belligerent... That statement is brimming with misconceptions about science. I respect your decision to refuse conversations about religion. But when you step into the field of science you become fair game, and I just can't stand by while someone is wrong on the Internet.

There needs to be no caveat in the theory of evolution for a god to have set up the Big Bang. The theory of evolution only deals with life once it's already started.

Science isn't a belief system. You can't use the word "believe" when talking about a scientific theory. There's no real scientific equivalent for the word "believe," as you can't pick and choose the properties of the universe you live in. Though I suppose you can say that you accept a theory's explanatory and predictive power as an approximation of reality.

I've assumed you're talking about the theory of evolution (the mechanisms that explain and predict how life evolves) due to its context in your statement, even though you're saying "evolution" which in science typically refers to the observable phenomena (the change in traits over successive generations) - which is a fact, not a theory.

[DarkCrusade]

@15th: I lol'd at your internet statement, less so when you said 'science' is not a form of 'belief'. There is a reason why evolution is a theory, and not a 'fact' as you nicely put it, just as much as there is a reason why religion is called belief, and not fact. Heck, we know there is pi, but we can only approach it as well, although it is a scientifically 'proven' constant!

All Men are fallible, so if there is a theory, there is also reason enough to accept that there is a chance that it is wrong; and we never approach a 100% percent. This line of thinking of course leads to this: if scientific facts are fallible, then trusting the 99.9% of secure proof is a belief of its own.

While I do not personally trust that there is a god, I believe that both science and religion should not ever be compared if the variables stay the same. The approach may be different, but the outcome is still belief!

[Blacksheepboy]

I just can't stand by while someone is wrong on the Internet.

Sure! Okay, "believing" scientific things is a little odd, yeah.

As an interesting fact: did you know Darwin was a Protestant minister?

And God and science is not necessarily a dichotomy.