Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

Christianity - the end point of Paganism?

Page: 1 2 3 4(5)6

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:57 / 11.04.08

I sought only to highlight the positive effects of a conversion to one of the true Abrahamic faiths. I will of course move to delete my own post, if you are unable to deal with that. I understand that often young people like yourself can be a bit touchy and oversensitive.

Please, do not let this prevent you from addressing the various questions and topics raised here. I found this post particularly interesting, myself, but there is a fair amount of good stuff batting around.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

21:02 / 11.04.08

Likewise, I will delete snark + busgate references if it will help.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:09 / 11.04.08

Ultimately, though, this is just Kant over Kierkegaard, isn't it? You have Kant, who argues that it is reason that ultimately reveals what is good, and by extension what is holy - reason is the mechanism by which one apprehends the divine. One problem with that is that one tends to fight shy of the actual line of rational inquiry through which one discovers the divine, because as soon as you actually lay it out the rational bases of one's understanding of the rational inevitability of, in this case, Roman Catholicism are open to critique or examination, and as we have already seen with the god-made/man-made, only incarnation of God and so on, one man's unassailable reason is another man's faith-based bug-out, and one hardly wants to stick one's head above that parapet - better to allude to the path of reason one followed without actually pacing it out.

Kierkegaard, of course, held a differing view - that there was no logical path to God, or rational means of encountering the divine. Instead, one had to accept that what one was about to believe could not be supported by fact or reason, but rather relied on a leap of faith - a step into the unknown. Personally, I rather like this argument, if only because it means one has to deal with less dodgy history overall, but I can also see why it may not currently be in vogue.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

21:13 / 11.04.08

Let's be honest for a minute: there's been snark and attempts to belittle one another from both sides. Typical Barbelith stuff, sure, but I think (and this is directed to grim) what bothers people the most is the refusal to engage directly with what people have posted. Sarcasm and insults Barbelith can handle, but sarcasm and insults and crappy discourse will always get under everyone's skin.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:25 / 11.04.08

For my part, it is an acknowledgement that you were offended by it, however oversensitive it might seem to me for you to take such offence. I am sorry if this has offended you. Please do not let this stop you from addressing the points raised in this thread.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:46 / 11.04.08

Does it matter? I made a reasonable point, you got offended, I said that I was sorry if you were offended. It feels like you would at this point rather not deal with any of the questions or comments about your claims for historicity and rationality of Roman Catholicism, but would rather try to distract us by fixating on a side-issue regarding an immature and attention-seeking use of language you indulged in your fallen state?

It's an approach, but it's not a very rational or reasonable one.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:57 / 11.04.08

And again:

It feels like you would at this point rather not deal with any of the questions or comments about your claims for historicity and rationality of Roman Catholicism, but would rather try to distract us by fixating on a side-issue regarding an immature and attention-seeking use of language you indulged in your fallen state?

It's an approach, but it's not a very rational or reasonable one.

And also:

One problem with that is that one tends to fight shy of the actual line of rational inquiry through which one discovers the divine, because as soon as you actually lay it out the rational bases of one's understanding of the rational inevitability of, in this case, Roman Catholicism are open to critique or examination, and as we have already seen with the god-made/man-made, only incarnation of God and so on, one man's unassailable reason is another man's faith-based bug-out, and one hardly wants to stick one's head above that parapet - better to allude to the path of reason one followed without actually pacing it out.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:05 / 11.04.08

Well, because I thought that, having converted, or reconverted, to an Abrahamic faith, you had left such childish attention-seeking behind. It seems on current form that I was wrong - you are not here to talk about serious matters, but only to try to distract us by fixating on a side-issue regarding an immature and attention-seeking use of language you indulged in your fallen state. That's a bit of a shame. I'm not sure why you are trying to perpetuate what you claimed was threadrot, although of course after what you represent above as your apology you went on to call migrant workers by the same name, adding (oops) to show how admirably naughty you were being. Perhaps you are seeking to create the same dynamic here? To encourage us to show how naughty we are by... responding to your ongoing attempts to avoid actually confronting the limits of your reason and your historical understanding of the church you are representing as reason's answer to the puzzle of feelings of religiosity. To an extent, this is true - if not naughty, we are certainly helping you to waste time and duck questions - but of course if we do not respond you get to storm off on the grounds that you are being ignored, and again therefore escape having to put your reasoning to any kind of proof. You see the problem, I'm sure.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

22:15 / 11.04.08

Have moved for slur to be asterisked.

Could you, Calvin, perhaps stop slinging around offensive language and tell us how reason led you to the conclusion that Catholic Christianity is the objective truth, and that "the Church is making all the claims worth making"? Explain how you found your way home to Catholicism, or jump up and down screaming naughty words--what would Jesus do?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

22:59 / 11.04.08

If you are not a racist, would you please stop using that revolting ethnic slur. It is offensive and utterly unjustified.

23:09 / 11.04.08

By the way, I think Haus nailed it above, beautifully.

While reason arguably might lead one to morality and the good, true, and beautiful, it simply can't lead to Christian dogma (or any other religious dogma) without that Kierkegaardian leap of faith.

01:22 / 12.04.08

Unless you're taking Pascal's gamble perhaps?

03:22 / 12.04.08

Nope.

Pascal's Wager is a crock, if for no other reason than (i) it could apply equally to any given belief system that assumes eternal reward for proper belief/behavior or eternal punishment for improper belief/behavior, and (ii) at least some of these belief systems are not consistent with each other.

Oh -- and it seems quite clear that Grim is kicking up a fuss about a side issue to avoid answering the questions posed to him. I think at this point we can assume he's not going to provide any substantive response.

04:19 / 12.04.08

Grim, you need to give us the advertised reasoning that led you to become so convinced of this christ geezer and his teachings.

I think that sharing your reasoning would help people understand your personal journey, as would explicitly accepting that it is Your Personal Journey. CS Lewis may have said something that you agree with, but what reasoning made it so agreeable?

Walk us through your logic, step by step if need be.

If you don't show us it, and instead just keep telling us the reason path exists, then what do you expect? What would you like folk to engage with? What points are people to address? Honestly, what answers do you expect?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

07:27 / 12.04.08

its not your thread and you only came in to shout '***s'.

There may be a hefty dose of snark in the mix, but personally I think I've added quite a lot to the discussion. I've worked quite hard to get my point across, because although I don't excpect or even desire that everyone join me in it my faith is something that matters to me.

If your path was so very rational and reason-based, you would surely be able to elucidate the steps you took to get from point A. to point B. You can't, because somewhere in the middle you took a leap of faith.

And that's fine. Because you know what? So did I. I'm fully open to the fact that someone else could in theory have parsed my experiences differently (as bad wiring upstairs, as a reaction to stress, etc). For me, though, there was no other meaningful response but to embrace those experiences as having some objective reality and engage accordingly.

Maybe you could show a little Christian humility and back down on the "my choice was 100% rational!" and admit that somewhere in there is the "?????" of a leap of faith. I'd respect you a lot more if you did. Because a genuine leap of faith is not a small thing to do. It's not a trick, not a short-cut, not an easy way out. It can be the hardest thing in the world. For me, it was almost like dying in a way--I literally felt I was putting an end to one self so that another could come into being. Where is the shame in saying "yes, actually--I let go of everything sure and certain in my life and jumped out into the dark, trusting that Someone would catch me"?

And I love writing about my faith. I don't need to cut and paste anything from anywhere (except maybe my own writings) because I don't feel I'm "re-inventing the wheel" when I talk about what I believe and the path that took me where I am. I adore the Gods and spirits I venerate and no little effort is too great for Them. Pity you don't feel the same.

Even bigger pity that causing needless offense and pain is more important to you than your God.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:14 / 12.04.08

If you can neither acknowledge nor apologise for calling me a racist then moderators should do what i suggested in the first place and move the posts to the original thread on exploitation of immigrant labour and let them stand.

I didn't call you a racist. At this point, I don't think your thinking is sufficiently lucid or rational to arrive at a point that is sufficiently clear or comprehensible to be described as racist. I did say that you indulged in the attention-seeking use of racist language, and I had hoped that your conversion to one of the faiths of the Book had helped you in this regard. It appears not.

What I am getting now is that you are desperate not to expose to the light the supposedly totally reasonable path by which you returned to the See of Rome, perhaps because you have realised on some level that only in your head is it the pure logical progression that you have sold to yourself and others, and you are thus afraid to bring it into view. This is understandable, but certainly not helpful to your mission to bring the light of Christ to the savages, or even to your understanding of your own faith. Right now, the only person who is throwing around reminders of the sexy thrill you get from racist language is you - I have moved to delete my original and perfectly innocent comment, to spare your irrational offence, and your perpetuation of your tantrum smells of little more, at this point, than obfuscation.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:32 / 12.04.08

As above:

I didn't call you a racist. At this point, I don't think your thinking is sufficiently lucid or rational to arrive at a point that is sufficiently clear or comprehensible to be described as racist.

Perhaps if you can find the point anywhere in this thread where I called you a racist? Rather than, say, a desperate dissembler who has been unable to respond to straight questions long before this opportunity to squirt more ink from your fundament emerged and was gratefully seized upon?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

08:59 / 12.04.08

Okay, after a PM exchange w/Calvin, various deletes and amendments are in the post. It might be wise therefore to take a step back while we wait for those to go through, and see if the discussion can be shunted back onto the rails thereafter.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:27 / 12.04.08

I'd like Calvin to apologise for his repeated and dishonest claims that I called him a racist, after which I will look at my posts to this thread. I will be delighted but frankly surprised if this leads to any sort of better account of his path to faith.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:59 / 12.04.08

And also, as it turns out, for the abusive tone of his PMs.

00:25 / 13.04.08

Too much bourbon...but here it is...There is a complete disconnect in my mind between the incredible magickal qualities of the Catholic Church, i.e. the smell of incense, the music, the statues of saints and the Virgin Mary, the promise of absolution via Confession, my grandparents faith and burial in the Church, the sweet Irish families who would have rituals from birth to marriage to death. The most powerful ritual I have ever experienced was the stations of the cross.

On the other hand, the child abuse scandals, the birth control scandals in the third world, the rejection of the Vactican 2 by the new junta led by the doppleganger of the evil emperor of star wars...strike me down! I am defenseless!

I was an altar boy until 18, and was given the full court press for priesthood, (even while still tripping on acid). My children for the most part have not been brought up Catholic, and are much better people than me.

Truly disappointed by Grim... I wanted to hear of his non-rational reason for being Catholic...for God's sake don't claim a rational reason for Catholicism...

Less searchable M0rd4nt

08:13 / 13.04.08

...the abusive tone of his PMs.

Mmm, quite.

11:58 / 13.04.08

I do want to hear a rational justification for his return to the Catholic fold, because to me that's the most puzzling aspect of his trip. I can sort of see how someone might find it logical to convert to Christianity of some kind, probably - if one's using reason and logic to guide one's decisions - some kind of Protestant/Methodist version of Christianity - but Catholicism? I was baptised, brought up and confirmed as a Catholic and it's madder than a bagful of Tombliboos. What I want to know is how grim's forging forth with logic as his lantern and reason as his rock led, inevitably mark you, to the adoption of a religion which believes in papal infallibility.

But only from the 1880s, when Papal Infallibility was declared, mind. Pre-1880s Popes? Not infallible. Post-1880s Popes? All infallible. Even Pious IX, who tacitly condoned the Holocaust; even the current incumbent, who used to be a Nazi. All the pre-Vatican 2 Popes who endorsed the catechism which explicitly blamed 'the wicked Jews' for Christ's death were infallible, but so were the Vatican 2 judges who removed those words from the catechism and took a more liberal approach to the religion and the current lot who've rejected most of Vatican 2!

Infallible Pontiffs who make mistakes their successors have to correct - how on earth is that logical?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

12:10 / 13.04.08

I think referring to the current Pope as a former Nazi is a bit much, Veve. Yes, he was in the Hitler Youth, but membership thereof was compusory for all boys in Germany at that time. It could perhaps be argued that other boys his age (14) resisted, but millions of others did not. According to his supporters he was later to risk death by deserting the German army and giving himself up to the Allies. It's not a clear-cut case of OMG Nazi pope. (Also, the Holocaust supporter you're after was Pius XII. Pius IX died in 1878.)

Your point still stands, of course.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:49 / 13.04.08

Papal infallibility doesn't mean that everything the Pope says is infallible - it means that the Pope has certain powers to make ex cathedra pronouncements on matters of dogma, which will then be taken to be infallible. Papal infallibility was defined in 1870, not the 1880s, at the first Vatican Council, and has only been used once since, in 1950.

14:15 / 13.04.08

Well, yes, that's what you can say with facts and history, but you can't disprove what I have proved with logic to be the only logical view...

I wasn't aware that Papal Infallibility was actually a kind of theological trump card which could be used or not; I'd sort of assumed the Pope was always supposed to be infallible. Mind you, that actually does muddy the waters somewhat: if the Pope makes a pronouncement but doesn't specifically say he's using Papal Infallibilty while making it, is that infallible, or not? In which case, how does the Pope decide what decisions to make infallibly? Can he fallibly decide to make something infallible when in fact it should be left fallible? If the Pope says light is a particle while a tree falls over in the woods, how many rigid reality tunnels can he be said to have smashed with the head of a pin?

And that's leaving aside the fact that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (a doctrine concerning faith that must, presumably, be held by the whole church) appears not to have been promulgated under the power of Papal Infallibility (which allows the Pope to define doctrines concerning faith which must be held by the whole church)...It really is a brain-bender, and it does rather undermine the idea that Catholicism is the only logical way forward.

I'm sorry about calling Pope Benedict a Nazi, though.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:26 / 13.04.08

I wasn't aware that Papal Infallibility was actually a kind of theological trump card which could be used or not; I'd sort of assumed the Pope was always supposed to be infallible.

The Pope is not infallible - the Pope can make infallible pronouncements on faith, when he is revealing truth.

Mind you, that actually does muddy the waters somewhat: if the Pope makes a pronouncement but doesn't specifically say he's using Papal Infallibilty while making it, is that infallible, or not?

Not. The Pope has to make very clear that he is making an infallible pronouncement. There was some debate over whether Jean Paul II's pronoucement on contraception was infallible, but the Council of the Doctrine of the Faith concluded that it was not intended to be so.

In which case, how does the Pope decide what decisions to make infallibly? Can he fallibly decide to make something infallible when in fact it should be left fallible? If the Pope says light is a particle while a tree falls over in the woods, how many rigid reality tunnels can he be said to have smashed with the head of a pin?

I think you misunderstand the nature of Papal infallibility. The statement you give above would never be an infalliable pronouncement, because it is not a doctrine concerning faith or morals. A statement made ex cathedra by the Pope concerning a doctrine of faith or morals, stating that this doctrine must from now on be held by the whole church, is an infallible pronouncement, nothing else.

And that's leaving aside the fact that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (a doctrine concerning faith that must, presumably, be held by the whole church) appears not to have been promulgated under the power of Papal Infallibility (which allows the Pope to define doctrines concerning faith which must be held by the whole church)...It really is a brain-bender

Not really - the Pope is not the only authority in the Roman Catholic church able to make infallible pronouncements. The Sacred Magisterium, which includes the ecumenical councils, can make infallible statements concerning revealed truth - so, there's no problem with an ecumenical council - in this case the first Vatican council - making a statement that reveals the truth of the conditions for a statement by the Pope to be made infallible.

19:09 / 13.04.08

Not really - the Pope is not the only authority in the Roman Catholic church able to make infallible pronouncements. The Sacred Magisterium, which includes the ecumenical councils, can make infallible statements concerning revealed truth - so, there's no problem with an ecumenical council - in this case the first Vatican council - making a statement that reveals the truth of the conditions for a statement by the Pope to be made infallible.

Which explains that, I suppose, but the logical question that follows is, what makes the Magisterium infallible? Their position, it seems. They are, or can be, infallible because they are the Magisterium; and you can only regard the Magisterium as infallible if you've taken the leap of faith required to believe them capable of infallibility. The logic of the Catholic church makes sense within its own rules, but it's hard to see how one could be convinced of such claims outside that frame of reference.

20:49 / 13.04.08

The logic of the Catholic church makes sense within its own rules, but it's hard to see how one could be convinced of such claims outside that frame of reference.

Well, that's true of most if not all religious dogma.

For example, I think it's flatly impossible to prove that Jesus was God, that the Bible is the Word of God, or that the teachings of the Catholic Church on matters of faith are by definition true. And I think it's pretty much impossible to convince someone of any of those points of dogma without having that person make a "leap of faith" and accept them as house rules.

Hence Grim's reluctance to answer the questions posed to him.

00:21 / 14.04.08

was baptised, brought up and confirmed as a Catholic and it's madder than a bagful of Tombliboos

I may start worshiping Tombliboos....what are they, satanic telly tubbies?

00:47 / 14.04.08

Well, that's true of most if not all religious dogma.

Very true. I'm not having a go at Catholics themselves here; they're free to believe what they want, and good luck to 'em if it brings them spiritual benefits. I was just boggling at the thought that anyone could consider Catholicism - or any religion really - as not just a rational choice but the only rational choice.

00:50 / 14.04.08

I may start worshiping Tombliboos....what are they, satanic telly tubbies?

Just about, yeah. They're characters in a BBC kids' show called In The Night Garden, which is from the creators of Teletubbies, and is basically the refined, crack form of the show, judging by the amount of crappy merchandise I see kids browbeating their parents into buying at my bookshop.

10:15 / 14.04.08

Thank you for showing me teh error of my ways. I realise now i must axiomatically reject raeson as inherently fascist. Now i have accepted the tooth faerie into my heart, i am comforted that I can call on her for spare change when my teeth get knocked out.

Praise Santa Clause! Tho' reason tells me it was me Ma & Da leavin those presents all those years, I now know the truth because *its right for me*!

The Easter Bunny too is in my pantheon cos it makes me feel good to think of chocolate-egg-laying mammals **THEREFORE IT MUST BE TRU**!

To further proov my newfound OPIN MINDIDNISS I haev syncretically absorbed concepts from voodoo into my personal system of wurship. I did this cos zombees and voodoo dolls are cool and so are *true for me*!! Last nite i played 'indiana jones and the temple of doom' in teh background and used an old GI Joe figure as a voodoo doll to summon Some Voudoun Joe. He tole me xombees were REEL and that i didnt need to research actual voudoun bleefs or history cos I WAZ HAVIN A MYSTICUL INCOUNTER WIT DA TRU MASTER OF VOUDOUN!

Thank yew Barbie Lith for shewing me teh lite!!!!!1

10:40 / 14.04.08

Once more:

would you like to spell out how reason led you to the conclusion that Catholic Christianity is the objective truth, and that "the Church is making all the claims worth making"?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

11:06 / 14.04.08

Grim reader, you've already repeatedly committed a bannable offence in sending abusive PMs. Now you're deliberately attacking another member's religion. Pack it in, sunshine, or you're for the chop.

Page: 1 2 3 4(5)6