Catholic Hatred. (Impossible Thread, Episode #2)

reply to post by adjensen


Yes I understand your position but I must disagree. Miracles are or would be necessary today and be very helpful for people like myself who have a problem taking hold of things like this and accepting them. I haven't read the link yet but I will shortly. The case of Sister Marie Simon-Pierre is actually a pretty interesting one I have looked into a bit in the past but I will look into again. Thanks adj

sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

Well, I guess you really tuned those nuns out good. The teaching of the Church is quite clear. Mary. the mother of Jesus, was human. She was conceived without sin, She is the Queen of Heaven and Earth, but never divinity. To call her a Goddess is wrong.

She is venerated as are the Saints. She is not adored. Only God is adored.

Heh. Yeah, I tuned them out, but I wasn't saying that she was a Goddess in the eyes of the Church, though I can see how you could get that impression given my less than clear expression.

What I meant was that back at the start of the Church many pre-Christian shrines that were dedicated to the Goddess, whether Isis, Ishtar, Astarte, Inanna or Diana etc, were dedicated to Mary. This has been seen by some historians as a move to integrate the extant Goddess worship into the patriarchal new religion, especially as the Queen of Heaven was already a well-worn title in several traditions.

I will admit to not being wise enough to discern the difference between veneration and adoration in practice, but as I said it was never a problem for me, as the Divine Mother was a fully working aspect of God in the yogic tradition.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


Thanks for sharing. People today still accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary.

Adoration is for God alone. Veneration is holding someone i high esteem. Catholics should not pray to Mary or the saints,, but ask them to pray for us. Much like you would ask a friend to pray for you.

We also get accused of worshipping idols, if we have a statue or artwork of Jesus or Mary. We know these statues are just their to serve as visual reminders of our faith. We do not believe they are God, Mary, Saint or Angels. That is nonsensical, but people think that is what we believe.

I know what you are saying about those nuns. The old school ones were tough as drill Sargents and their meaness caused many to leave the Church, including two of my brothers.

I hope your Mom is well and am glad she didn't name you "it."

My younger brother weighed 4 # 4 ounces and pretty much the same story as you, My mom had to place his bassinette in front of an opened oven to serve as an incubator. With 6 other kids to take care of I doubt he would have made it without the help of my big sister who at age 6 nursed him along. They really bonded. Nothing like being a super mom at age 6. She was a tough act to follow.

Every woman that suffers a miscarriage suffers deeply. I sense you deeply respect your mom and that is really cool.

reply to post by Prezbo369

Prezbo369
Materialist creed? faith? a believer? lol what are you talking about?

The materialist creed is the metaphysical belief that physical matter is the only reality and that everything can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena, as well as the tenets that logically follow out from that core assertion, such as no telos, no life after death, no inherent meaning, or intelligence etc.

Those making the claims of miracles and supernatural hocus pocus have not met their burden of proof.

I'm not sure how you define a miracle supernatural hocus pocus, but no matter. Your core assertion still stands, and that's what interests me.

You made the absolutist claim that no miracles have ever been shown to exist. I ask upon what authority you base such a sweeping claim, since, you are truly in no position to know whether this is true or not. Similarly, when you say the burden of proof has not been met I have to wonder by what authority you make such a claim.

Given its grossly assumptive nature (as if you or anyone were in a position to know the full depth and breadth of what claims have been made across clime and time, never mind whether they met the burden of proof) it is clearly a statement with no empirical backing.

Hence it is an affirmation meant to bolster one's faith in the creed, hence it is a faith statement, nothing more. Certainly, there is nothing inherently wrong with such; the difficulties arise when one pretends it is something beyond that.

That is unless you can produce something?...

I'm afraid you misunderstand. I am making no claims; I have no interest in participating in your liturgical exercises.

You seem to know more than I, on whatever the 'materialist creed' is TBH, as ive never heard of it.

I’m sure you are quite familiar with it, as it is the default position of the atheist when he or she plays the ‟atheists make no claims, they just reject the claims made by theists” card. That rejection is all well and good, but once done, it leaves one with the materialist claim regarding the true nature and scope of the universe.

Again, all well and good, but it is a creed, no more no less. As such, some find it more compelling than others. I, myself, understand the succor provided by such a creed, especially the lights out, show’s over aspect of its position on death. Who, having traveled life’s long trail of tears has not earnestly yearned for such pacification at one time or another?

Lol! this is hilariously ironic lol

This now seems to be a popular theist tactic when talking to anyone that doesn't accept their claims. To use criticisms of religion, concepts such as 'faith', against those with none? lol do you realize how pointless and ridiculous that is?

That’s a lot of lols for such a serious subject. Regardless, your assertions of pointlessness and ridiculousness to the contrary, it is neither. The pointing out of materialism’s faith based nature is hardly a new ‟tactic.” It has been shown to be a philosophy riddled with difficulties over and again. But, as with any faith, mere logic and reason are no match for blind belief.

Should you disagree, as I am sure you will, you have only to attempt an honest defense of it in order to see the weak foundation upon which it lies. Of course, this is the last thing most atheists want to do, so they go with the only game they know, endlessly demanding more examples to dismiss out of hand in order to bolster their faith. I have no interest in such, but I would certainly like to see how well you can defend your faith.

windword
reply to post by colbe

 

The period of time to conceive is only a few days out of the month, the divine plan. God made sex for procreation AND Marriage.

Well then, it seems that "God's divine plan" for sex, includes just having fun for at least part of the time, and avoiding sex during "fertile" periods is no sin at all!

"just having fun"....

Ha, ha, the liberal anti-God one and only purpose for sex except its not God's main purpose but a gift included. His ways are higher, the creation of an new person who will live forever and the love of the parents for and given to their new child. And the child's love in return for the parents. Like one's love for God and His love of us.

There are has to be a good (serious) reason for a period in your married life for not being open to life. Maybe health or serious financial.

sad_eyed_lady

I am one of nine and my mother had two miscarriages. Back in the days before Natural Family Planning, Catholics used the 'rhythm method' which was based on abstaining from sex mid-cycle. Of course, not everyone is on an 28 day cycle so it was not a sure bet if you were trying to plan your children’s' birth or prevent a pregnancy.

With the advancement of science the ability to know when you were approaching ovulation allowed spouses the opportunity to plan their family.

As one who had extremely irregular menstrual cycles (one or two periods a year) I was able to have children by knowing when I was fertile. I used the Billings Method explained to me by a nun who taught NFP. If I did not have this knowledge I would not have two sons today. To say that the Church is forcing women to have children against their will is not really the case.

A deceased friend of mine who was born around 1918 had fractured her pelvis in a bike accident as a kid and it did not heal properly. Sadly, she suffered a long labor that ended in stillbirth. She and her husband abstained from intercourse for the remainder of their married life.

I just share her story because what people have done for centuries to prevent pregnancies and some still do (abstain from sex) is not a popular idea.

Very well said, actually, your entire post S.E.L.

BlueMoonJoe

colbe
"Cranking out"...? God says children are a blessing. God bless your dear mother and aren't you happy, your parents didn't choose to contracept/abort you from being born?

Many's the day where I would not have argued had she done so.

As you shared, you didn't really know the faith, why, hardly any or bad catechesis for two almost three generations now and it is easier to leave the faith than to practice it.

I know that what was being taught to me was not resonant at all. Few things have left such a bad taste in my mouth as my hours with the nuns in cathechism. Time was indeed relative and it was decidedly at the hot stove end of the Einstein's illustration, where a minute felt like an hour.

There is NO God given grace in non-Christian Yoga BlueMoon.

No? I am most eager to hear you expand and clarify this statement and upon what basis you make it.

You gotta come back, you were given the pearl. Start talking to Our Lord and Mary in prayer every day even for a short time.

Not sure why you assumed I stopped talking to God in prayer, but the mention of Mary does complicate matters touched upon in this thread, doesn't it? Whether she is divine or not, worshiped or merely venerated, these seem to be points of contention between Catholics and Protestants. But as a yogi, it was never a problem, as the concept of God as the Divine Mother was established long before the advent of Christianity. The notion that Mary was elevated to venerable status as a way to bring Goddess worship back into the fold is a well-known idea.

Go make a good Confession, then return to Sunday Mass and receive Our Lord. I absolutely know you can do the underlined. It will make you happy, you'll feel God's presence. Tell the priest at Confession, you have been away. How pleased he will be to help you make a good Confession if you're hesitant about going to Confession.

Ok, right next to the nuns and cathechism on that hot stove was the confessional.

I haven't the foggiest what would comprise a good confession, but I know that the idea in no way resonates and I can't see confessing my sins to a priest has any bearing on anything between me and God. Scandalous, sure, but that's a large part of why the split happened, isn't it?

I said God bless your mother, you used the term "cranking out", not me as if it were some awful requirement. God made the rules for our benefit, not the Church. Contraception is no good. Two
generations believe otherwise. The world, our nation is experiencing the consequences of saying no to
God and no to having children or the average 1.25. They are physical, spiritual and economic.

A spouse is aware when the other is not in the right frame of mind and heart or physically able to have another child. If some men of our parent's generation didn't care, I cannot believe that was the total
mindset, would cancel the love and respect for each other.

I don't have time to return with a reply after each one of the five separate, your comments on sentence by sentence of my post to you. Divided up is overwhelming. Maybe, a person's one quote or even two in a post at a time, with a response after.

I was educated in Catholic schools, it is not fair to speak ill of the sisters, NOT everyone of them was mean. I admired many of them, they were set apart, serving God helping us. And I realize, pretty normal, as children our rebelling against authority even in grade school. What young boy or adolescent wants to be in school?

I was sharing with you advise only to be helpful on CHRISTIAN prayer, includes the help of Mary and the value of Confession and Mass. There is God's grace given in all the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. The objection about Confession to a priest, what are we to do, this is how God chose for His children to reconcile with Him. "Come back" to the faith was from my heart Joe, you can stay with Yogi. All, people protest, alright, 99.99% of the mystical and miraculous points to Jesus Christ, who said I am the way, the truth and the life. And the fullest means to Christ is via the faith, Roman Catholicism.

What a world this would be if all peoples knew of, understood and accepted the underlined. God has a
plan coming soon to change the world's heart, soul and belief. GBY,

BlueMoonJoe

The materialist creed is the metaphysical belief that physical matter is the only reality and that everything can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena, as well as the tenets that logically follow out from that core assertion, such as no telos, no life after death, no inherent meaning, or intelligence etc.

Lol no, after looking into what you're calling 'The materialist creed' it merely seems to be a label theists have created for anyone that doesn't accept their claims of spooky superstitious magic and nothing more.

I'm not sure how you define a miracle supernatural hocus pocus, but no matter.

Gods, ghouls and ghosts. Sometimes a zombie.

You made the absolutist claim that no miracles have ever been shown to exist. I ask upon what authority you base such a sweeping claim, since, you are truly in no position to know whether this is true or not. Similarly, when you say the burden of proof has not been met I have to wonder by what authority you make such a claim.

While many people claim to believe in some form of supernatural magic it hasn't been shown, in any example, to exist. If it had, i'm sure the entire worlds efforts would be put into discovering the source of this magic in order to learn more and please whichever deity actually exists from the lists of thousands.

The very best examples this thread has produced have been hysterical children and medically inexplicable recoveries. Neither are a good enough reason, in my opinion, to accept the claims of magic. And until it has been shown to exist, I, and everyone else, has no good reason to think it actually exists.

Given its grossly assumptive nature (as if you or anyone were in a position to know the full depth and breadth of what claims have been made across clime and time, never mind whether they met the burden of proof) it is clearly a statement with no empirical backing.

It's a reply to a claim, I don't need to be omnisciencent to reject the claims made by superstitionists....

I'm afraid you misunderstand. I am making no claims; I have no interest in participating in your liturgical exercises.

Right.....it's not because you cannot produce an example...?

I’m sure you are quite familiar with it, as it is the default position of the atheist when he or she plays the ‟atheists make no claims, they just reject the claims made by theists” card. That rejection is all well and good, but once done, it leaves one with the materialist claim regarding the true nature and scope of the universe.

As I said, I've never heard of it despite being fairly familiar with theist tactics. However, another tactic used by theists is to distort what an atheist stands for beyond the rejection of claims made by theists. It's usually only done by only the most dishonest of theists...

Again, all well and good, but it is a creed, no more no less. As such, some find it more compelling than others. I, myself, understand the succor provided by such a creed, especially the lights out, show’s over aspect of its position on death. Who, having traveled life’s long trail of tears has not earnestly yearned for such pacification at one time or another?

Lol another tactic, to pretend that an eternity with other theists in heaven or wherever is less preferable than oblivion.

That’s a lot of lols for such a serious subject. Regardless, your assertions of pointlessness and ridiculousness to the contrary, it is neither.

I have to wonder by what authority you make such a claim....

Should you disagree, as I am sure you will, you have only to attempt an honest defense of it in order to see the weak foundation upon which it lies. Of course, this is the last thing most atheists want to do, so they go with the only game they know, endlessly demanding more examples to dismiss out of hand in order to bolster their faith. I have no interest in such, but I would certainly like to see how well you can defend your faith.

I've responded to the claims made on this thread, I've asked for examples and received only vague superstition.

Responding to claims made by theists is all atheists can do by definition, despite whatever other attributes you or any other theists want to put on the label.

Lots of lols

sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

I found this and I think it sums up my perception.

"He does whatever he pleases"104

www.vatican.va...

104 is Psalm 115:3

But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever he pleased.

www.biblegateway.com...

I couldn't peg God in a billion years. He is beyond my ability to comprehend. I will put in a call to the rectory tomorrow and should hear back in a day or so.

Personally, I think God wouldn't much enjoy being present in that which is evil. I have heard it taught that He not found there. Love doesn't make a nest in what is evil IMHO. So, I would say I don't accept that He is omnipresent. Not that He could not be, but because He does not choose to be.


Thank you for you thought provoking reply.

I talked with my Pastor after Mass and I missed it by a mile.

He said that God is most certainly omnipresent. This is not to claim that a God exists in a tree so we should worship it. The Creator is in His Creation.

In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent (remains) in, every creature — conserving it in being and enabling it to act.

www.newadvent.org...

Does he exists where evil is? Yes!

Why?

Like Christ upon Calvary He is there to continue in the redemptive work in our souls.

He explained it more depth, but I think this is the essence of what he was said.

My thoughts: God never gives up on us even when we reject Him. His love is unfailing and in the battle for our souls God like any good, loving parent whose kid is in trouble He fights for them unceasingly. He never washes His hands of us and walks away.

What if one rejects Him in totality? It is lack of comprehension of the nature of God that would cause one to reject Him over Satan IMHO.

This is why we pray for God to lead ALL souls to heaven.

One Thing Remains - Music Video

reply to post by Prezbo369

Responding to claims made by theists is all atheists can do by definition, despite whatever other attributes you or any other theists want to put on the label. Lots of lols

This is not a lots of laughs thread.

Christians take their faith seriously, because Jesus was serious about all of it.

Sometimes I wonder if atheists with an agenda are Satanists in disguise.

charles1952
The idea that God cannot do bad and yet is omnipotent is explained in my mind by the idea that God can not make 2 + 2 = 5. In the same way, I don't believe God can destroy Himself, or accept Evil as part of His "operating system." I will agree with you in rejecting a Divine omnipotence that allows God to do anything we can imagine or state. He can not make a stone exist and not exist at the same time. That violates the laws of logic, or rationality. I also believe that there are other laws in the Universe which can not be measured by scientific instruments. Logic is one. We use logic because without it we could not form coherent concepts or even trust our own thoughts. I would not be surprised to learn that there are also laws of truth, mercy, justice, and existence, which God obeys.

I think the main law of the universe is Love, and not the emotion (the emotion is part of a larger whole). I could go into exactly how I think we could explore this, but thats pretty off topic. To be clear though, I didnt reject divine omnipotence that "allows God to do anything we can imagine or state." In fact, I think God's omnipotence goes far, far, far beyond that. The extent of his Will and Power can be seen, by us, in this universe. While it is yet again just a part of something larger, its as close as we might get to understanding his true Glory in these mortal coils.

In that respect, he HAS created things that both do and do not exist, simultaneously. I think we see this, literally, when we look around. What we actually perceive is not how things really "are," they are only how we see them. We witness something that most certainly exists, but NOT in the way we see it.

Very interesting speculative point. Allow me to hazard a reasonable guess. Were we not aware that obeying God was a good thing and disobeying Him was a bad thing? (Using the Garden of Eden story for convenience.) Frankly, I don't know what extra was gained by eating the fruit. It may have been simply the final act of a rebellious, disobedient spirit.

Yes, viewing it as "extra" may be problematic. I think the issue came into play when Adam/Eve felt that they knew better than the Whole. They felt that they WOULD get "extra" stuff by eating from that tree. But, it came at a grave cost and that is the true introduction of an avenue for Evil to use humans just as readily as Good. The capability always existed, but the knowledge of the two was not present until that fruit was consumed.

I think, along with Chesterton, that original sin is the only doctrine of Christianity which can be proven to be true, and that truth can be found in our newspapers, elementary schools, wherever one cares to look.

Perhaps this points to a society and culture of Original Sin more than us being born into sin? I think they would manifest in the same way, in those respects. Honestly, if we are all born into sin, and we can never gain anything "better" than the society we create.. then all of my work is in vain. It wouldnt stop me from continuing it, but I would know it was a dead end before it started.

Excellent question about Satan and forgiveness. Here I don't have any official teaching to fall back on, simply my own uninformed opinion. Certainly the book of Revelations seems to indicate that Satan's eternal task is to be a crispy critter. But leaving all that aside? Hmmmm... Does God's forgiveness extend to the world of Angels and Demons, or just Humanity. Jesus didn't take the form of a Demon, so I suspect the Redemption in the New testament is only for Humans, so Satan's up a creek.

BUT, I would agree with someone saying the Bible only tells the story of Humanity, and there may be a different way for Satan to be saved. Blast it! (smiley inserted here) you're making my head ache.

I even go so far as to say that the bible tells an individual journey to Salvation! But, thats not for this thread. I think we agree on the ending of this particular story though, and that is Satan is not redeemed. I do believe God would offer forgiveness in light of satan offering true repentance, but that is very unlikely to happen.

(One small area where I would demure. I don't think Satan is in God, rather God, in some way, is in Satan.)

Remember, I view these things in mathematics! So, if I were to write that relationship out in equations and math, it would represent that satan is a fully independent part of the whole and that he was actually correct in asserting he could become greater than the Whole as only a part. If satan is contained within God, it creates an equation that represents his futile quest to become greater than the whole in which he resides. So, if satan is only a part of God, then he can never rise above that. If God is only a part of Satan, then it would insinuate that God could never become greater than the whole (which would be satan, in this case).

I definitely know that isnt where your thinking goes on it, so would you mind clarifying a bit more?

Yes we can be separated from God in this life, and that is a terrible thing. Some kill themselves rather than face it. But for most, there is some small hope that things will work out, that they can be rejoined to God eventually. The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory uses that distinction in the afterlife. In Purgatory, one knows that they are being cleansed and will be with God. That makes their sufferings more bearable. In Hell, the poor souls suffer without hope of release.

I struggle to believe in a hell after death, honestly. I think that it is literal in that it is a finalization of an individuals freely chosen decision to separate themselves from God. While this separation is delusion, it is made reality at death, when they are returned to No-thing. I think of it like mulching up trees to create a better environment for growth. There is definitely no hope of release, as there wouldnt be anything to release.

I agree with the chatter blocking His voice. Whether it's an addiction of some sort that steals their whole attention, a stubborn wish not to hear His voice, or a fear of what listening to Him might involve, many don't hear or act on His words.

I think you said a key word: Addiction. Its a habit, as I said previously, I believe we are living in the same culture of original sin. Its a habit after thousands of years, but I also believe that if we were to choose differently, we would see a different world. Not without problems, but one that is focused on living together under the Universal law of Agape Love.

Yes, in a way. Remember though, we are limited to the human mind and senses here. There is no question that He can give us immense peace, love, and beauty while we are here. It's been described by many mystics, but "the best is yet to be."

I think that in the afterlife, we are similarly limited in proportion to the Whole of God. So, in that respect, "the best is yet to be" can apply to any given moment in a life of true growth and one that walks with God. Alive or passed, we never become the whole, only greater parts of it.

I thank you for the discourse, as always! I know its not coming from a Catholic perspective, but its helping me to see how great God is that he can be seen in so many different ways, all pointing to the same thing.

sad_eyed_lady

But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever he pleased.

www.biblegateway.com...

I couldn't peg God in a billion years. He is beyond my ability to comprehend. I will put in a call to the rectory tomorrow and should hear back in a day or so.

Personally, I think God wouldn't much enjoy being present in that which is evil. I have heard it taught that He not found there. Love doesn't make a nest in what is evil IMHO. So, I would say I don't accept that He is omnipresent. Not that He could not be, but because He does not choose to be.

He is beyond ALL of our ability to comprehend, even simultaneously! If we were in a Borg-like collective, we would still only be able to comprehend our own experience of God as a part and never the Whole. Heck, we cant even fully comprehend what goes on in our own body, much less beyond that. We can study bits and pieces, but to fully comprehend all of it going on simultaneously.. just in our single, small body.. I would say it can only happen through Divine inspiration.

I saw that you wrote another reply, so lets continue with the conversation there.

sad_eyed_lady
I talked with my Pastor after Mass and I missed it by a mile.

He said that God is most certainly omnipresent. This is not to claim that a God exists in a tree so we should worship it. The Creator is in His Creation.

Indeed. If we were to worship that tree, solely, it would only be worshiping a part of something much, much greater. It would be idolatrous and put a part before the whole, which violates the tenet to "put no gods before God." This introduces an interesting idea to me though, and that is; Our own idea/concept of God that we praise is as limited as we are, which might make worshiping our idea of God akin to worshiping the tree. What do you think about this?

Does he exists where evil is? Yes!

Why?

Like Christ upon Calvary He is there to continue in the redemptive work in our souls.

He explained it more depth, but I think this is the essence of what he was said.

Sounds pretty close to my own beliefs. Omni-attributes really start to introduce advanced concepts, but they tend to be glossed over by most individuals and religions. The reason they are a focus to me, specifically, is I decided to find God on my own and I felt I needed to know what to look for! Of course, my intent at that point was to show how all of these things can happen without the introduction of a Deity (you know, the teenage atheist years ). The amount of irony in my discoveries has never been lost on me! So, when I look to explore how I see it with others, I start with my "basics."

My thoughts: God never gives up on us even when we reject Him. His love is unfailing and in the battle for our souls God like any good, loving parent whose kid is in trouble He fights for them unceasingly. He never washes His hands of us and walks away.

I agree completely. The whole footprints in the sand thing is pretty played out at this juncture, but there is Truth in it. As I said to Charles (which you may or may not be reading our books back and forth), I feel that rejection of God is delusion. But, I am using the term "God" in the broadest spectrum possible. I dont think there CAN be separation from God, only perceived separation. Which, makes it no less real to the individual who is doing the perceiving. When death occurs, it is a granting of a wish of sorts, the individual is granted their separation from God. And, that can only happen one way in the way I see it.. which is complete and total non-existence.

reply to post by Serdgiam

Our own idea/concept of God that we praise is as limited as we are, which might make worshiping our idea of God akin to worshiping the tree. What do you think about this?

I posted an earlier reply to you with a list of attributes of God that we aware of through reading the Bible with the scripture passages that that pertain to each attribute. Now, if we have an awareness of this and believe the Bible is correct we know God is far beyond what we can ever perceive and as the Creator of the Universe He is definitely greater than a human being. What we can not perceive is a mystery. With faith we worship what we believe.

I cannot grasp what direction you are heading here. As worshipping a tree as God is nowhere my head can or wants to go. Why not a cockroach?

On Hell. If you do believe in God ask Him to help you discern this. Saint Teresa of Avila, a Doctor of the Church, wrote on this subject and her experience with demons and Hell.

If you read one of my earlier posts you will see there is no doubt from my life experiences that the Devil is fighting battle for my soul and everyone on the planet as well.

If you don't believe Jesus word I don't expect you will believe mine.

I do not believe we cease to exist. That is not my faith. It is not the faith of Christians.

Read the apostles creed if you want to know the basis for our Faith.

lmgtfy.com...

Seek and ye shall find.

colbe

I said God bless your mother, you used the term "cranking out", not me as if it were some awful requirement. God made the rules for our benefit, not the Church. Contraception is no good.

A spouse is aware when the other is not in the right frame of mind and heart or physically able to have another child. If some men of our parent's generation didn't care, I cannot believe that was the total
mindset, would cancel the love and respect for each other.

When the result was most likely dying in childbirth, I'd say it was a pretty awful requirement, but ymmv. My dad agreed with my mom and backed her fully, so your line of thought here doesn't apply to the situation.

I don't have time to return with a reply after each one of the five separate, your comments on sentence by sentence of my post to you. Divided up is overwhelming. Maybe, a person's one quote or even two in a post at a time, with a response after.

Sorry, I didn't mean to overwhelm you by responding to what you wrote. It's a bad habit from way back. If you want to reply only to some of it, the bit about no grace in non-Christian yoga is the core issue for me.

I was educated in Catholic schools, it is not fair to speak ill of the sisters, NOT everyone of them was mean. I admired many of them, they were set apart, serving God helping us. And I realize, pretty normal, as children our rebelling against authority even in grade school. What young boy or adolescent wants to be in school?

Since you don't have time to respond to everything I write, at least respond to what I did write and not something I didn't write. It only seems fair. I never said word one about the nuns being mean and didn't speak ill of them. I only said I found being in catechism in no way resonant and interminable.

I was sharing with you advise only to be helpful on CHRISTIAN prayer, includes the help of Mary and the value of Confession and Mass. There is God's grace given in all the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. The objection about Confession to a priest, what are we to do, this is how God chose for His children to reconcile with Him.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this bit of doctrine as I don't in any way believe that confession to a priest was a choice of God.

"Come back" to the faith was from my heart Joe, you can stay with Yogi. All, people protest, alright, 99.99% of the mystical and miraculous points to Jesus Christ, who said I am the way, the truth and the life. And the fullest means to Christ is via the faith, Roman Catholicism.

Even though I may not agree with your pov, please do know that I thank you for your sincere effort to "bring me home" as you put it. As to the part about the 99% of the mystical pointing to Christ and the fullest means being the Church, I don't know what to say. I spent over 30 years in a tradition that saw things quite differently and it's hard to just drop that, especially since Christ was a central part of the teachings, which sought to demonstrate the underlying oneness between the traditions.

I may have doubts about that, but I have doubts about much in the Church as well so it's not an easy road to navigate.

BlueMoonJoe

colbe

I said God bless your mother, you used the term "cranking out", not me as if it were some awful requirement. God made the rules for our benefit, not the Church. Contraception is no good.

A spouse is aware when the other is not in the right frame of mind and heart or physically able to have another child. If some men of our parent's generation didn't care, I cannot believe that was the total
mindset, would cancel the love and respect for each other.

When the result was most likely dying in childbirth, I'd say it was a pretty awful requirement, but ymmv. My dad agreed with my mom and backed her fully, so your line of thought here doesn't apply to the situation.

I don't have time to return with a reply after each one of the five separate, your comments on sentence by sentence of my post to you. Divided up is overwhelming. Maybe, a person's one quote or even two in a post at a time, with a response after.

Sorry, I didn't mean to overwhelm you by responding to what you wrote. It's a bad habit from way back. If you want to reply only to some of it, the bit about no grace in non-Christian yoga is the core issue for me.

I was educated in Catholic schools, it is not fair to speak ill of the sisters, NOT everyone of them was mean. I admired many of them, they were set apart, serving God helping us. And I realize, pretty normal, as children our rebelling against authority even in grade school. What young boy or adolescent wants to be in school?

Since you don't have time to respond to everything I write, at least respond to what I did write and not something I didn't write. It only seems fair.

I never said word one about the nuns being mean and didn't speak ill of them. I only said I found being in catechism in no way resonant and interminable.

I was sharing with you advise only to be helpful on CHRISTIAN prayer, includes the help of Mary and the value of Confession and Mass. There is God's grace given in all the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. The objection about Confession to a priest, what are we to do, this is how God chose for His children to reconcile with Him.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this bit of doctrine as I don't in any way believe that confession to a priest was a choice of God.

"Come back" to the faith was from my heart Joe, you can stay with Yogi. All, people protest, alright, 99.99% of the mystical and miraculous points to Jesus Christ, who said I am the way, the truth and the life. And the fullest means to Christ is via the faith, Roman Catholicism.

Even though I may not agree with your pov, please do know that I thank you for your sincere effort to "bring me home" as you put it. As to the part about the 99% of the mystical pointing to Christ and the fullest means being the Church, I don't know what to say. I spent over 30 years in a tradition that saw things quite differently and it's hard to just drop that, especially since Christ was a central part of the teachings, which sought to demonstrate the underlying oneness between the traditions.

I may have doubts about that, but I have doubts about much in the Church as well so it's not an easy road to navigate.

You brought the subject up. Read your quotes, blaming the Church for your mom's health difficulties, that is no reason to leave the faith and stay away. Having children is not a "duty" required by the Church but of God for those who are called to the vocation of marriage. God gives a child as a gift. Some mothers die in childbirth, gee, I wonder where they go? Your mother lived, you lived. People read your comments who do not know the faith and believe you.


BMJ: "The closest thing I ever heard to Catholic bashing was from my mom and that was because she was pissed at the Church for insisting she crank out babies when doing so was damn near killing her. (She had two very difficult births, me and my sister, and two miscarriages and then she said enough is enough.)"
BMJ: "I cannot speak for today, but back in the late 50's when my mother was going through this, she was pretty much told that it was her duty to keep having kids even if it presented grave danger to her. I don't know the details, but she just wasn't built for birthin' bairns."


S.E.L. gave a correction ~
"To say that the Church is forcing women to have children against their will is not really the case."

My mother was like your mother BMJ, she had 4 miscarriages and almost died. After the first two miscarriages the doctor said she would have no more children. She had six more children, she laughed at his words. And, I was a premie too. You can't use your mother's child bearing as reason to leave the faith. Suffering is a part of life, the faith helps you get through.

Humor for sentence by sentence taken apart of posts.


BMJ: "Few things have left such a bad taste in my mouth as my hours with the nuns in cathechism. Time was indeed relative and it was decidedly at the hot stove end of the Einstein's illustration, where a minute felt like an hour."
BMJ:" Ok, right next to the nuns and cathechism on that hot stove was the confessional."


It wasn't the nuns themselves, it was the hours of Catechism (the teachings of the faith) and confession that made you leave? Such comments in secular discussion forums do not draw people to the faith instead leave a terrible of impression of the consecrated brides of Christ. You get a response to
follow usually of yes, I had mean rotten "nuns" too. They could not all of been. I remember wonderful, Father Muenster would call the eight grades of school out on the lawn on a sunny day under the trees and he would sing and play the guitar, we would join in singing and the Presentation Sisters too with their veils blowing in the breeze. Father would sing "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands" and "The Little Blue Man."

I don't know why it happened, the loss of faith, maybe God allowed the world what they wanted so 30+ years of 'bad catechesis" or none at all. I was a part of it too. If people understood the treasure of the faith and 'grace' given in it, they would run to it.

There are non-Christian beliefs if you mean to call belief "traditions." There are non-Catholic Christian "traditions" and Catholic Christian "traditions." Whatever your belief now people go for the third, specifically, Roman Catholic traditions. Ask God in prayer if it is THE faith. Ask Our Lord's mother to help you believe. Study Roman Catholicism reading Catholic writings, the Catechism, the Douay-Rheims Bible, biographies and writings of the saints, type in Catholic Apologetics first as a help when you search online, there is so much anti-Catholicism.

Catholics who are WATCHERS for a lot of years have been praying for conversions. Prayer for the 'grace' of God to touch hearts. Lately BlueMoonJoe, I wonder and fervently hope I will still be here to see the prophesied divine events take place. It is going to happen, God is going to show each person in the world RC is THE faith. No fake, only God can show each of us, every moment of our lives.

I thank you for your sincerity plus you have wonderful way of writing, much better than my style.
This is a timely thread, Catholics can explain the faith and answer questions, share their life as a Catholic

sad_eyed_lady
I posted an earlier reply to you with a list of attributes of God that we aware of through reading the Bible with the scripture passages that that pertain to each attribute. Now, if we have an awareness of this and believe the Bible is correct we know God is far beyond what we can ever perceive and as the Creator of the Universe He is definitely greater than a human being. What we can not perceive is a mystery. With faith we worship what we believe.

Where I was going with it more is; while the totality of God is beyond our perception, does that mean He can not be experienced at all?

I cannot grasp what direction you are heading here. As worshipping a tree as God is nowhere my head can or wants to go. Why not a cockroach?

Its just saying that the concept of God that we hold in our minds is not representative of Him in totality. For what its worth, we seem to agree on this.

If you read one of my earlier posts you will see there is no doubt from my life experiences that the Devil is fighting battle for my soul and everyone on the planet as well.

If you don't believe Jesus word I don't expect you will believe mine.

I believe Jesus' Word, even though I may interpret it differently. The core is pretty clear though, as far as it pertains to our actions towards ourselves and others.

Read the apostles creed if you want to know the basis for our Faith.

Seek and ye shall find.

I am participating in this thread to speak with other people about their walk with God. Along this journey, I have run into stumbling blocks, or areas of confusion, that I had to figure out before I moved onto other things. I always wonder how others have approached the same issues, because I think many of them are universal. But, not everyone has or needs to experience many of them.

Its all over thinking the subject, as the commandments are quite clear. So, if its bringing something up you had not considered, dont worry about it! I would much rather talk about your walk with God than any differences in ideology. The thread is specific to Catholicism, so that is what I expect, and it can help me understand Catholicism, and also individuals walks with God from within Catholicism.

Have you had any experiences which proved God to be real to you?

Prezbo369
Lol no, after looking into what you're calling 'The materialist creed' it merely seems to be a label theists have created for anyone that doesn't accept their claims of spooky superstitious magic and nothing more.

I’m not sure how far you looked, but if you all you came up with is that materialism is a label theists have created, all I can say is that you haven’t looked very far. Seriously, you aren’t claiming to be that ignorant of the philosophical ground of being you are standing upon, are you?

Gods, ghouls and ghosts. Sometimes a zombie.

Ah, I see. Ok, maybe you really do think materialism is just a theist label.

While many people claim to believe in some form of supernatural magic it hasn't been shown, in any example, to exist. If it had, i'm sure the entire worlds efforts would be put into discovering the source of this magic in order to learn more and please whichever deity actually exists from the lists of thousands.

Don’t look now, but you just more or less described history from the misty aeons of dimmest pre-civilization right up to today. And of course, somehow, a few hundred years ago, for the first time in that history, a small subset of the wider culture has come up with the notion, plucked right out of the fantastic air, and decided that all of that previous history had no reality and was all illusion. And what evidence was this decision based upon? Well, none at all. It just fits the agenda better and so it would do just fine, gaping holes and moonbat conclusions notwithstanding.

The very best examples this thread has produced have been hysterical children and medically inexplicable recoveries. Neither are a good enough reason, in my opinion, to accept the claims of magic. And until it has been shown to exist, I, and everyone else, has no good reason to think it actually exists.

I don’t recall anyone speaking of magic, and I don’t get the feeling that you really know what that denotes or what would constitute showing it exists, so let’s leave it out of the picture and just stick with miracles and the supernatural. It seems you don’t understand your own turf and just want to play theistic claims bowling. If that’s what gets your rocks off, have fun. But it doesn’t change the fact that the boundaries of the box you materialists have constructed for ‟reality” are an artificial and arbitrary construction.

But don’t take my word for it, check out noted atheist and celebrated evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin in his candid admission:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

evolutionwiki.org...

It's a reply to a claim, I don't need to be omnisciencent to reject the claims made by superstitionists....

No, but you do have to be omniscient to make the absolutist claim that no miracles have ever been shown to exist or that the burden of proof has never been met because you simply have no way of knowing or demonstrating such a claim. It's just a baseless faith claim.

Right.....it's not because you cannot produce an example...?

Sigh. Ok, you win. I wanted to stay away from this and focus on the core matter, but since this is the only speed that works for you, here are two:

Life and consciousness.

Miracles both, both supernatural. If you disagree, please demonstrate how they are natural. Good luck with that. Should you actually pull it off, I will be the first to insist that your Nobel prize was richly deserved, as nobody to this point has a clue about how either one came into being or why. Complete mysteries both. Oh, and before you play it, the "one day we may know" card is known as promissory materialism and is without question a faith statement.

As I said, I've never heard of it despite being fairly familiar with theist tactics. However, another tactic used by theists is to distort what an atheist stands for beyond the rejection of claims made by theists. It's usually only done by only the most dishonest of theists...

You have no familiarity with materialism and you have the audacity to impugn the motives of theists because they are familiar with it as well as its shortcomings? Priceless. Here's a hint. Materialism is what atheists stand for and what they stand on while they are rejecting theist claims. It's what's left when you take God out of the game.

I have to wonder by what authority you make such a claim....

Reason and logic and a basic grasp of the parameters within which the conversation takes place.

Responding to claims made by theists is all atheists can do by definition, despite whatever other attributes you or any other theists want to put on the label.

Atheists are materialists by default. Materialism is the ‟bald” in that silly line you guys love to toss out as a supposed kill shot, ‟bald is not a hair color.”

Lots of lols

Lots of ignorance, too. But happily it’s curable if caught in time. Seriously, it's not about becoming a theist, but about understanding your own position and being something more than an Is Not/Prove It bot.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


did you know that's actually a hereditary disease? from head lice ancestors... weird isn't it? but you gotta love science man ya know.

I'll tell you this little story about mind over matter and manipulation of elemental forces...

there was this time circa 1620 in the New World where these people (likely plagued with head lice) sailed a boat across an ocean and landed on this rock... they soon went into the forest and felled some trees and constructed a shelter to protect them from elemental forces!

imagine that...

colbe
You brought the subject up. Read your quotes, blaming the Church for your mom's health difficulties, that is no reason to leave the faith and stay away.

I did bring the subject up, but I did not say I left the church because of my mom's experience. I'm sorry if you got that impression.

Having children is not a "duty" required by the Church but of God for those who are called to the vocation of marriage. God gives a child as a gift. Some mothers die in childbirth, gee, I wonder where they go? Your mother lived, you lived. People read your comments who do not know the faith and believe you.

Regardless of what hairs you wish to split re who is doing the requiring, it was the Church via the priests who were putting the pressure on her. If you want to insist they were speaking for God, fine, but it was they who were delivering the message.

You can't use your mother's child bearing as reason to leave the faith. Suffering is a part of life, the faith helps you get through.

Good thing I didn't use it as the reason, then, huh?

It wasn't the nuns themselves, it was the hours of Catechism (the teachings of the faith) and confession that made you leave?

No, believe it or not, it was actually the reason I said: that I didn't find any of it resonant.

Such comments in secular discussion forums do not draw people to the faith instead leave a terrible of impression of the consecrated brides of Christ. You get a response to follow usually of yes, I had mean rotten "nuns" too. They could not all of been.

I'm not here to draw people to the faith and trust me, the old school nuns left plenty of terrible impressions, enough to earn the stereotypical picture most people have of them.

I remember wonderful, Father Muenster would call the eight grades of school out on the lawn on a sunny day under the trees and he would sing and play the guitar, we would join in singing and the Presentation Sisters too with their veils blowing in the breeze. Father would sing "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands" and "The Little Blue Man."

I am happy you have such wonderful memories of such pleasant experiences. However, they do not negate the less than wonderful experiences others have had.

True story, since you mentioned "He's got the whole world in His hands." When I was being delivered, they had a radio on in the room. But when things got especially tricky, they shut it off in order to focus on the task at hand. Once I finally popped out safely, they turned the radio back on and the first thing that came out was the line, "He's got the little bitty baby in his hands." I was a star on the ward, I was. But I didn't let it go to my head, promise.

I don't know why it happened, the loss of faith, maybe God allowed the world what they wanted so 30+ years of 'bad catechesis" or none at all. I was a part of it too. If people understood the treasure of the faith and 'grace' given in it, they would run to it.

Another true story. One day I was sitting there not paying attention to the nuns when a voice in my head said, "400 million Hindus can't be wrong." It was just a stray thought, but it wasn't like I was the one thinking it because it wasn't on my radar certainly. Oddly enough, however, a year or two later when I finally got introduced to yoga, the attraction was immediately and unrelenting. It was the total opposite of my experience with the Church, which always felt foreign. This felt much more like coming home, and given that reincarnation was part of the package, of course I wondered if I had spent an earlier incarnation in India. I have no idea if I have, but it certainly has always felt like it and I have never had to talk myself into the idea of reincarnation in any way. From the first moment I learned of the concept, my reaction was, "of course."

There are non-Christian beliefs if you mean to call belief "traditions." There are non-Catholic Christian "traditions" and Catholic Christian "traditions." Whatever your belief now people go for the third, specifically, Roman Catholic traditions. Ask God in prayer if it is THE faith. Ask Our Lord's mother to help you believe. Study Roman Catholicism reading Catholic writings, the Catechism, the Douay-Rheims Bible, biographies and writings of the saints, type in Catholic Apologetics first as a help when you search online, there is so much anti-Catholicism.

I was speaking of the yogic tradition. I've never felt a connection to Hinduism as a whole, though I resonate with the imagery, but I always found the mystical core of yoga to be the speed I vibrated at. Like I said, I viewed the Catholic saints as Christian yogis. Certainly, their mystic experience seems to have parallels with the much older yogic tradition. That was the connection I found attractive while the theological and liturgical traditions held no attraction for me at all. And, as for the DR bible, best not to bring up the Jesuits as my view of them is, uh, less than salutary.

Catholics who are WATCHERS for a lot of years have been praying for conversions. Prayer for the 'grace' of God to touch hearts. Lately BlueMoonJoe, I wonder and fervently hope I will still be here to see the prophesied divine events take place. It is going to happen, God is going to show each person in the world RC is THE faith. No fake, only God can show each of us, every moment of our lives

Well, I hope you are still here to see what you wish to see. And I can see that you appear to be a traditionalist as opposed to a modernist and not on board with Vatican II, given your view of RC being THE faith.

I have been reading about the schism lately within the Church and how it colors the view members have of Francis. This thread was about the hatred some people have towards Catholics, but I'm not sure if most folks realize that the hottest flame burns within as opposed to without, especially with the anti-popes and the sedevacanist wing.

Oddly enough, it was the ecumenical embrace that I found most attractive re Vatican II, as the oneness of all religions on the esoteric level is a cardinal point of my tradition. I'm not sure that I still believe that is true and the more I learn, the more confusing it gets, especially because the more I learn of Vatican II, the more I dislike it and see it as a means of tearing down the Church. Of course, this gets awfully complicated and brings in all that Illuminati/Mason aspect that most folks either scoff at or are blissfully unaware of.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Heh. I'm fairly certain this would have worked better If you had quoted something so I could have had a clue as to what you were referring to.