choosing not to be catholic

[Bennn]

Well, I think it is safe to say that God would not let anyone go to hell for being reasonable. Mortal sin condemns a soul to hell, and the rejection of the Catholic faith is objectively spoken a mortal sin. This is why we as Catholics believe that it is unreasonable to reject Christ and His Church, because it is unreasonable to go to hell. So yes, I would have to say that rejecting God and His Church is intrinsically unreasonable.

Anomaly, I am saddened that you would choose not to become Catholic mostly because of what we tell you on this website. I think most of us try to do our best to express Catholic teaching in the way the Church teaches it, but we as human beings are flawed and can make mistakes, use the wrong words etc. But that is part of the mystery of the Church. She is Divinely instituted, yet made up by flawed humans. The Church often speaks of mysteries, because reason alone will not be enough to convert you. It is part of the conversion, yes. But without faith and the grace of the Holy Spirit we will always end up in a dead road, because God is bigger than our human reasoning. Phatmass is not the infallible Magisterium of the Church, but the Holy Spirit can speak to you through bits and pieces.

Is Phatmass the only source of Catholic information to you, or have you also studied official documents? I am worried that you are reluctant to draw nearer to the Church simply because we have given you sarcastic remarks or made cranky reactions towards you. If that is the case, your soul would be in danger partly because we were too lazy respond in a mature way. That does not take away that you always carry responsability for your own choices and actions, of course.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='18 May 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1274166326' post='2112658']
I think there are plenty of people who have HONESTLY pursued the truth and reasonable rejected the faith. As I said in my previous post, rejecting the matters of faith is not always a matter of reason...reason cannot get you to assent to the Matters of Faith. Reason (unaided by faith) actually sometimes gets you to the contrary to what the Church teaches...that is why Faith is ESSENTIAL for pursuing the truth. JPII's, [i]Fides et Ratio[/i] is very clear on this. Pure Reason will lead people to think the Eucharist is not the real presence, I mean how many times do accidents exist without the substance of which they are accidents of?! Transubstantiation is not very reasonable, but it is not IRRATIONAl (I am by NO MEANS saying it is not true...only that it cannot be proven true by reason, and it would be rational for someone to reject it)...the ONLY way to try to do philosophy of the Eucharist is by first taking it for granted via Faith that the Body of Christ is really present in the "bread", and then you try to explain how this can be so...it is not surprising that it is only so by way of a miracle. Much of philosophical theology is done by assuming the matters of faith, and then proceeding into the arguments.
[/quote]
Hm, ok. Reasonable is the wrong word for that.

I'm not sure what the right word is, but all I know is if someone rejects the Church without invincible ignorance, and with full responsibility for that choice, we do not believe they will be saved
I agree that reason alone only gets you so far, of course.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='18 May 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1274190230' post='2112707']
Hmmm. Read everything here on Phatmass and choose not to be Catholic? Absolutely not unreasonable. Being a participant here since 2000 is a Big part of why I choose to NOT be Catholic. Like Hassan said, it's the unreasonable claims and declarations that go beyond a reasonbale foundation that brings the house of cards down.
[/quote]
Your mind was made up before you came here. You're simply here to troll, and you're not fooling anyone.

[Winchester]

From a purely human level, it may be reasonable to reject Catholicism intellectually, after reading everything on here or even after reading the really great works of Catholicism.


Human reason is limited; it is not in accord with full and right reason to reject truth or a means to be perfectly happy for eternity.


Faith itself is a gift, Catholics do not believe in salvation through knowledge and thus I think cannot put intellectual rejection of the Church on the same level as true spiritual (best I can come up with) rejection of the Church.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' date='18 May 2010 - 03:15 AM' timestamp='1274166941' post='2112660']
If you learned "Aquinas's" 5-ways in 10th grade, then you most likely didn't really learn Aquinas's 5-ways. The 5-ways are by FAR the most oversimplified arguments in the history of philosophy, and is is incredibly sad.[/quote]

I heard about them from my youth minister, however that is not what I studied. I checked out the Summa and read his arguments as he presented them (as translated from the Latin by an order of Dominican Friars). I had never read scholastic philosophy before so it took several hours of on again off again reading to really start to get into his language but my sources in this are primary.


[QUOTE]To adequately study the 5-ways you have to be a master at Aristotelian causality (especially efficient causality and final causality...both of which have been utterly misunderstood for centuries), theories of Neo-Platonic relations, a rather rigorous study in medieval theories of modality, to name a few. His arguments PRESUPPOSE all this. If you think Aquinas's argument can be summarized by talking about billard balls or parents and grandparents, or if after hearing his argument you think you can raise the objection "But if God caused everything, who caused God"; then you have utterly misunderstood Aquinas's arguments. It is sad that so many people teach Aquinas so poorly, especially since he said giving a real BAD argument in support of the truths of the Faith does more damage then keeping your mouth shut." (roughly speaking)[/QUOTE]

could you be more specific?

I'm happy to admit that I was not then and am not now anything close to an expert on Aristotelian or Thomist philosophy. But I don't know what specific knowledge in respect to this would help the validity of his argument. Understanding the Aristotelian understanding of causality that he was working with helps explain why he thought his argument was sound. But given that no one, as far as I know, claims that Aristotelian physics are valid, I don't see how this helps make his argument any more valid.

[QUOTE]I would recommend taking a deeper study at Thomas's arguements I recommend a book by Norman Kretzmann called, "The Metaphysics of Theism" it is a book which focuses real hard on book one of Thomas's [i]Summa Contra Gentiles[/i]...that will give you a real good idea of what Aquinas's arguments are.
[/quote]

I'll keep it in mind.

[Socrates]

It seems that with atheists, if you dig deep enough, their root reason for rejecting belief in God is not actually intellectual, but moral in nature. As Neitzsche said, "if there is no God, then all things are permitted." Most atheists don't like the thought that there is a God who might punish them for their sins.
Usually it boils down to not wanting to have to follow some aspect of Judaeo-Christian morality, usually sexual in nature.
From what I've seen most atheists are not calm and rational when discussing religion, but have an obvious emotional, heated hatred for the Christian God, and Christian precepts, which they feel compelled to insult and ridicule at every opportunity.

I don't think the modern world is more rational than past ages, but it is more self-centered and immoral.

[quote name='MissyP89' date='17 May 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1274070601' post='2111719']
I voted no. The Catholics an individual comes to know here may be the only Catholics they have ever met. And we may be judged by our lack of charity in dailogue in such a way that the person is no longer comfortable with the idea of the Church.

I'm not saying this is the right view, but it's not unreasonable.
[/quote]
That may be, but it seems sometimes people are too quick to personally blame other Christians/Catholics for all failure of unbelievers to convert.

We should keep in mind that quite a few people were not at all happen with what Christ Himself had to say when He walked this earth in the flesh, and rejected Him.

Yes, we should always keep in mind true charity (which should never mean watering down the truth), but many do in fact reject the Christian message itself, and we shouldn't automatically blame the messengers.
Also, keep in mind that the Christian message, when preached in its fullness, should make all of us uncomfortable. If the Gospel preached is safe and comfortable, it's probably not the real deal.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' date='18 May 2010 - 12:56 PM' timestamp='1274198178' post='2112768']
Your mind was made up before you came here. You're simply here to troll, and you're not fooling anyone.
[/quote]
Liar. You know I used to post as jasJis defending Catholicism.
But you pefectly represented the Catholic response.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='18 May 2010 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1274212788' post='2113001']
Liar. You know I used to post as jasJis defending Catholicism.
[/quote]
I remember you posting under that name.

[Apotheoun]

I posted this in another thread, but it fits here too:

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='04 May 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1272992126' post='2104854']
The following is a salient warning given by St. Augustine to those who had been newly baptized and chrismated on Easter Sunday in the Church at Hippo: "Therefore, because you have been made members of Christ I must warn you; for I fear dangers for you, and not alone from those who are pagans, not alone from the Jews, and not so much from the heretics as from bad Catholics. Choose from among the people of God (the Christians) those you would imitate. For if you wish to imitate the multitude, you shall then not be among the few who shall enter by the narrow way" [St. Augustine, [i]Sermon 224[/i]].[/quote]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='18 May 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1274212788' post='2113001']
Liar. You know I used to post as jasJis defending Catholicism.[/quote]

Actually, no I didn't.

[quote]But you pefectly represented the Catholic response.
[/quote]

I'm not terribly faithful. I have a croutons ton of doubt. The difference between you and me is that I don't blame others for my doubt. Grow up.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Winchester

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' date='18 May 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1274213542' post='2113012']
Actually, no I didn't.



I'm not terribly faithful. I have a croutons ton of doubt. The difference between you and me is that I don't blame others for my doubt. Grow up.
[/quote]
I don't blame anyone, though I credit reality because I grew up. Get honest.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='18 May 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1274213738' post='2113014']
I don't blame anyone, though I credit reality because I grew up. Get honest.
[/quote]
Sure, kid. That's why your constant tone is one of contempt and blame. Jog on. Troll.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' date='18 May 2010 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1274213853' post='2113017']
Sure, kid. That's why your constant tone is one of contempt and blame. Jog on. Troll.
[/quote]
Churlish, yes. Contemptuous or blaming, no.

But of course since you cant intellectually defend your opinion with reasoned discourse, name calling and sophmoric wit suffice to soothe your ego. I hear you, brother.

[Anomaly]

What I'm saying is choosing not to be Catholic is often based reasoned evaluation of the evidence provided to them. It is the books and writings and arguments of Kreefts, Hans, and Atkins, as well as Augustine, Thomas, and JP's just as much as it's the Catholics you meet, the fellow parishioners, the bishops, cardinals, priests, nuns, and brothers. The Catholic Church is represented by Mother Teresa and Cardinals Mahoney and Law in Boys Town, Calcutta, and the Castro District of San Fran. The Catholic Church is Clown Masses and Tridentine Rites. Catholicism is the fragmenting of Christianity into Eastern and Western and Protestantism. Just because one choses not to be Catholic or is an atheist, does not mean they're going to grab an Uzi and trot down to Wal-Mart to bag a six pack and the poor runners.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='18 May 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1274214673' post='2113026']
Churlish, yes. Contemptuous or blaming, no. [/quote]

Then...
[quote]
But of course since you cant intellectually defend your opinion with reasoned discourse, name calling and sophmoric wit suffice to soothe your ego. I hear you, brother.
[/quote]
Previously...
[quote]Being a participant here since 2000 is a Big part of why I choose to NOT be Catholic[/quote]
[quote]What a conundrum for those who worship the temporal Church. One either needs to suspend all common sense, or admit that Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Popes, and other Church Bureacrats are Religion Politicians[/quote]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=62896&st=0"]Contemptuous language[/url]

That's contempt. Your posts are redolent with contempt. You're angry that you lost your faith, and you call out anyone you can on the slightest absence of kindness. You find the faults of the members of the Church and highlight them. Because you blame everyone but yourself. Something in your life apart from the actions of others caused your faith to die, and you're pissed off. Were you truly an atheist you wouldn't give two shits about this place. There's no reason for you to come here. You don't joke, you don't play. You don't even snark. You don't enjoy debate. You're a miserable poo and the only dim light in your life is to come here and jab at the Church you resent due to your own failure.

Much of what I've said about you also applies to me. Brother.