The Non-existence Of God

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349319227' post='2489804']
No that's not at all what I'm saying. Just the opposite. I'm inclining TOWARD the humanity of the church. It's only against the claim to divinity and the narrative of election that the humanity of the church becomes a scandal to be explained away. And I'm questioning the idea of there being a "teaching of the Church" that is not a figment of the historical imagination. As I said, what we call "Catholicism" today is largely a fantasy of bourgeois society. The American pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Latin, etc. agenda has more to do with middle class fixations than it does with historical Christianity. I say that not in criticism but as an observation that we construct "the teaching of the Church" the same way we construct our conceptions of god: according to our self-obsessed prejudices.
[/quote]
No one ever claimed that churchmen are divine or incapable of sin and evil. I thought you'd know better than to attack that strawman.

As for your remark that "the American pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Latin, etc. agenda has more to do with middle class fixations than it does with historical Christianity," that is pure unadulterated nonsense and drivel.
Seriously, Era, you're a smart guy, and I've come to expect better from you than this.

The Church has always taught consistently that abortion (the murder of an unborn child) is wrong and gravely sinful, and has always upheld marriage, and regarded extra-marital sexual activity, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts, as sinful. Just read the New Testament.
Abortion is explicitly condemned in the Didache, which is one of the oldest Christian documents, nearly as old as the Gospels.

These are unchanging and universal moral teachings of the Church, and have nothing to do with "fantasies of bourgeois society," "American middle-class fixations," (Good grief! Drop the pretentious neo-Marxism already!) or " self-obsessed prejudices."

The evil of abortion, and the sanctity of marriage are repeatedly and consistently denounced by the Pope in Rome, and the magisterium, and can hardly be dismissed as the products of American middle-class obsessions. (And are just as likely to be disregarded or rejected by middle-class Americans. Plenty of "middle class" Americans don't want to follow any of the Church's moral teachings they find inconvenient - look at the contraceptive use.)

And I'm not sure how Latin fits into all this, as the majority of middle-class suburban American Catholics attend Novus Ordo masses in English, and seem content with this. I attend a traditionally Latin Mass Parish, but it really isn't any more or less "American middle class" than any other parish.

Perhaps, rather, it's the objections to the Church's moral teachings regarding things such as abortion and sexual morality that are based in "self-obsessed prejudices."

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1349393079' post='2490077']
Seriously, Era, you're a smart guy, and I've come to expect better from you than this.

...(Good grief! Drop the pretentious neo-Marxism already!)"
[/quote]
hehe. You and I speak different languages. That's why I'm hesitant to even bring this topic up here...we're not speaking the same language, so a lot of what I say probably sounds like wild nonsense. It's probably a fault of mine because I don't have the patience to translate what I say in terms other people will understand...I speak with a lot of assumptions and premises, which I can't fault people for not catching, and I have a bad habit of taking literary license.

But then again, when it comes to topics such as this, I'm not sure any amount of writing can translate beliefs. You either believe one way or the other, and it's usually impossible to see the other side. 10 years ago I would have been aghast to see someone speaking as I speak now. I wouldn't have understood...how could I? There are moments in a person's life when the scales fall from their eyes, and they see things as they didn't see them before. St. Paul had such a moment. Malcolm X had such a moment. That's the main theme I was trying to get at in this thread, that the human experience is so diverse, yet follows predictable patterns. It's a beautiful thing, I think...though I guess if you buy into one particular narrative, it's hard to see other experiences as beautiful. If Christianity is the true religion, then everyone else is just deluded, stupid, or evil. I find it hard to dismiss the experience of billions of non-Christians in such a way. And even among Christians there is a wide range of experiences (it's no coincidence that the church took up ecumenism at the same time, in the 20th century, when the diversity of human experience was gaining acceptance...again, the church accommodating itself to the world around it).

Edited October 4, 2012 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349365299' post='2489931']Basically, I've found the world more complex and complicated than the official Christian narrative admits. I knew nothing when I came into the church. Now I know more than I knew. I don't claim to know everything.
[/quote]
Era, I'm sorry to hear about your recent discovery regarding faith.

I can definitely understand your recent difficulty with the complexities of this world. Just reading the history of Christianity, especially after hearing some of the EWTN accounts of history, can be extremely disconcerting. I know that this is true of lots of other things as well. I'm not sure what you mean by the official Church narrative though...

Is there something in particular that you find difficult? I know you've made some comments about the early Church, but I don't really think it was quite that loosely defined.

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349394022' post='2490087']
Era, I'm sorry to hear about your recent discovery regarding faith.

I can definitely understand your recent difficulty with the complexities of this world. Just reading the history of Christianity, especially after hearing some of the EWTN accounts of history, can be extremely disconcerting. I know that this is true of lots of other things as well. I'm not sure what you mean by the official Church narrative though...

Is there something in particular that you find difficult? I know you've made some comments about the early Church, but I don't really think it was quite that loosely defined.
[/quote]
I think you pin the nail on the head that, at root, this is an historical difficulty for me. I'm a literary man so it's not much of a leap for me to be comfortable with Christian legends and theology and spirituality. Even now I pray to my list of saints every morning...I don't have a problem doing that. The Gospel is a beautiful thing...I can believe in Christ like I believe in Shakespeare's plays.

But the difficult thing for me is the difference between fantasy and reality, between history and faith. I think we all know what you mean by "EWTN accounts of history." The Catholic apologetics scene is an attempt to uphold the fortress Catholicism that is a product of the counter-reformation, of papal politics, etc. The usual apologetics is about gymnastic attempts to prove why the church was right at every step...it's the Catholic version of Protestants who can't accept the implications of evolutionary theory.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349394392' post='2490089']
I think you pin the nail on the head that, at root, this is an historical difficulty for me. I'm a literary man so it's not much of a leap for me to be comfortable with Christian legends and theology and spirituality. Even now I pray to my list of saints every morning...I don't have a problem doing that. The Gospel is a beautiful thing...I can believe in Christ like I believe in Shakespeare's plays.

But the difficult thing for me is the difference between fantasy and reality, between history and faith. I think we all know what you mean by "EWTN accounts of history." The Catholic apologetics scene is an attempt to uphold the fortress Catholicism that is a product of the counter-reformation, of papal politics, etc. The usual apologetics is about gymnastic attempts to prove why the church was right at every step...it's the Catholic version of Protestants who can't accept the implications of evolutionary theory.
[/quote]
My wife used to study theology and she was very distraught to realize that what she understood as "theology" was actually more like high school textbooks in relation to the rest of the field of theology. It was a bit of a rude awakening for her when she went to grad school. It took her a long time to accept that there was more to the story.

I'm not sure if I have much advice, except maybe keep reading. You're finding out that there's more to the story now, and that will actually always be true. What looks one way now might in fact seem different later on, if you keep reading...

[Era Might]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1349394848' post='2490092']
My wife used to study theology and she was very distraught to realize that what she understood as "theology" was actually more like high school textbooks in relation to the rest of the field of theology. It was a bit of a rude awakening for her when she went to grad school. It took her a long time to accept that there was more to the story.

I'm not sure if I have much advice, except maybe keep reading. You're finding out that there's more to the story now, and that will actually always be true. What looks one way now might in fact seem different later on, if you keep reading...
[/quote]
I absolutely agree. That's why I say I haven't really abandoned Christianity, there is much to read. But for the first time in a long time I feel at peace acknowledging that my faith no longer exists. It's better than lying to myself.

[sixpence]

I dunno.... when I try to envision some glorious "humanity" beautifully struggling to learn and grow...to no apparent end point...destined to be destroyed by some act of nature in the future... well that is really just something interesting happening as living things evolve on this planet...i don't think it is this romanticized idea that you have in your head...

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1349393079' post='2490077'] I thought you'd know better than to attack that strawman.[/QUOTE]


[img]http://helian.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/pot-kettle.jpg[/img]



[QUOTE] These are unchanging and universal moral teachings of the Church, and have nothing to do with "fantasies of bourgeois society," "American middle-class fixations," (Good grief! Drop the pretentious neo-Marxism already!) or " self-obsessed prejudices."
[/quote]

Those terms are not uniquely Marxist Nor is there anything about those terms that would identify them as being neo-Marxist as opposed to simply Marxist, even if they were uniquely Marxist phrases, which they aren't.

Not that I want to throw into question whether you've actually substantively read Marx or neo-Marxists.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Hasan

[Egidio]

Era Might, please look at this link.

[url="http://www.clairval.com/lettres/en/textes/preuves_en.htm"]http://www.clairval.com/lettres/en/textes/preuves_en.htm[/url]

It may be stuff you have heard before, but if you are seriously trying to find the one and unalterable truth, you [u][i]WILL[/i][/u] find it, and this might help the search.

Praying that you will have good hunting.

I am at your service if I can help in any other way.


[font=courier new,courier,monospace][size=5][color=#000080]AVE MARIA![/color][/size][/font]

[Tally Marx]

Hello, Era!
Thank you for sharing.
I really think that is it normal to "lose faith," to doubt what you have been taught or once thought to be factual. I think it is because we often get confused between reason and faith, and mistake knowing for believing. So, when we come to a point where what we know doesn't match up with what we believe, we do not know how to handle that, and say we have "lost faith". It has happened to me every few years or so since I was twelve; I doubt you and I are alone in this.

I do not know if I can answer any of your problems. I do not really understand exactly what you are struggling with. Are you confused as to the Catholic Church being what she claims to be--the only Church founded by Christ? Are you doubting what the Church is and she was meant to be? Are you doubting this one denomination or the existence of God Himself? Do you doubt the existence of God because you doubt the factuality of the claims of this one denomination?
I do not know if providing an answer would help. When I "lost faith" because I put too much emphasis on knowing, it took more than mere knowledge to drag me back. I eventually found my answers; I had to come to terms with the new knowledge I found (and I didn't always like it), sure, and that helped me a bit. But knowledge isn't faith, and pulling me out of the swamp that my disillusion had sent me to took more than a "restoration" of reason.

It is difficult to "lose faith," and to admit to others that you have lost it. Especially when they (supposedly) have all the knowledge and want to try to bring you back through the might of their reason. You're pretty brave to post here about it. I hope you can find your answers, and I hope that you "find your faith" again. I'll be praying for you, and I hope you keep praying even if you don't feel like it. I'm sure, whatever happens, that it'll be okay. If you want to PM me, I might be able to answer some of your questions...or just tell you what happened to me in similar circumstances if you think it'll be useful. If you want, feel free.

Pax et bonum!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349395050' post='2490095']
I absolutely agree. That's why I say I haven't really abandoned Christianity, there is much to read. But for the first time in a long time I feel at peace acknowledging that my faith no longer exists. It's better than lying to myself.
[/quote]Do you now find viewing the bulk of principles and values of Christianity as a Phlisophy, (sans the Religious Institution) comforting and more aggreable your conscience and your understanding of Natural Law?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349275159' post='2489569']


I've lost my faith, and this thread is about the basic argument

Thoughts on my argument?
[/quote]
Everyone spends time in the wilderness. I think God lets us feel alone at times to contemplate what it would be like without him. How can there be a left if there is no right? An up if there is no down? Cold if there is no hot? How could the prodigal son and father experience the joy of the home coming if the son had never left? God will keep inviting you home. Prayers that you will answer the call soon.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349393412' post='2490083']
hehe. You and I speak different languages. That's why I'm hesitant to even bring this topic up here...we're not speaking the same language, so a lot of what I say probably sounds like wild nonsense. It's probably a fault of mine because I don't have the patience to translate what I say in terms other people will understand...I speak with a lot of assumptions and premises, which I can't fault people for not catching, and I have a bad habit of taking literary license.[/quote]
Well, I speak English (or at least make an effort to). I'm really not sure what language you posted in, but would it be asking too much of you for you to translate it into English for me?

In English, your post does in fact come across as wild nonsense. The Church's moral teachings on matters such as abortion and marriage have nothing to do with economic class, so I think it's silly and nonsensical to dismiss them as "a fantasy of bourgeois society" or "middle class fixations."

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but that's why I thought your posting sounded "neo-Marxist," because it seems like you're trying to force everything into some kind of class-warfare narrative. (As if Catholic moral teachings are in fact nothing more than tools of the bourgeois to oppress the proletariat, or something.)

Nor are these Catholic moral teachings unique to or rooted in America.

Are the strong and persistent teachings, for instance, of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI regarding marriage and sexuality the result of American middle class fixations?

Or was Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta's strong opposition to abortion the product of her "self-obsessed prejudices"?
Or what about the teachings of St. Paul or St Augustine, for that matter?

While my language translation skills are admittedly poor, or perhaps I'm just unable to appreciate your fine literary flourishes, but it looks to me like you're trying to dismiss Catholic moral teachings because they're associated in your mind with conservative Republicans or other people you don't like, while disregarding the facts of the matter.

[quote]But then again, when it comes to topics such as this, I'm not sure any amount of writing can translate beliefs. You either believe one way or the other, and it's usually impossible to see the other side. 10 years ago I would have been aghast to see someone speaking as I speak now. I wouldn't have understood...how could I? There are moments in a person's life when the scales fall from their eyes, and they see things as they didn't see them before. St. Paul had such a moment. Malcolm X had such a moment. That's the main theme I was trying to get at in this thread, that the human experience is so diverse, yet follows predictable patterns. It's a beautiful thing, I think...though I guess if you buy into one particular narrative, it's hard to see other experiences as beautiful. If Christianity is the true religion, then everyone else is just deluded, stupid, or evil. I find it hard to dismiss the experience of billions of non-Christians in such a way. And even among Christians there is a wide range of experiences (it's no coincidence that the church took up ecumenism at the same time, in the 20th century, when the diversity of human experience was gaining acceptance...again, the church accommodating itself to the world around it).[/quote]
This sounds pretty relativistic, and seems to trivialize the whole issue of truth.

It stands to reason that contradictory claims cannot all be true. For instance, Christianity, Islam, and atheism cannot all be true. If one of these beliefs is true, then the other two are false, regardless of how "beautiful" one regards the falsehoods.

If Christ was not in fact God's Only Son, who died and was resurrected for the salvation of man, then the Christian Faith is in fact a lie and a fraud (what we Christians would call "evil") - and one that led to the needless suffering and death of many to perpetuate that fraud. Little beautiful about that.

And people can be wrong or mistaken without necessarily being evil or stupid. Intelligent people can be misled or fall into error.

And true ecumenism does not mean accepting all religions as equally true and valid, but dialogueing with people of other religions with the goal of bringing them to the One True Faith.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Era - you should go on a monastic retreat. 3-7 days or so to just clear your head, your heart, and just contemplate. Most of them are free and only take donations if you want to give.

If you do one though, don;t go Jesuit...hard to predict what you'll get. (srsly - did 2 myself)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1349394392' post='2490089']
I think you pin the nail on the head that, at root, this is an historical difficulty for me. I'm a literary man so it's not much of a leap for me to be comfortable with Christian legends and theology and spirituality. Even now I pray to my list of saints every morning...I don't have a problem doing that. The Gospel is a beautiful thing...I can believe in Christ like I believe in Shakespeare's plays.[/quote]
The difference is that Shakespeare did not intend everything in his plays to be understood as literal truth.
As far as I know, nobody has undergone torture and death on behalf of Hamlet or Puck.

The early Christians (as well as those Christians undergoing persecution for the Faith today) certainly did not regard their Faith as simply a pretty literary fantasy.

[quote]But the difficult thing for me is the difference between fantasy and reality, between history and faith. I think we all know what you mean by "EWTN accounts of history." The Catholic apologetics scene is an attempt to uphold the fortress Catholicism that is a product of the counter-reformation, of papal politics, etc. The usual apologetics is about gymnastic attempts to prove why the church was right at every step...it's the Catholic version of Protestants who can't accept the implications of evolutionary theory.[/quote]
Exactly what "EWTN account of history" do you find so false, and damning to the truth of the Faith?

Everyone will admit that Popes and other churchmen can and have made poor prudential or political decisions at times.

There is a lot of anti-Catholic prejudice and propaganda (from both Protestant and anti-religious) sources which infects much of popular history, which I don't buy, which tries to paint the Church as the villain at every turn, and I think has been rightly counteracted by Catholic historians. I don't think protestant or atheistic historians are inherently any more objective or truthful than those that are faithful Catholics. There are a lot of folks with very strongly anti-Catholic axes to grind, even if they do not admit their prejudices.