Help/Advice

Húrin

Phototoxin wrote: »

But an increase in something they already had.

Do you not have faith? Your OP didn't seem very atheistic.

I find it helpful. But equally I dont want to 'convert' to my GFs version 'because she is my GF'. Though I find her more Chrsitian than most uber-trad catholics that I know.

I'm sure your gf will say more intelligent things than just trying to convert you.

That is my difficulty with it yes. I would like it to make sense but I doesnt seem to. To me it is not a straw man, that is what it boils down to.

You're confusing two different arguments.

Tim Robbins claimed that Christians in general (nothing to do with Protestants vs Catholics) use the Bible to try to prove that God exists. He said that we try to use the existence of God to prove that the Bible is reliable. Now, it didn't seem to matter to him that few if any Christians actually try to make arguments like that. Thus he misrepresented the Christian pov, thus it was a straw man argument.

The RCC is right because their book says peter is the rock on which the church is built. The book is the word of God because their counicl determied it was so.

There is also plenty in the new testament that shows that "the church" means the Christian community in general, and not just the Catholic denomination. Have you tried reading it?

There are numerous reasons to think that the Bible is the word of God, most of which have been articulated by PDN. These reasons do not rest on the council's claims, but rather go right back to the beginning of Christianity.

Protestantism has no such claims to authority but takes the book as right 'all scripture is Godbreathed'

Most Protestants feel no need to claim such authority. Protestantism does not throw out or thoroughly reject Catholicism... this is the false assumption you seem to be arguing from.

Mrs OBumble

Phototoxin wrote: »

I was 'made' to go to 'midnight mass' .... and I kinda got ticked off. Maybe it was just the mostly terrible singing I dont know but it got me thinking.

6 1/2 months ago I was diagnosed with a serious long term illness and now I get physically stressed while at mass. ... When I go I get annoyed at stupid things like communion in the hand, women with no headcoverings (rule is still in effect), the hypocracy of people who only go to mass following the 'Number of masses in a given year = 2 + F + B + M' formula of Catholicsm. The sort of wishy washyness that priests are forced to conted with. I get annoyed at the idea that there are people who take communion and dont realise what it/is supposed to mean(s). I think I may be envious of thier ignorance.

... I disagree with some [Catholic church teachings] [initally purgatory, then original sin, then immaculate conception, then assumption,(most of the mary stuff!) , then transubstantiaton.] so find it pointless to go to mass. However I have a slight worry about easter as then it is crunch time when I am supposed to get communion (minimum 1 year near easter) but I cannot as its sacreligious to get it if in mortal sin (most probably) or dont belive in transubstantiaon (which I dont). There have been times (before I got ill) when I have lost sleep worrying about these things but I dont anymore.

....

I realise I am very confused and this mightn't make much sense but has anyone else been here and if so would they have advice.

Wow! That's quite a post. I've read thru the rest of the postings so far (four pages of 'em), and I'm not sure if they really address the requests for advice.

Firstly, good on you for asking the questions. IMHO far too many Irish Catholics don't ask, some even believe that you must/can/should not question anything to do with faith. Again IMHO this is rubbish: God gave us brains to use, not to take up space in our heads.

Secondly, can you trust that God will give you the answers and people that you need, at the time when you need them? You don't say if your illness is terminal or not (I'm guessing not), but it might be that your likely lifespan is different to that of many posters here. It's possible that you will need to grow in spiritual maturity faster than many of the others here. Personally I've found that God does provide who/what I need, but that I have to co-operate and believe that the solutions are there and be open to seeing them. Your girlfriend may be a good starting point for this, perhaps she can point you towards a wise minister who you could discuss this with in more depth?

Looking at the things that are annoying you, they're a fascinating mix. For example, you're annoyed about communion in the hand, but yet you don't believe in transubstantiation, so it's only a piece of wafer that people are getting - what can possibly be wrong with using their own hand to eat a piece of wafer? Perhaps it's safer for you to be annoyed about them than to express anger directly at God?

(I have to ask though, what is the ruling about women and headcoverings? I've never heard of such a thing, and don't see my head as any more in need of covering than the head of the man next to me!)

Regarding the people who are only casual (2 + BMF) attenders, rather than being annoyed, can you possible see it as good that they're there at all? Can you see them doing good things in their lives, and understand the hand of God at work through this.

Just some thoughts ...

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

That is the most mealy-mouthed retraction I have ever heard. You made a totally unsubstantiated allegation (for the second time) that Wesley supported the burning of witches. The least you could do is openly admit you were wrong without trying to be smart about it.

It is accepted he made the following quote about Witchcraft.

"Giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible".

Now, it's difficult to ascertain exactly what he meant by that. Did he approve torturing and burning which was the predominant way people who believed in witches thought? Or did he just believe in witches but in cleansing them in other ways?

BTW, what is your basis for saying that Wesley "liked witchcraft"?

See above.

The last person accused of being a witch and executed in England was in 1684. John Wesley was born in 1703.

So what? Witch burning continue outside England well after that time.
See: http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm

Tim, I really think you are on a hiding to nothing if you want to cast the whole issue of witch burning into a bigoted Protestants versus enlightened Catholics issue. History is against you on that one.

Whatever gave you that idea? Or is that just another straw man?

I was merely pointing out some of the historical facts Jakkass had omitted from his summary of the Reformation.

I find when in conversation with many Protestants they seem to think that the Catholic Church is the only Church which one can throw dirt at.
In fact, many don't even know some of the horrible inhuman acts that so called expert Protestant Theologians and leaders of the reformation were capable off.

Needle, Logs and Eyes to use your own parlence PDN.

Húrin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So what? Witch burning continue outside England well after that time.
See: http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn2.htm

Without a modern media, how was Wesley to know about the latest witch burnings in France? Given that France was an absolute monarchy at the time, what could he have done?


Bsides, this whole topic is off-topic to helping and advising phototoxin.

Phototoxin

I'm sure your gf will say more intelligent things than just trying to convert you.

she does.. she says god knows where I am at etc. Which is reassuring. I feel more welcomed in her church but also feel like an outsider. When they are singing all their songs about how wonderful god is or whatever its not a very pleasant feeling. I do find bible studies and talks good regardless. Its like history.

There is also plenty in the new testament that shows that "the church" means the Christian community in general, and not just the Catholic denomination. Have you tried reading it?

I have at one point or another read all of the NT and most of the OT. At yon chistmas mass I was able to lip synch most of the two readings as I am so familiar with them having used to read at mass prior to going away to uni!

In reference to the definition of 'church' does that give anyone who is a Chrisitan by baptism the authortity to decide what books are in the bible ?

If so couldnt each Chrisitan decide for themselves? But wouldnt it lead to anarchy? The RCC seems more 'organisied' in that regard.

There are numerous reasons to think that the Bible is the word of God, most of which have been articulated by PDN. These reasons do not rest on the council's claims, but rather go right back to the beginning of Christianity.

I think I've missed them.. I shall have to re read PDNs posts.

Most Protestants feel no need to claim such authority. Protestantism does not throw out or thoroughly reject Catholicism... this is the false assumption you seem to be arguing from.

Sorry biased Catholic upbrining here...

Secondly, can you trust that God will give you the answers and people that you need, at the time when you need them? You don't say if your illness is terminal or not (I'm guessing not), but it might be that your likely lifespan is different to that of many posters here.

Its not terminal. Just might lead to nasty things in the future and is rather inconvenient. Lifespan for people with this is on average a little shorter but not dramatically so.

Looking at the things that are annoying you, they're a fascinating mix. For example, you're annoyed about communion in the hand, but yet you don't believe in transubstantiation, so it's only a piece of wafer that people are getting - what can possibly be wrong with using their own hand to eat a piece of wafer? Perhaps it's safer for you to be annoyed about them than to express anger directly at God?

Yes I realise this. Ironically I think that if they belived it surely they'd treat it better.. sort of makes it seem hypocritial, which irritates me. Or maybe they dont know. In their ignorance (or education who am I to judge!) Whereas I took the 'risk' of learning about religion (which was/is really important to me) and then I loose my faith as a result. Also getting sick didn't help when I had a lot of questions and doubts. So I am angry at religion and possibly at God.
I also dont know about being in a relgion that cannot keep its own house in order and seems to be at war with itself in some regards. In addition, like I said I dont agree with certain core RCC beliefs which leaves me stumped.

(I have to ask though, what is the ruling about women and headcoverings? I've never heard of such a thing, and don't see my head as any more in need of covering than the head of the man next to me!)

As far as I am aware; prior to the mass in english mass was in latin, women were expected to cover their hair. However when the vernacular mass came in (ironically to encourage participation) the question was asked of headcoverings. The response was along the lines of 'its not an issue' which was taken to mean by the media as 'we dont care do as you will'. Which it wasn't - It wasn't an issue for discussion and so technically remains on the rule books so to speak. Some women used to cver thier hair when I was a kid with head scarves but nowadays its almost all gone unless you go to a tridentine rite mass (latin mass)

Regarding the people who are only casual (2 + BMF) attenders, rather than being annoyed, can you possible see it as good that they're there at all? Can you see them doing good things in their lives, and understand the hand of God at work through this.

It just seems hypocrital, the rule is sundays + holy days. not baptisms, funerals chrismas and easter. It is good that they go but its just out of delusion that they are part of the religon when they aren't following it. I think I am annoyed at the lack of backbone the church has now, it makes me have less respect for it. This is probably hypocrital of me however seeing as I dont practise so I hope I dont appear like a loon. Also Catholicsm is all or nothing, (un)fortunately

I admire your zeal Tim Robbins, and you have a point there are lots of different protestant denominations, some who have done bad things too, so its not just a protestant vs catholic issue. But at the same time its adding a bit of fog to my confusion.

Tim Robbins

Húrin wrote: »

Without a modern media, how was Wesley to know about the latest witch burnings in France? Given that France was an absolute monarchy at the time, what could he have done?

He could have categorically stated that the witch burning is / was wrong irrespective of what was going on in France. He was critical of aspects of Calvinism, but Calvin was pro Witch burning, and he never critised Calvin for those opinions.

He simply ignored witch burning. Now, I find if hard to believe he never knew anything about it.

If the leaders of the reformation were so great, perhaps they would have spotted and shouted about the inhumanity of witch burning. The reality is they had the streaks of meanness and inhumanity similar to what was found in the RC Church that they are so quick to give out about.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He could have categorically stated that the witch burning is / was wrong irrespective of what was going on in France. He was critical of aspects of Calvinism, but Calvin was pro Witch burning, and he never critised Calvin for those opinions.

Tim, you began by claiming that Wesley encouraged the burning of witches. That was a false statement without any support of foundation.

Then you claimed he did nothing to stop the burning of witches - even though no witches had been burned in England since before his birth.

Now you are complaining that Wesley, as a Church of England clergyman, did not issue condemnations of what the Catholic Church was doing in France.

Why can't you just admit that you were flat out wrong?

It is accepted he made the following quote about Witchcraft.

"Giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible".

Now, it's difficult to ascertain exactly what he meant by that. Did he approve torturing and burning which was the predominant way people who believed in witches thought? Or did he just believe in witches but in cleansing them in other ways?

It's easy to ascertain what he meant if you have even the slightest knowledge of Church History. Wesley lived in an age when many of his fellow CofE clergymen were deists - denying the supernatural. Therefore they argued that witchcraft was harmless nonsense. Wesley was concerned with encouraging Christians to live godly lives and to avoid all occultic practices and connections. Therefore he pointed out that witchcraft is referred to in the Bible and that anyone who believes in the Bible should also believe in the reality of witchcraft.

That does not mean that Wesley "liked witchcraft", that he advocated burning witches, or any other such claptrap.

I was merely pointing out some of the historical facts Jakkass had omitted from his summary of the Reformation.

I find when in conversation with many Protestants they seem to think that the Catholic Church is the only Church which one can throw dirt at.
In fact, many don't even know some of the horrible inhuman acts that so called expert Protestant Theologians and leaders of the reformation were capable off.

No you weren't. You were derailing a thread by going off on a rant about the personal character of the Reformers when the discussion up to that point had been about the theological beliefs of Catholicism and how the Reformation returned the emphasis from church tradition to the Bible.

As the OP and others have pointed out, your off topic rant was unwelcome and only served to obscure the subject under discussion. It would have been bad enough if your trolling had been factually correct - but it was also untrue.

This is your last in thread warning. Any further muppetry from you will be dealt with by means of yellow cards, red cards and, if necessary, with bans.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Tim, you began by claiming that Wesley encouraged the burning of witches. That was a false statement without any support of foundation.

Why can't you just admit that you were flat out wrong?

I said you were correct in post 48 which implied I was wrong in post 33.
But if that's not enough for you, I'll admit my witch-burning ascertion about Wesley was flat out wrong in post 33.

No you weren't. You were derailing a thread by going off on a rant about the personal character of the Reformers when the discussion up to that point had been about the theological beliefs of Catholicism and how the Reformation returned the emphasis from church tradition to the Bible.

As the OP and others have pointed out, your off topic rant was unwelcome and only served to obscure the subject under discussion. It would have been bad enough if your trolling had been factually correct - but it was also untrue.

This is your last in thread warning. Any further muppetry from you will be dealt with by means of yellow cards, red cards and, if necessary, with bans.

That's hardly fair. The OP made points about reformed Churches. Jakkass made points to which I made a few points. Many other posters including yourself then did.

It's easy to ascertain what he meant if you have even the slightest knowledge of Church History.

Another attack the poster and not the post. I thought this would be inevitable as indicated in post 36.

Phototoxin

I've tried praying but I'm not finding its much comfort.

Húrin

Phototoxin wrote: »

I've tried praying but I'm not finding its much comfort.

If find the more you do it, the more comfort it is. That's easier said than done but that's how I have found it.

Just praying in your own words, for basic things like faith, wisdom to make a right choice and friendship rather than favours and luck, I find more fulfilling.

Remember that there's praying and there's praying. I don't know where the line is if there is one, but prayer is an art in itself that nobody can teach better than the holy spirit.

Phototoxin

yeah but nothing happening. Either way my GF seems to think that I was too caught up on the rules which would be an accurate enough statement rather than trying to develop a relationiship wiht god/jesus. Accurate enough I guess as a major reason for dropping the religous thing would be certain RCC teaching which I wont believe.

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

I've tried praying but I'm not finding its much comfort.

When you say praying do you mean some formal prayer or something from the heart?

Just as a matter of interest, what do you think of Jesus?

Phototoxin

not formal. just a sort of 'hello are you there?' type thing

Jesus.. I dont know. I have difficulty accepting him as gods son and making sense of it all. In addition while I dont dispute that historically he existed the whole son of god thing is difficult.

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

not formal. just a sort of 'hello are you there?' type thing

Jesus.. I dont know. I have difficulty accepting him as gods son and making sense of it all. In addition while I dont dispute that historically he existed the whole son of god thing is difficult.

Why don't we look at what you do believe?

You believe in God, yes? How strong would you say this belief is?

But you're clearly dubious about organized religions, yes?

If Jesus wasn't the son of God, the that would either make him insane or a liar. I think we can rule out the liar option since Jesus wouldn't have gained personally for living a poor life and suffering a horrible death.

And He certainly doesn't come across as insane in Scripture! He sounds like the most sane person that's ever lived on this planet if you ask me!

That appears to leave only one option which is that Jesus was who He claimed to be. Would you disagree?

Do any religions other than Christianity ring true for you? Presumably you've narrowed down your search by a process of elimination?

Húrin

Another thing that adds credibility to Jesus' claims in my eyes is how he fulfilled a lot of Old Testament prophecy. But he fulfilled it in a way that nobody expected, a way that they couldn't have made up. That is, he cane as a king and saviour, but not a political saviour of Israel but a spiritual saviour of all.

Fanny Cradock

Phototoxin wrote: »

not formal. just a sort of 'hello are you there?' type thing

Jesus.. I dont know. I have difficulty accepting him as gods son and making sense of it all. In addition while I dont dispute that historically he existed the whole son of god thing is difficult.

Depending on where you live, I would heartily recommend doing an Life Course (it's in Dublin) or an Alpha Course. They both tackle the basics of Christian faith offer up the facts and let you decide if it makes sense or it's all a load of crap. I did a Life course there a while back and it was a great experience for me. Surely in matters this important it is worth serious investigation?

You can listen to each week of a previous Life course here. Not quite the same as going to one, though.

As for praying, I find that do it out loud works better for me. If I do it just before I fall asleep I usually slip into some fantasy about being a rockstar/ superhero or start thinking about tomorrow. 5 minutes alone is all it takes and I find it sort of sets me up for the day if I manage to talk to God in the morning.

Phototoxin

You believe in God, yes? How strong would you say this belief is?

almost negligible. I believe that something made us and the world [not in 6 days] and something made the laws of physics exactly right and so forth and I think that would be god. Though I am beggining to wonder if it is the God in the bible as he seems a bit capricious.

But you're clearly dubious about organized religions, yes?

not really, I dont agree with protestantism as it makes little sense to me as it is sola scriptura and sola fide. but initially it was the RCC that decided what was scrputre.. it seems a bit odd to accept the bible that the RCC assembled but to reject the rest of it. Catholicsm I dont agree with a lot of its core tenets that I cannot deny [which i currently do]

If Jesus wasn't the son of God, the that would either make him insane or a liar. I think we can rule out the liar option since Jesus wouldn't have gained personally for living a poor life and suffering a horrible death.
That appears to leave only one option which is that Jesus was who He claimed to be. Would you disagree?

thats the CS Lewis argument, but its highly flawed 'sherlock holmes' type reasoning - "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" But there could be a lot of different reasons which we do not know about which CS Lewis didn't know about either. I'm sure if I wikipedia it i will get something in latin to describe the type of logic, but to me it appears flawed.

Húrin there is a bit of credibility that Jesus fulfilled a lot of the old testament stuff, especially isiah. However jesus was clearly well versed in isiah so could have just went and fdone these things to fulfil it. He could just have been a 100% human [without the dvinity i mean]

Do any religions other than Christianity ring true for you? Presumably you've narrowed down your search by a process of elimination?

more or less. I have always found Quakerism interesting as it is more about the doing and less about the rules and doctrines. However at the moment I wouldn't consider anything as I dont understand/belive in the divinity of jesus.

Depending on where you live, I would heartily recommend doing an Life Course (it's in Dublin) or an Alpha Course. They both tackle the basics of Christian faith offer up the facts and let you decide if it makes sense or it's all a load of crap. I did a Life course there a while back and it was a great experience for me. Surely in matters this important it is worth serious investigation?

I live in louth, I havent looked but I would be skeptical of alpha courses, I think I would be too questioning and too critical and would ruin it for others. Will look at the link though.

Fanny Cradock

Phototoxin wrote: »

I live in louth, I havent looked but I would be skeptical of alpha courses, I think I would be too questioning and too critical and would ruin it for others. Will look at the link though.

Well, I wouldn't let that put you off. The whole point is to question. And if you don't like the answers then so be it. Anyway, I would recommend listening to the first talk in the link I put up. See if it speaks to you at all.

PDN

Phototoxin wrote: »

I live in louth,

My sympathies.

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

almost negligible. I believe that something made us and the world [not in 6 days] and something made the laws of physics exactly right and so forth and I think that would be god.

Agreed. 6 days flies in the face of the facts.

Phototoxin wrote: »

Though I am beggining to wonder if it is the God in the bible as he seems a bit capricious.

I think many of us Christians would share your concerns but to be honest I haven't read the O/T a whole lot.

Phototoxin wrote: »

not really, I dont agree with protestantism as it makes little sense to me as it is sola scriptura and sola fide. but initially it was the RCC that decided what was scrputre.. it seems a bit odd to accept the bible that the RCC assembled but to reject the rest of it.

I'm with you on that score.

Phototoxin wrote: »

Catholicsm I dont agree with a lot of its core tenets that I cannot deny [which i currently do]

OK, let's deal with the basics first.

Phototoxin wrote: »

thats the CS Lewis argument, but its highly flawed 'sherlock holmes' type reasoning - "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" But there could be a lot of different reasons which we do not know about which CS Lewis didn't know about either. I'm sure if I wikipedia it i will get something in latin to describe the type of logic, but to me it appears flawed.

Húrin there is a bit of credibility that Jesus fulfilled a lot of the old testament stuff, especially isiah. However jesus was clearly well versed in isiah so could have just went and fdone these things to fulfil it. He could just have been a 100% human [without the dvinity i mean]

I came to Christianity through faith so I haven't read a whole lot regarding arguments for Jesus claims. From what I can tell the Resurrection seems to be the strongest historical argument for Jesus divinity. You might be interested in this book by Gary Habermas (which I haven't yet read).

Phototoxin wrote: »

more or less. I have always found Quakerism interesting as it is more about the doing and less about the rules and doctrines. However at the moment I wouldn't consider anything as I dont understand/belive in the divinity of jesus.

I went to a few Quaker meetings in my searching days and found it to be very lacking.

If you're looking for a great explanation for the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity in general, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend F.J. Sheed's excellent Introduction to Theology. I might just be the very thing you're looking for!

Phototoxin

thank you for the informative posts. Especially yours PDN =p

I will look at yon links and books.

I have found quaker meetings to be quite spiritual and connective with God
despite apparent lack of theological depth and a sort of 'wishy washyness which makes it more interesting to me. [as normally I hate wishy washyness]

edit : nononononononon :

Habermas dissects common questions that argue against Jesus' resurrection, making it an easy reference for the future. For example, say the person you are witnessing to says, "The disciples stole the body;" it is easy to find the information to refute that false belief. Every known argument for why the resurrection didn't happen is accounted for in this book, and proven wrong.

ripping apart reasons how it was faked doesn't make it true! The Revenge of Sherlock Holmes !!

Phototoxin

Right I was listening to Fanny Craddocks reccomended things. I am on numero 4 (the cross) most of it is not sinking in as I've heard it before. However one argument of killing jesus to save humanity was a bus driver on a bus with no brakes aiming into a field where there was only 1 child. This however is morally wrong. So its a bit confusing.

The idea of christianity being different as it is not about self correcting is also interesting as it flies in the face of catholicsm.

Fanny Cradock

Phototoxin wrote: »

Right I was listening to Fanny Craddocks reccomended things. I am on numero 4 (the cross) most of it is not sinking in as I've heard it before. However one argument of killing jesus to save humanity was a bus driver on a bus with no brakes aiming into a field where there was only 1 child. This however is morally wrong. So its a bit confusing.

The idea of christianity being different as it is not about self correcting is also interesting as it flies in the face of catholicsm.

Well if you have heard it all before, you have heard it all before - at least you are investigating the matter with an open mind. But sitting at home in front of the computer isn't quite the same, I actually found the talk you have been listening to only part of the experince. Some of the finest moments happened when people discussed the issues raised afterwards. Aside form this, why not try going to a service slightly different to what you are used to?

Anyway, while you may have heard the general points before, I'm surprised that you would been expressed in such a manner. I though the chap made some excellent points while also approaching them from a fresh angle.

With regards to the analogy, I don't believe that sacrificing one life to save countless others should be considered wrong. For instance, though a willing victim, would you consider a the actions of a soldier who jumped on a grenade to save his comrades morally wrong?

Phototoxin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But sitting at home in front of the computer isn't quite the same, I actually found the talk you have been listening to only part of the experince. Some of the finest moments happened when people discussed the issues raised afterwards. Aside form this, why not try going to a service slightly different to what you are used to?

I have been to different things while at Uni as the chaplains assistant. But overall it is food for thought I agree and i listened to the rest of them. They are informative - if not a little anti catholic. Then again from a catholic persepective they're anti non-catholic so you just can't win.

Anyway, while you may have heard the general points before, I'm surprised that you would been expressed in such a manner. I though the chap made some excellent points while also approaching them from a fresh angle.

He starts off a little irritating at the beginning but is tolerable by the end.

With regards to the analogy, I don't believe that sacrificing one life to save countless others should be considered wrong. For instance, though a willing victim, would you consider a the actions of a soldier who jumped on a grenade to save his comrades morally wrong?

Well its not quite suicide but its noble to sacrifice ones self for others. However killing your own son isn't the same. Unless your son is you which gets a bit confusing.

Fanny Cradock

Phototoxin wrote: »

I have been to different things while at Uni as the chaplains assistant. But overall it is food for thought I agree and i listened to the rest of them. They are informative - if not a little anti catholic. Then again from a catholic persepective they're anti non-catholic so you just can't win.

I certainly didn't notice any anti-Catholic slant. Maybe someone like Kelly would be interested in having a listen.

Phototoxin wrote: »

He starts off a little irritating at the beginning but is tolerable by the end.

Not everyone's cup of tea. I quite like his little jokes and sarcastic undertones. Reminds me a little of myself actually - and I like me! :pac:

Phototoxin wrote: »

Well its not quite suicide but its noble to sacrifice ones self for others. However killing your own son isn't the same. Unless your son is you which gets a bit confusing.

In the case of Christ, he was a willing victim. From memory, his little story was told from God's perspective, and I agree that it's not a perfect analogy, I found it powerful nevertheless Without meaning to be rude, I feel that you are possibly missing the point somewhat through over analysis of a simple fictional story.

Phototoxin

you're not being rude Its just that I know the argument but using an analogy which is morally incorrect has no point really.

By anti catholic slant I meant the guy going on about the scary priest and so forth. However I agree that such places are not churches as a church is a community, something which I have found greatly lacking compared to protestant churches

My GF has given me a book - the cabin or the shack or something. Is supposed to be good.

philologos

Phototoxin: I think this is just a case of finding what is your spiritual home in Christianity and finding a church that suits your needs. Although I am an Anglican and this is by far the best church environment for me, if you want a straight talking church, and if you want one that doesn't get bogged down so much in theology and tradition (I actually like the theology and tradition in Anglicanism and things like the Book of Common Prayer) I would recommend an Evangelical church.

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

Right I was listening to Fanny Craddocks reccomended things. I am on numero 4 (the cross) most of it is not sinking in as I've heard it before. However one argument of killing jesus to save humanity was a bus driver on a bus with no brakes aiming into a field where there was only 1 child. This however is morally wrong. So its a bit confusing.

I've been giving this some thought and I fully realize I'll never get to the bottom of the this mystery.

When all is said and done, Jesus' death on the cross is about LOVE.

The Father didn't send His Son kicking and screaming to His death. The Son went to His death willingly. The Son *loved/embraced* His Cross because of the LOVE He has for us, by wanted to save us all from damnation.

This was a pact of love between the Father and the Son, not a argument over who was going to earth to suffer and die horribly! The Son went willingly out of LOVE for His Father and us.

This, I know, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to many of us, but then we're not God. Our love is far from perfect.

:cool:

Phototoxin

Jakkass wrote: »

Phototoxin: I think this is just a case of finding what is your spiritual home in Christianity and finding a church that suits your needs. Although I am an Anglican and this is by far the best church environment for me, if you want a straight talking church, and if you want one that doesn't get bogged down so much in theology and tradition (I actually like the theology and tradition in Anglicanism and things like the Book of Common Prayer) I would recommend an Evangelical church.

My experiences of typical evangelicals has been largely negative to be honest. My GFs church would be what I would describe as evangelical anglican and even that is too sing-y for me

Also noel, didn't Jesus not say ' my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? ' this bit is always confusing. In addion if jesus died willingly for our sins then why the big RCC emphasis on penance and so forth if Jesus has already done that?

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

Also noel, didn't Jesus not say ' my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? ' this bit is always confusing.

There's always a reason!

Jesus was quoting Psalm 21 and any good Jew knew every psalm by the first line alone. He was, in subtle way, pointing out that what was happening on the cross was the fulfilment of the psalm He was quoting.

1 Unto the end, for the morning protection, a psalm for David. 2 O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me? Far from my salvation are the words of my sins. 3 O my God, I shall cry by day, and thou wilt not hear: and by night, and it shall not be reputed as folly in me. 4 But thou dwellest in the holy place, the praise of Israel. 5 In thee have our fathers hoped: they have hoped, and thou hast delivered them.

2 "The words of my sins"... That is, the sins of the world, which I have taken upon myself, cry out against me, and are the cause of all my sufferings.

6 They cried to thee, and they were saved: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. 7 But I am a worm, and no man: the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people. 8 All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn: they have spoken with the lips, and wagged the head. 9 He hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him: let him save him, seeing he delighteth in him. 10 For thou art he that hast drawn me out of the womb: my hope from the breasts of my mother.

11 I was cast upon thee from the womb. From my mother's womb thou art my God, 12 Depart not from me. For tribulation is very near: for there is none to help me. 13 Many calves have surrounded me: fat bulls have besieged me. 14 They have opened their mouths against me, as a lion ravening and roaring. 15 I am poured out like water; and all my bones are scattered. My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels.

16 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws: and thou hast brought me down into the dust of death. 17 For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet. 18 They have numbered all my bones. And they have looked and stared upon me. 19 They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my vesture they cast lots. 20 But thou, O Lord, remove not thy help to a distance from me; look towards my defence.

21 Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword: my only one from the hand of the dog. 22 Save me from the lion's mouth; and my lowness from the horns of the unicorns. 23 I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I praise thee. 24 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him: all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him. 25 Let all the seed of Israel fear him: because he hath not slighted nor despised the supplication of the poor man. Neither hath he turned away his face from me: and when I cried to him he heard me.

26 With thee is my praise in a great church: I will pay my vows in the sight of them that fear him. 27 The poor shall eat and shall be filled: and they shall praise the Lord that seek him: their hearts shall live for ever and ever. 28 All the ends of the earth shall remember, and shall be converted to the Lord: And all the kindreds of the Gentiles shall adore in his sight. 29 For the kingdom is the Lord's; and he shall have dominion over the nations. 30 All the fat ones of the earth have eaten and have adored: all they that go down to the earth shall fall before him.

31 And to him my soul shall live: and my seed shall serve him. 32 There shall be declared to the Lord a generation to come: and the heavens shall show forth his justice to a people that shall be born, which the Lord hath made.

Phototoxin wrote: »

In addion if jesus died willingly for our sins then why the big RCC emphasis on penance and so forth if Jesus has already done that?

True, He did pay the price of our sins and saves us from eternal damnation. But the Church distinguishes between eternal and temporal punishment. e.g. If Hitler (to used the proverbial example) had repented before he died, he wouldn't have got off scott free. He would do hard labour in purgatory, purifying himself before entering Heaven.

Catholics do penance to in order to satisfy God's justice, and thereby avoid time in purgatory.

Please don't take it from this that we save ourselves. Far from it! Jesus and Jesus alone saves because all grace comes from Jesus.

PDN

Phototoxin wrote: »

My experiences of typical evangelicals has been largely negative to be honest. My GFs church would be what I would describe as evangelical anglican and even that is too sing-y for me

In that case I think you'd hate our church.

Húrin

Phototoxin wrote: »

My GF has given me a book - the cabin or the shack or something. Is supposed to be good.

I might be entirely wrong here but why don't you go out there and just try attending some different churches? Sitting at home thinking about it probably won't help much in answering this question. No church will turn you away. Do you attend your girlfriend's church often?

UU

Why don't you just not subscribe to any denomination just call yourself Christian and not bother going to Mass. The famous Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard who lived about 100 years ago, rejected the Danish Lutheran Church of his time. Yet he still remained a devout Christian for the rest of his short life. He spend his days at home reading and studying the Bible and drawing up his own truth from it which he calls in his philosophy "subjective truth" which is like "for thine own be true". Perhaps if institutionalised religion doesn't suit you, you could remain a Christian without subscribing to establishments. Although I'm not a Christian, I think that sort of personal faith which Kierkegaard subscribed to can't not be respected. He never went out to the streets and preached or anything.

Anyway good luck. I hope things sort out for you.

Phototoxin

I've read the shack.. very cheesy rehased apologetic arguments...

I might be entirely wrong here but why don't you go out there and just try attending some different churches? Sitting at home thinking about it probably won't help much in answering this question. No church will turn you away. Do you attend your girlfriend's church often?

I only do if I'm over there visiting. In addition I live in the country and dont drive. My parents are Catholic.

sorella

Robin; you are so funny....Bless you.

robindch wrote: »

No, but churches operate an economy which, in many ways, parallels the cash one. In this parallel world, the raw asset purchased is propagatory enthusiasm in peoples' minds, and ideas which are variably appealing are the currency with which it's purchased.

Analogous to what Helix has pointed out, and PDN directly implied a day or two back, if a religion doesn't make itself sufficiently appealing that its believers won't become efficient replicators, then it'll lose mindspace to a religion which can.

sorella

Robin; you are trying in vain to speak of matters which have a spiritual base when you do not have that dimension.

ie in a total vacuum.

There are values here which you cannot see.

robindch wrote: »

If you reckon it's nonsensical, then you probably didn't understand the point I was making. I'll post something longer when I've more time.Because it's easier to see the cogs in motion in the USA. The churches in Europe tend to be a bit more subtle about how they go about gaining believers. The tactics and strategy may vary, but the endgame is the same -- acquiring enough believers so that the religion can continue.

sorella

Read some more history please re the Inquistion for example.

Huguenot massacres etc also

The body count would be interesting

And please, after Cloyne, take care who you call immoral

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What a one - eyed view of history.
Luther was racist. He hated Jewish people. Calvin was murderer.
They both supported witch burning as did John Wesley.
And to top it all off the family values of Henry VIII are hardly anything special.

The Catholic church made mistakes. Unlike many organisations it has had the maturity to own to them. Many Christian Churches won't even get that far.

sorella

Noel; not so but they knew what the Latin meant


Hurin, please do not tar everyone with the same brush. Not all in the Church seek political power. Many do; not all
Originally Posted by Húrin
To claim that the Catholic church aimed to give a good understanding of the word of God to the average medieval Catholic is really on the outer shores of delusionary revisionism. They shrouded everything in Latin to preserve their political power.

The liturgy was in latin but I would imagine the faith was taught in the vernacular.

sorella

Photo; you are ILL

Illness has spiritual effects.

And doubts are natural and normal.

More so in illness.

Speaking from long experience

Be easy on you; do what feels easy just now.
Leave the other issues for a wee while.

Prayer is often "impossible" at these times; or seems to be. It is our awareness that it is so.

Your pain is its own prayer; always heard, always answered.

It is not the time for deep questioning, but for simplicity and peace where ever you can find it.

Of resting in that peace.

Of leaving space for Jesus to heal; resting too in the prayers of others.

This is something many of us have to learn as we age and weaken physically.

anchoresscj at yahoo dot com

Simply holding you in prayer in the silence and solitude here of this anchorhold. Always at the Master's Feet in Prayer...

sorella

Amen, amen, amen.

A beautiful strong, simple post.

Thank you. Noel

kelly1 wrote: »

I've been giving this some thought and I fully realize I'll never get to the bottom of the this mystery.

When all is said and done, Jesus' death on the cross is about LOVE.

The Father didn't send His Son kicking and screaming to His death. The Son went to His death willingly. The Son *loved/embraced* His Cross because of the LOVE He has for us, by wanted to save us all from damnation.

This was a pact of love between the Father and the Son, not a argument over who was going to earth to suffer and die horribly! The Son went willingly out of LOVE for His Father and us.

This, I know, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to many of us, but then we're not God. Our love is far from perfect.

:cool:

sorella

My former PP told me not to believe in purgatory. Interesting.. I cannot either, on a matter of Scripture.

kelly1 wrote: »

There's always a reason!

Jesus was quoting Psalm 21 and any good Jew knew every psalm by the first line alone. He was, in subtle way, pointing out that what was happening on the cross was the fulfilment of the psalm He was quoting.





True, He did pay the price of our sins and saves us from eternal damnation. But the Church distinguishes between eternal and temporal punishment. e.g. If Hitler (to used the proverbial example) had repented before he died, he wouldn't have got off scott free. He would do hard labour in purgatory, purifying himself before entering Heaven.

Catholics do penance to in order to satisfy God's justice, and thereby avoid time in purgatory.

Please don't take it from this that we save ourselves. Far from it! Jesus and Jesus alone saves because all grace comes from Jesus.

robindch

sorella wrote: »

Robin; you are trying in vain to speak of matters which have a spiritual base when you do not have that dimension. There are values here which you cannot see.

Given that I was immersed in catholic doctrine for 30 years, six of which were within the walls of a catholic monastery, I'm inclined to think that I've a fair enough idea of what constitutes the values you speak of. Not to mention a pretty good idea of what they actually are too

Greetings from snowy Moscow!

sorella

Which is exactly the problem, Robin.

We know what Catholic schools can do ; especially those run by Brothers - which incidentally does not count as "being within the walls of a Catholic monastery"

And no, you do not have that spiritual dimension we refer to . Or the values inherent therein.

It cannot be taught in that way.

Blessings...

robindch wrote: »

Given that I was immersed in catholic doctrine for 30 years, six of which were within the walls of a catholic monastery, I'm inclined to think that I've a fair enough idea of what constitutes the values you speak of. Not to mention a pretty good idea of what they actually are too

Greetings from snowy Moscow!

robindch

sorella wrote: »

We know what Catholic schools can do ; especially those run by Brothers - which incidentally does not count as "being within the walls of a Catholic monastery"

Um, well, since I lived within the walls of a catholic monastery for six years, I hope you'll forgive me for thinking that I'm able to say that I have As well as having a fairly good idea of what makes such places tick, since I had (and still have) good contacts with the men there.

More seriously, I'm confused that you refer to the Benedictines as "Brothers" since term certainly isn't used by the Benedictines, except as one of what I suppose you could call mild irony or disdain. Perhaps you're mixing up the Benedictines that I'm familiar with with another order? Certainly, what seems to be a suggestion -- please correct me if I picked you up wrong -- that there were child abusers amongst the men who taught me certainly is at variance with my own experience of the place.

sorella wrote: »

And no, you do not have that spiritual dimension we refer to.

And you feel confident that you can say this about me, without ever having met me, or seen me, or heard me, or seen -- outside of a few small posts here -- anything of what I do?

sorella

As a pupil, simply, you can have no real idea. The mere fact that you often speak as if you were a member of the Order is revealing. And misleading.

All Monks are Brothers - although some are Fathers. Some use the terms interchangeably simply. Just as all Nuns are Sisters - or Mothers.

Do not please read into what I write what is not there. Your attitude shows how little you are acquainted with the protocols of Religious life.

Believe this, that the few posts you have written reveal a great deal abiut you - to a religious.

Blessings....

robindch wrote: »

Um, well, since I lived within the walls of a catholic monastery for six years, I hope you'll forgive me for thinking that I'm able to say that I have As well as having a fairly good idea of what makes such places tick, since I had (and still have) good contacts with the men there.

More seriously, I'm confused that you refer to the Benedictines as "Brothers" since term certainly isn't used by the Benedictines, except as one of what I suppose you could call mild irony or disdain. Perhaps you're mixing up the Benedictines that I'm familiar with with another order? Certainly, what seems to be a suggestion -- please correct me if I picked you up wrong -- that there were child abusers amongst the men who taught me certainly is at variance with my own experience of the place.And you feel confident that you can say this about me, without ever having met me, or seen me, or heard me, or seen -- outside of a few small posts here -- anything of what I do?

robindch

sorella wrote: »

Your attitude shows how little you are acquainted with the protocols of Religious life.

And your presumption strays perilously close to the frankly breath-taking :rolleyes:

AtomicHorror

Sorella, you might consider a change of tactics. You disagree with Robin, so refute him. Dismissing his position on the basis of some element of his personality is just an ad hominem argument. That serves only to shift the topic of the argument away from an area that causes you discomfort. Doing it on the basis of a trait of his that you can't possibly have properly assessed is a weak move.

You're also coming off as more than a little arrogant here. Perhaps some of us are indeed not "acquainted with the protocols of Religious life", but that certainly doesn't rob us of our logic. If there is some insight, relevant to Robin's point, that you feel we are lacking- tell us of it. Share the knowledge and put us on an equal footing. But please, enough with the vague hinting.

sorella

No Robin; you misinterprete simply.

Which proves our point here

See other mail.

robindch wrote: »

And your presumption strays perilously close to the frankly breath-taking :rolleyes:

sorella

OK.

This simply has nothing to do with personality.

Robin averred that he kows what religious life is about and we honoured him by crediting him with that.

We have been talking about all this today, so this reply was planned anyways.

When we first "met" Robin here - and this is not an attack in any way shape or form - he told us that he had spent six years within/ behind the walls of a monastery.

That, to any Religious, as indeed to many lay folk, would be taken to mean that he was in an Order, as a Brother, as a Monk. And, with that time frame, that he had left jist before Final Profession.

You need to realise that just as drs and lawyers have their own professional "jargon" so do religious.

We were concerned; one of our "jobs" as an Order is counselling those who have lft for whatever reason.

Part of my work now, as Historian for the Order, is researching for an in-depth book on the Church in Ireland in the first decade of the 21st century.

Which means being in close contact with all the Orders here - including the Beneditcines at Glenstall.

So we know this Order closey.

And some of what Robin has said has given some cause for concern.

Until he revealed that what he meant was that he had been at boarding school at a school run by Brothers/monks.

Religious life is a closed book to outsiders; what students see is what they are allowed to see. And sadly they tend to "get" the doctrines without the graces/

Our Vows and our Consecration give grace; grace that no one outside the Order will ever see. Because that is inherent in Monastic Vows. As different as the clothes we wear.

Each of those Brothers has been called by Jesus to that life; and his spiritual life and 'formation" as a religious is totally hidden and private thus.

And each life is a struggle and a battle. Hidden from you as is totally right

So if you attend school there?

You get a rigid discipline and a good education; but you do not get faith

You do not see the life of a religious.

So you see the rigidity and you see the secular aspects, but not the underlying spiritual dimension.

it would be unprofessional if the Brothers did otherwise and theywould soon be out of business.

They are not there to recruit but to train and teach boys in preparation for their life in the world.

And so they can seem hard and harsh and cold.

So what you speak of as "values" is only that professional part.

Not the underpinning deep faith of a religious - especially a Benedictine with a Monastic background ...

Very different from eg the Mercy Srs or the Christian Brs who are not Monastics.

That was not and is not for you to see - unless and until you ask to test a vocation and are allowed in.

Just as here, where we live behind locked doors, you see only a tiny fraction of us; that small part where we are in physical contact with those we help.

All else is hidden.

When I first came to Ireland I talked with a neighbour who opined that had they been taught every subject as they had"religion" then they would have been geniuses

I asked. "but did it touch your heart?'

"no"

Robin. do you see what I am getting at here?

Maybe not:)

We see all this as Religious, which is what we are.

And this Nun speaks after 40 years of Profession and still learning and growing.

Blessings and prayers anyways to you there.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Sorella, you might consider a change of tactics. You disagree with Robin, so refute him. Dismissing his position on the basis of some element of his personality is just an ad hominem argument. That serves only to shift the topic of the argument away from an area that causes you discomfort. Doing it on the basis of a trait of his that you can't possibly have properly assessed is a weak move.

You're also coming off as more than a little arrogant here. Perhaps some of us are indeed not "acquainted with the protocols of Religious life", but that certainly doesn't rob us of our logic. If there is some insight, relevant to Robin's point, that you feel we are lacking- tell us of it. Share the knowledge and put us on an equal footing. But please, enough with the vague hinting.

kelly1

sorella wrote: »

My former PP told me not to believe in purgatory. Interesting.. I cannot either, on a matter of Scripture.

PP = Parish Priest? He should be ashamed of himself!

I'm not going to mention the 'H' word again, but Purgatory is a dogmatic truth of the Church. One thing about the Catholic faith is that you can't pick and choose what you want to believe what the Church teaches and reject the rest.

Don't you believe in the infallible teaching authority of the Church?

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.606

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."607 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.608 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.609

God bless,
Noel.