Theology

[greyhammer90]

"Rejecting Jesus" in this context is not a one-time decision (though most Evangelicals believe that to be case), but a process by which a man learns objective moral truth and decides (through his daily actions) whether to conform his life to that truth or not.

And this objectivity is provided by?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And this objectivity is provided by?

Perhaps that's misleading. The Church holds that moral truth is objective, and that its doctrine contains more of it than any other faith. I've fallen into the habit of distinguishing objective moral truth from subjective sin because relativism starts to creep into the discussion when I don't.

 

[greyhammer90]

"Rejecting Jesus" in this context is not a one-time decision (though most Evangelicals believe that to be case), but a process by which a man learns Catholic dogma and decides (through his daily actions) whether to conform his life to Catholic dogma or not.

Perhaps that's misleading. The Church holds that moral truth is objective, and that its doctrine contains more of it than any other faith. I've fallen into the habit of distinguishing objective moral truth from subjective sin because relativism starts to creep into the discussion when I don't.

So are the changes I've made to your statement above accurate regarding objectivity?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So are the changes I've made to your statement above accurate regarding objectivity?

Not quite. Though the Church believes its doctrine offers the most complete set of moral truths available, one can learn moral truth (and choose to accept or reject it) from countless sources. You don't have to be Catholic, or even Christian, to find salvation. Those with more fully formed consciences are held to a higher standard than others.

 

[greyhammer90]

Not quite. Though the Church believes its doctrine offers the most complete set of moral truths available, one can learn moral truth (and choose to accept or reject it) from countless sources. Those with more fully formed consciences are held to a higher standard than others.

How are people expected to recognize an "objective" moral truth when it appears if not strictly from the church? And how are believers expected to know that they are one of the few with "fully formed consciences" so that they can trust their own judgment on what is moral and what is not? I can't think it would be a "gut" thing, because there are plenty of things that I don't think are wrong in my gut that Catholic doctrine clearly defines as being sinful.

 

[woolybug25]

I know the discussion has already moved on from this, but I wanted to address this quickly. My understanding of the "God of the Gaps" argument is this: "Science still can't explain X,Y,Z; therefore, God!" Its weakness is obvious, because empiricism is constantly shrinking the sphere of things that can't be explained.

But the Argument from Contingency isn't based on the laws of physics, per se. It's a philosophical argument that quickly brings us to the point of infinite regression, which empiricism cannot accept on its own terms (and is therefore inadequate explain it). How one chooses to address the infinite regression invariably involves an assertion of faith; you can either assert that something supernatural caused the infinite regression (and the fact that the laws of physics apparently don't apply to that something is hardly problematic since it exists outside the set in which those laws have force), or you can simply assert the necessity of the Universe itself, or abstract mathematical objects, etc. (which is basically theism by a different name). But it's not "proving" God through the laws of physics.

This is what i'm talking about though. The entire basis of of the "God of the Gaps" is that by our rules, there is a gap. Then in turn, that gap can be explained by God.

But that argument in a whole is counterintuitive. If our laws formulate the gap, then they cannot simply be dismissed because of it.

I compare it to not having the ability to sail across the ocean, so because of the lack of understanding, we take a completely counterintuitive approach to all of our knowledge of maps and assume the world is flat and that the world simply ends at one point.

I also wanted to ask you about this point:

Not a typo. CS Lewis frequently refers to humans as "gods" with a small "g". It's an effective way to convey the Christian understanding that we are far more than a collection of molecules/ the most evolved apes.

I know you are referring to CS Lewis' thoughts, not your own, but wh is this an "understanding" of Christians? Why is it rational or logical to believe that we are more than molecules/most evolved apes? We have a very clean, well understood scientific view of the world around us and this point has always bugged me. There is an aura around the belief that we are "special" and "in God's likeness", but we know for a fact that we are one of billions of species on this planet, which is one planet in billions of planets in the universe, which is one universe in a seemingless endless abyss of universes.... It's like being one grain of sand in the desert. Doesn't that seem illogical to believe that we, as a species, are singled out by a "God"?

Only on IE can we debate something as divisive as religion in such a manner. Reps abound!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

How are people expected to recognize an "objective" moral truth when it appears if not strictly from the church?

The point is that moral truth itself is objective, and the major world religions contain varying degrees of it.

And how are believers expected to know that they are one of the few with "fully formed consciences" so that they can trust their own judgment on what is moral and what is not?

One doesn't need to know how advanced his own conscience is vis a vis others in order to go about his daily life. Your conscience tells you what it tells you. A well-catechized Catholic is undoubtedly morally prohibited from a larger sphere of activity than a secular materialist. Both are judged according to their own consciences.

I can't think it would be a "gut" thing, because there are plenty of things that I don't think are wrong in my gut that Catholic doctrine clearly defines as being sinful.

That's exactly what it is. If you've made a good faith effort to inform your conscience (willful blindness itself would be a sin), then the only fair standard by which to judge you is your own. A man who does evil unknowingly has committed no sin.

 

[irishog77]

How are people expected to recognize an "objective" moral truth when it appears if not strictly from the church? And how are believers expected to know that they are one of the few with "fully formed consciences" so that they can trust their own judgment on what is moral and what is not? I can't think it would be a "gut" thing, because there are plenty of things that I don't think are wrong in my gut that Catholic doctrine clearly defines as being sinful.

Generally speaking, philosophy.

By and lage, man has refrained from killing a fellow man throughout our history. Why? Obviously not nearly entirely from the teachings of the Catholic Church. But because man, through self-evidence, nature, and study has determined that murdering a fellow man is "wrong." The same can be said for most other "sins" as well.

Math, science, physics, history, etc., don't have to teach us all things apart from God, they can all teach us things in harmony with God.

Again, speaking generally, most Catholics probably admire (or appreciate?) Aquinas and Aristotle as philosophers the most. Why? One showed us how to live a "moral" life in a state of nature, the other adapted those teachings to show the same...but with our concept of "God" entered into the equation.

 

[greyhammer90]

The point is that moral truth itself is objective, and the major world religions contain varying degrees of it.



One doesn't need to know how advanced his own conscience is vis a vis others in order to go about his daily life. Your conscience tells you what it tells you. A well-catechized Catholic is undoubtedly morally prohibited from a larger sphere of activity than a secular materialist. Both are judged according to their own consciences.



That's exactly what it is. If you've made a good faith effort to inform your conscience (willful blindness itself would be a sin), then the only fair standard by which to judge you is your own. A man who does evil unknowingly has committed no sin.

So you're telling me that if I, in complete good faith, disagree with a Catholic doctrine because I believe in my moral gut that the Catholic doctrine is wrong, I would actually be sinning to follow the doctrine over my own conscience?

 

[irishog77]

This is what i'm talking about though. The entire basis of of the "God of the Gaps" is that by our rules, there is a gap. Then in turn, that gap can be explained by God.

But that argument in a whole is counterintuitive. If our laws formulate the gap, then they cannot simply be dismissed because of it.

I compare it to not having the ability to sail across the ocean, so because of the lack of understanding, we take a completely counterintuitive approach to all of our knowledge of maps and assume the world is flat and that the world simply ends at one point.

I also wanted to ask you about this point:



I know you are referring to CS Lewis' thoughts, not your own, but wh is this an "understanding" of Christians? Why is it rational or logical to believe that we are more than molecules/most evolved apes? We have a very clean, well understood scientific view of the world around us and this point has always bugged me. There is an aura around the belief that we are "special" and "in God's likeness", but we know for a fact that we are one of billions of species on this planet, which is one planet in billions of planets in the universe, which is one universe in a seemingless endless abyss of universes.... It's like being one grain of sand in the desert. Doesn't that seem illogical to believe that we, as a species, are singled out by a "God"?

Only on IE can we debate something as divisive as religion in such a manner. Reps abound!

Not being a smart ass (genuinely asking), but is your basis for asking this question coming from the standpoint that "man" is no different than a worm or a blade of grass? We're all made of molecules and really share no unique distinctive traits, characteristics, or abilities?

 

[irishog77]

So you're telling me that if I, in complete good faith, disagree with a Catholic doctrine because I believe in my moral gut that the Catholic doctrine is wrong, I would actually be sinning to follow the doctrine over my own conscience?

It depends on which Catholic theologian you ask! Haha! (But sorta true.)

In some ways it's like our legal system-- mitigating circumstances. So not necessarily. Some aspects of morality are objective. You can't go kill your neighbor, despite the fact that you discerned on it for awhile. However, was your neighbor threatening you? Was he threatening others? Etc.

I know a couple who is in the process of converting to Catholicism. The husband had a vasectomy several years ago. One particular priest told them that they should abstain from intercourse for an entire year, as a "penance." It's cases like these where it becomes difficult to follow "teaching" or "conscience." Catholic doctrine can't give, well, doctrine on every single hypothetical, as the human condition is unique. Doctrine, however, can often give guidelines. Should this couple's penance be 1 day, 1 month, 1 year, the rest of their natural lives? Nobody knows exactly. But this would be a good example where much discernment, critique, and prayer should lead you to follow what is "best."

Does this make sense?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is what i'm talking about though. The entire basis of of the "God of the Gaps" is that by our rules, there is a gap. Then in turn, that gap can be explained by God.

But that argument in a whole is counterintuitive. If our laws formulate the gap, then they cannot simply be dismissed because of it.

I compare it to not having the ability to sail across the ocean, so because of the lack of understanding, we take a completely counterintuitive approach to all of our knowledge of maps and assume the world is flat and that the world simply ends at one point.

I don't see the contradiction. I think there's a difference between the "Gap", which usually means anything that science can't currently explain (but is always shrinking), and the infinite regression, which is the cosmological point at which empiricism simply can't take us any further.

Think of it like fish in a bowl. They've worked out a method for measuring and explaining everything within their bowl, and they can tell there's something outside of their bowl (the Uncaused Cause, abstract mathematical objects, whatever) but they have no way of measuring it based on their current method of inquiry. So they need a different method (philosophy) than the one they've been using (empiricism).

I know you are referring to CS Lewis' thoughts, not your own, but wh is this an "understanding" of Christians? Why is it rational or logical to believe that we are more than molecules/most evolved apes? We have a very clean, well understood scientific view of the world around us and this point has always bugged me.

We don't, really, at least not on this subject. Our understanding of consciousness, where the mind begins and the biological ends, etc. is still very poor.

There is an aura around the belief that we are "special" and "in God's likeness", but we know for a fact that we are one of billions of species on this planet, which is one planet in billions of planets in the universe, which is one universe in a seemingless endless abyss of universes.... It's like being one grain of sand in the desert. Doesn't that seem illogical to believe that we, as a species, are singled out by a "God"?

As you said yourself, we're one among countless species who have existed on this planet, and yet we're the only one with language, art, philosophy, technology, etc. Similarly, there are countless planets in a mind-bogglingly large universe, but earth at least is the only planet with sentient life in our corner of the galaxy. So by definition, we are special among species here on earth, and earth is special among planets.

Lewis addresses this much more elegantly in his book Miracles; specifically in VII -- A Chapter of Red Herrings:

The second Red Herring is this. Many people say, ‘They could believe in miracles in olden times because they had a false conception of the universe. They thought the Earth was the largest thing in it and Man the most important creature. It therefore seemed reasonable to suppose that the Creator was specially interested in Man and might even interrupt the course of Nature for his benefit. But now that we know the real immensity of the universe—now that we perceive our own planet and even the whole Solar System to be only a speck—it becomes ludicrous to believe in them any longer. We have discovered our significance and can no longer suppose that God is so drastically concerned in our petty affairs’.

Whatever its value may be as an argument, it may be stated at once that this view is quite wrong about facts. The immensity of the universe is not a recent discovery. More than seventeen hundred years ago Ptolemy taught that in relation to the distance of the fixed stars the whole Earth must be regarded as a point with no magnitude. His astronomical system was universally accepted in the Dark and Middle Ages. The insignificance of Earth was as much a commonplace to Boethius, King Alfred, Dante, and Chaucer as it is to Mr H. G. Wells or Professor Haldane. Statements to the contrary in modern books are due to ignorance.

The real question is quite different from what we commonly suppose. The real question is why the spatial insignificance of Earth, after being asserted by Christian philosophers, sung by Christian poets, and commented on by Christian moralists for some fifteen centuries, without the slightest suspicion that it conflicted with their theology, should suddenly in quite modern times have been set up as a stock argument against Christianity and enjoyed, in that capacity, a brilliant career. I will offer a guess at the answer to this question presently. For the moment, let us consider the strength of this stock argument.

When the doctor at a post-mortem looks at the dead man’s organs and diagnoses poison he has a clear idea of the different state in which the organs would have been if the man had died a natural death. If from the vastness of the universe and the smallness of Earth we diagnose that Christianity is false we ought to have a clear idea of the sort of universe we should have expected if it were true. But have we? Whatever space may really be, it is certain that our perceptions make it appear three dimensional; and to a three dimensional space no boundaries are conceivable. By the very forms of our perceptions therefore we must feel as if we lived somewhere in infinite space: and whatever size the Earth happens to be, it must of course be very small in comparison with infinity. And this infinite space must either be empty or contain bodies. If it were empty, if it contained nothing but our own Sun, then that vast vacancy would certainly be used as an argument against the very existence of God. Why, it would be asked, should He create one speck and leave all the rest of space to nonentity? If, on the other hand, we find (as we actually do) countless bodies floating in space, they must be either habitable or uninhabitable. Now the odd thing is that both alternatives are equally used as objections to Christianity. If the universe is teeming with life other than ours, then this, we are told, makes it quite ridiculous to believe that God should be so concerned with the human race as to ‘come down from Heaven’ and be made man for its redemption. If, on the other hand, our planet is really unique in harbouring organic life, then this is thought to prove that life is only an

accidental by-product in the universe and so again to disprove our religion. We treat God as the policeman in the story treated the suspect; whatever he does ‘will be used in evidence against Him’. This kind of objection to the Christian faith is not really based on the observed nature of the actual universe at all. You can make it without waiting to find out what the universe is like, for it will fit any kind of universe we choose to imagine. The doctor here can diagnose poison without looking at the corpse for he has a theory of poison which he will maintain whatever the state of the organs turns out to be.

The reason why we cannot even imagine a universe so built as to exclude these objections is, perhaps, as follows. Man is a finite creature who has sense enough to know that he is finite: therefore, on any conceivable view, he finds himself dwarfed by reality as a whole. He is also a derivative being: the cause of his existence lies not in himself but (immediately) in his parents and (ultimately) either in the character of Nature as a whole or (if there is a God) in God. But there must be something, whether it be God or the totality of Nature, which exists in its own right or goes on ‘of its own accord’; not as the product of causes beyond itself, but simply because it does. In the face of that something, whichever it turns out to be, man must feel his own derived existence to be unimportant, irrelevant, almost accidental. There is no question of religious people fancying that all exists for man and scientific people discovering that it does not. Whether the ultimate and inexplicable being—that which simply is— turns out to be God or ‘the whole show’, of course it does not exist for us. On either view we are faced with something which existed before the human race appeared and will exist after the Earth has become uninhabitable; which is utterly independent of us though we are totally dependent on it; and which, through vast ranges of its being, has no relevance to our own hopes and fears. For no man was, I suppose, ever so mad as to think that man, or all creation, filled the Divine Mind; if we are a small thing to space and time, space and time are a much smaller thing to God. It is a profound mistake to imagine that Christianity ever intended to dissipate the bewilderment and even the terror, the sense of our own nothingness, which come upon us when we think about the nature of things. It comes to intensify them. Without such sensations there is no religion. Many a man, brought up in the glib profession of some shallow form of Christianity, who comes through reading Astronomy to realise for the first time how majestically indifferent most reality is to man, and who perhaps abandons his religion on that account, may at that moment be having his first genuinely religious experience.

Christianity does not involve the belief that all things were made for man. It does involve the belief that God loves man and for his sake became man and died. I have not yet succeeded in seeing how what we know (and have known since the days of Ptolemy) about the size of the universe affects the credibility of this doctrine one way or the other.

The sceptic asks how we can believe that God so ‘came down’ to this one tiny planet. The question would be embarrassing if we knew (1) that there are rational creatures on any of the other bodies that float in space; (2) that they have, like us, fallen and need redemption; (3) that their redemption must be in the same mode as ours; (4) that redemption in this mode has been withheld from them. But we know none of them. The universe may be full of happy lives that never needed redemption. It may be full of lives that have been redeemed in modes suitable to their condition, of which we can form no conception. It may be full of lives that have been redeemed in the very same mode as our own. It may be full of things quite other than life in which God is interested though we are not.

If it is maintained that anything so small as the Earth must, in any event, be too unimportant to merit the love of the Creator, we reply that no Christian ever supposed we did merit it. Christ did not die for men because they were intrinsically worth dying for, but because He is intrinsically love, and therefore loves infinitely. And what, after all, does the size of a world or a creature tell us about its ‘importance’ or value?

There is no doubt that we all feel the incongruity of supposing, say, that the planet Earth might be more important than the Great Nebula in Andromeda. On the other hand, we are all equally certain that only a lunatic would think a man six-feet high necessarily more important than a man five-feet high, or a horse necessarily more important than a man, or a man’s legs than his brain. In other words this supposed ratio of size to importance feels plausible only when one of the sizes involved is very great. And that betrays the true basis of this type of thought. When a relation is perceived by Reason, it is

It's well worth a read.

Only on IE can we debate something as divisive as religion in such a manner. Reps abound!

Amen, brother.

 

[woolybug25]

Not being a smart ass (genuinely asking), but is your basis for asking this question coming from the standpoint that "man" is no different than a worm or a blade of grass? We're all made of molecules and really share no unique distinctive traits, characteristics, or abilities?

No, we certainly are more important in our eyes. That being said, there is an endless abyss of organisms, molecules, etc that make up existence. So it just seems illogical that we, over even the billions of organisms we don't know about, are so special that God made us in his image. That would be like winning the lottery a trillion times, statistically speaking.

This "in his image" is based solely on our belief, as humans, that we are superior being to all else. I have a hard time with that considering how small of a part of existence we make up.

 

[greyhammer90]

Does this make sense?

Both of your hypotheticals tend to dodge my question through self-defense and and ignorance of church doctrine to begin with so no.

Let's drop "killing" as being the sin in question because that's something that 99% of sane people agree with, whether you see it for moral reasons (with or without God involved), societal reasons (protection of the "herd") or personal reasons (like staying alive).

Instead, let's say contraception. Catholic doctrine on it is very clear. I was raised Catholic so I know the church's stance on it, and I know why they think what they think. However, let's assume I disagree with that stance in complete good faith. That is, I disagree with the Church not for selfish reasons but because I think that it is (morally) a completely neutral act to my core.

Am I sinning for thinking and acting in a way that expresses that thought?

And assuming that I actually really think it's a "sin" (or a moral wrong) to not use contraception and to not publicize the benefits of contraception for the poor, would I be sinning by following the Church's stance?

(Please keep in mind I'm not actually trying to argue about the specifics of Catholic doctrine as it pertains to contraception but instead using contraception as one of many examples.)

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So you're telling me that if I, in complete good faith, disagree with a Catholic doctrine because I believe in my moral gut that the Catholic doctrine is wrong, I would actually be sinning to follow the doctrine over my own conscience?

Let's use a concrete example, based on something you posted in this thread previously. Catholic doctrine teaches that masturbation is contrary to the Natural Law. If you know that, believe it, and do it anyway, then you've sinned.

You know that, but, having wrestled with this issue extensively (lol), you ultimately decide that the Church is wrong, and choose to do it anyway. Then it's possible that you haven't sinned. But setting your own standard isn't as easy as it might sound, since no one knows you better than yourself. Did you really make an effort to inform your conscience on this decision? Because willful ignorance is itself a sin. And do you really not feel even a shred of guilt when you do it? Nothing at all for the debased woman on your computer screen, who was once someone's little girl? That sort of thing.

 

[greyhammer90]

Nothing at all for the debased woman on your computer screen, who was once someone's little girl? That sort of thing.

Let's leave Kate Upton out of this.

 

[irishog77]

Do people not use magazines or movies anymore, Whiskey? Why's it gotta be a computer screen?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Do people not use magazines or movies anymore, Whiskey? Why's it gotta be a computer screen?

hammer strikes me as a pretty tech savvy guy. He's not old school like us:

And just like that, we're back to scheduled programming!

 

[greyhammer90]

Let's use a concrete example, based on something you posted in this thread previously. Catholic doctrine teaches that masturbation is contrary to the Natural Law. If you know that, believe it, and do it anyway, then you've sinned.

You know that, but, having wrestled with this issue extensively (lol), you ultimately decide that the Church is wrong, and choose to do it anyway. Then it's possible that you haven't sinned. But setting your own standard isn't as easy as it might sound, since no one knows you better than yourself. Did you really make an effort to inform your conscience on this decision? Because willful ignorance is itself a sin. And do you really not feel even a shred of guilt when you do it? Nothing at all for the debased woman on your computer screen, who was once someone's little girl? That sort of thing.

This raises a different thing I was thinking about. This is just a logic puzzle so play along:

Universe A: Church exists.
Adam and Eve are two healthy young teenagers.
Adam sees nothing wrong with having sex. He considers it a biological function of being alive, like food, and enjoys it. Eve enjoys it too. They treat it respectfully and seriously as a decision they have made together.
Church tells Adam that sex outside of marriage is bad.
Adam and Eve have sex, as per usual.
Adam later feels guilty. Not because he actually thinks it is wrong, but because he was told that God did not like it and he likes God.

Universe B: Church does not exist
Adam and Eve are two healthy young teenagers.
Adam sees nothing wrong with having sex. He considers it a biological function of being alive, like food, and enjoys it. Eve enjoys it too. They treat it respectfully and seriously as a decision they have made together.
Adam and Eve have sex, as per usual.
Adam feels no guilt.

I guess my real question is what kind of guilt are we talking about? Are we talking about "I feel guilty because I know in my heart this is wrong" or "I feel guilty because the invisible man I believe in is going to be pissed at me"

 

[woolybug25]

I don't see the contradiction. I think there's a difference between the "Gap", which usually means anything that science can't currently explain (but is always shrinking), and the infinite regression, which is the cosmological point at which empiricism simply can't take us any further.

Think of it like fish in a bowl. They've worked out a method for measuring and explaining everything within their bowl, and they can tell there's something outside of their bowl (the Uncaused Cause, abstract mathematical objects, whatever) but they have no way of measuring it based on their current method of inquiry. So they need a different method (philosophy) than the one they've been using (empiricism).

But why does that lead to God? We know that there is something outside of our fishbowl, but that literally has no connection to a higher power. In our case, our fish bowl is our planet. There were times where people believed that outside of this "fishbowl" existed heaven. Now we know that its one planet in a solar system of planets. Then we found out that its one solar system in an edless abyss of solar systems. But yet... we still push out the belief that somewhere out there... the next fishbowl involves God. I don't get it.

We don't, really, at least not on this subject. Our understanding of consciousness, where the mind begins and the biological ends, etc. is still very poor.

I may have phrased that poorly. What I meant by that is that our scientific undestanding clearly agrees on the fact of our existence being a small part of the universe. We know we are one planet in billions solar systems, that makes up a universe.

It's the same thought process that made the mayans worship the sun, greeks worship Zues or native americans pray to the great spirit. Our evolved society looks down on those beliefs and even widely consider them as mythology or pagan. When in reality, their basis for their religion is no different than the basis for modern religion.

As you said yourself, we're one among countless species who have existed on this planet, and yet we're the only one with language, art, philosophy, technology, etc. Similarly, there are countless planets in a mind-bogglingly large universe, but earth at least is the only planet with sentient life in our corner of the galaxy. So by definition, we are special among species here on earth, and earth is special among planets.

We are special by our own opinion. Why are we to assume that a God feels the same? Especially since, by scientific fact, we are one planet in billions?

But again, we insuinate that because we don't know the answer to something, that a God in our likeness and within our understanding, must be the answer.


This is good convo.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Let's use a concrete example, based on something you posted in this thread previously. Catholic doctrine teaches that masturbation is contrary to the Natural Law. If you know that, believe it, and do it anyway, then you've sinned.

You know that, but, having wrestled with this issue extensively (lol), you ultimately decide that the Church is wrong, and choose to do it anyway. Then it's possible that you haven't sinned. But setting your own standard isn't as easy as it might sound, since no one knows you better than yourself. Did you really make an effort to inform your conscience on this decision? Because willful ignorance is itself a sin. And do you really not feel even a shred of guilt when you do it? Nothing at all for the debased woman on your computer screen, who was once someone's little girl? That sort of thing.

I've been thinking about things like this... So would it be better for society if porn was made a crime?

 

[greyhammer90]

I've been thinking about things like this... So would it be better for society if porn was made a crime?

I don't want to stifle debate but could we not discuss what should and should-not be legislated in this thread? It's a beautiful thread and politics will kill it in a heartbeat.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I don't want to stifle debate but could we not discuss what should and should-not be legislated in this thread? It's a beautiful thread and politics will kill it in a heartbeat.

I'm just getting lost at how one can expect the majority of people to follow Catholic doctrine given man's fallen nature.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm just getting lost at how one can expect the majority of people to follow Catholic doctrine given man's fallen nature.

I don't know if you are joking or not.

Disturbing on several levels...

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I don't know if you are joking or not.

Disturbing on several levels...

I'm just saying.. take porn.

From a Catholic perspective, porn is wrong. Right? So how does one expect the majority of people to stay away from it when A) It's legal and therefore widely available B) A good amount of people will argue it is fine to watch.

Throw in man's fallen nature and I don't see how people wouldn't watch it.

 

[irishog77]

Instead, let's say contraception. Catholic doctrine on it is very clear. I was raised Catholic so I know the church's stance on it, and I know why they think what they think. However, let's assume I disagree with that stance in complete good faith. That is, I disagree with the Church not for selfish reasons but because I think that it is (morally) a completely neutral act to my core.

Am I sinning for thinking and acting in a way that expresses that thought?

This is tough to answer. Whiskey touched upon it in the post above, but I would say your conscience plays a large role. If I have to give either a yes or no answer though, then the answer is yes. All of this that Whiskey brought up about moral conscience is true...but more complicated than, "well, despite the teaching of the Church, I have decided I know more and better than the entire institution of the Catholic faith." But the neutrality you mentioned can play a factor as well. In your heart of hearts, do you still find it not to be sinful? Then, Catholic doctrine could be on your side, a bit. But we are also called to be humble and obedient. So if something is neutral anyway, then why be contrarian and go against the teaching? Do we not put ourselves above others, and perhaps God, if we act on our own morality? Aren't we ourselves attempting to play the role of God by acting as if we are the omniscient being? So while we may be acting based on our own well-formed conscience, we may also be "sinning" in order to get there. Which would negate it altogether. Kind of an "I sinned in order for me not to sin" type of situation. Or perhaps even a "the ends justify the means" type of situation.

And assuming that I actually really think it's a "sin" (or a moral wrong) to not use contraception and to not publicize the benefits of contraception for the poor, would I be sinning by following the Church's stance?

I think we all can see a "benefit" to contraception in all levels of our society. But I find this to be a case of the ends justifying the means. Sure, certain aspects of our lives, personally and as a member of a society, would improve with mass use of contraception. But sinning is not the answer to achieve these improvements. So yes, if having to give a simple yes or no answer, then it would be sinful.

But we are ultimately judged by God. As He created each one of us in His own image and likeness, I think He will similarly judge us accordingly-- uniquely. And all things can be reconciled through Him.

It's the shades of gray that have kept philosophers and theologians busy for many, many years...and will continue to do so. A priest friend of mine told me about a couple he counseled where the woman developed a condition (ailment) that made pregnancy dire, literally. He said to me, "what am I supposed to tell these people? That they can't ever have sex again? Or that they can't use contraception?" So, I think individual circumstances can play a role in forming one's conscience.

These are my answers based on my understanding of 16 years of formal Catholic education and philosophy, as well as my own continuing education (which I'll admit has not been what I'd like it to be over the last several years : / ).

(Please keep in mind I'm not actually trying to argue about the specifics of Catholic doctrine as it pertains to contraception but instead using contraception as one of many examples.)

Yeah, I read you loud and clear. As others have said, I enjoy this thread. True discussion taking place.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm just saying.. take porn.

From a Catholic perspective, porn is wrong. Right? So how does one expect the majority of people to stay away from it when A) It's legal and therefore widely available B) A good amount of people will argue it is fine to watch.

Throw in man's fallen nature and I don't see how people wouldn't watch it.

So you think that the government should ban porn because its against your religion?

Are you serious? This isn't Afghanistan, dude...

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

So you think that the government should ban porn because its against your religion?

Are you serious? This isn't Afghanistan, dude...

Lol I'm not Catholic (or muslim, buddhist etc ... although I have been hanging out with a member of the Church of the Latter-Day Dude. He is a cannabis farmer, seriously. )

I'm saying IF God is real and Catholicism is the closest thing to his truth... then how does a Catholic live in contemporary America when by their standards many people are saying sinning is fine.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I guess my real question is what kind of guilt are we talking about? Are we talking about "I feel guilty because I know in my heart this is wrong" or "I feel guilty because the invisible man I believe in is going to be pissed at me"

Definitely the former. The latter is childlike. If a man feels guilty only because some cleric told him the Invisible Censor in the Sky disapproves of his behavior, he doesn't really have a well-formed conscience, does he?

But why does that lead to God? We know that there is something outside of our fishbowl, but that literally has no connection to a higher power. In our case, our fish bowl is our planet. There were times where people believed that outside of this "fishbowl" existed heaven. Now we know that its one planet in a solar system of planets. Then we found out that its one solar system in an edless abyss of solar systems. But yet... we still push out the belief that somewhere out there... the next fishbowl involves God. I don't get it.

God isn't the only logical end to the Argument from Contingency; just some "necessary" object (which may be God, or something else). I don't think the comparison of our planet to the fish bowl is very apt. The infinite regression isn't simply the edge of our known universe; it gets to the cosmological origins of everything. And empiricism is no closer today to explaining the infinite regression than the Greeks were thousands of years ago. So we need philosophy at some point, and both theists and empiricists end up making faith statements regarding the infinite regression.

I may have phrased that poorly. What I meant by that is that our scientific undestanding clearly agrees on the fact of our existence being a small part of the universe. We know we are one planet in billions solar systems, that makes up a universe.

I can't answer this better than Lewis does above.

It's the same thought process that made the mayans worship the sun, greeks worship Zues or native americans pray to the great spirit. Our evolved society looks down on those beliefs and even widely consider them as mythology or pagan. When in reality, their basis for their religion is no different than the basis for modern religion.

OMM brought this up earlier, but I'm amazed at how similar the creation myths are between disparate ancient peoples who had no contact whatsoever. Seems to reinforce the idea of revelation, or at least some ancestral memory of life before the Fall. But I don't "look down" on their beliefs as superstitious nonsense. There's moral truth in all of them, and for all their flaws, they fulfilled a primal human need for purpose and a narrative framework for their lives. Some are inclined to explain that away as human arrogance or egotism, but that simply begs the question. Do we see such behavior from any other creature on the planet? As a general rule, when one feels a need, there exists something to fill that need.

We are special by our own opinion. Why are we to assume that a God feels the same? Especially since, by scientific fact, we are one planet in billions?

I'm still not following you here. We are quite obviously special among beasts. And Earth is quite obviously special among the planets (that we've observed). See the passage above from Miracles for why the insignificant size of the Earth in comparison to the cosmos has no rational relationship to our importance therein.

I'm just getting lost at how one can expect the majority of people to follow Catholic doctrine given man's fallen nature.

Humility, grace and perseverance. You don't have to be perfect. You just have to try.

 

[irishog77]

No, we certainly are more important in our eyes. That being said, there is an endless abyss of organisms, molecules, etc that make up existence. So it just seems illogical that we, over even the billions of organisms we don't know about, are so special that God made us in his image. That would be like winning the lottery a trillion times, statistically speaking.

This "in his image" is based solely on our belief, as humans, that we are superior being to all else. I have a hard time with that considering how small of a part of existence we make up.

Right. And I believe God took great care when He made dogs and animals and plants and minerals as well. Not to sound all corny, but I think the relationship between man and a good dog is truly something that demonstrates God's desire for all of His nature. We like the companionship we each provide, and we both choose to remain loyal companions with one another. It truly is fascinating.

All that being said, man is the only being God chose to enter into a covenant with. Sure, God likes cats and maple trees too, but He chose man for that covenant. Could there be other "men" out there in some far off place? Sure, it's possible. Does that lessen the love He has for us though? No. I don't have any children of my own (obviously that I know of!), but I can't imagine loving one less simply because I have multiple children. I don't know why that would be different with God. I think He loves all of his children. But while we can truly care about our dog, dogs are obviously subservient to man. Our "relationships" can only go so far with an animal. With humans, through God, our relationships can be limitless. I don't think that's coincidental.