Theology

[BobbyMac]

I reject that assertion directly, unequivocally, without reservation.

After studying documents in what we would call 'The Bible' we can see Satan's creation and development as a literary device, over a period of 800 or a thousand years.

We are who we are, and always have been.

Then came Manichaeism, or the Manichean Dichotomy, good versus evil, and all that. Ironically, that early form of Gnostic thought infected Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. Which is the answer to an earlier question.

Christianity started with two creation stories, as still evidenced in Genesis today. Much of the mainline writings that were brought forward into the books we recognize in the New Testament today, have no agreement of what was taking place in the heavens. Because of course, we weren't there! But it wasn't like people who believe in a corporeal hell and devil of today describe. Why?

The difference is that a Gnostic, other than Christian belief, hijacked that particular part of Christian Dogma!

That is why there is such a distinct difference between Old Testament writings before the Second Temple Period, and New Testament writings after.

I am really good with what I have learned and experienced in Christianity, without the spheres of thoughts outside Christianity that have bled in, and influenced things.

I believe in God. I do not believe in any iteration of Good versus Evil. I do not believe in the Devil, or a fire and brimstone hell. It is all a story.

I do not believe in supernatural interjection in this world. I do believe that with imagination and love, we can project ourselves past some of the limits of this world to see beyond.

Why do we need a devil?

I can only think of a few reasons. First it allows us to abdicate our responsibilities for our own actions. Second, it is a great way of rallying our tribe together against others. Feel that your people aren't united enough? How is that for a bad guy, and we can make any group in our way his confederates, really justifying our actions, and of course making things seamless; who can dispute it? Finally, it fits the bill for the kind of emotional leverage needed to keep a broad group of people in line. Fear is the name, and there isn't anything more fearful than a creature that can steal your essence!

Nope. I haven't seen one documented case of demonic existence, through possession or appearance as a vision, or a being.

But I have seen a whole lot of people that have performed actions so horrific that I would like to believe in a devil. It is much more uncomfortable knowing that these things were done by my fellow man!

OMG. For 2+ years I thought you were this uber Catholic guy who loved his Catholic school upbringing. Wow. This is mind blowing.

So you believe in some undefined deity that created a world in which good and evil exist but operate independent of each other... if they exist at all? If not what does, "I do not believe in any iteration of Good versus Evil" mean? Using a overly simplistic example: Charles Manson breaks into your house with the intent of murdering your daughter but is stopped by a police officer before he can carry it out. That's an iteration of Good vs Evil. No?

 

[wizards8507]

How awful the Jesuits are? Good Lord.......

There are over 50 canonized Jesuit saints.
They have been leaders in scientific research and attempts to smoothly heal differences between Religion and Science since the 17th century (Pope Francis himself has a chemistry degree.)
Their stories speckle our intellectual history (it was a Jesuit scientist who wrote the book that inspired Enrico Fermi to pursue physics --- without Fermi we might all be goose-stepping today.)

Broad-brush labeling is not a good thing and almost always is a subtraction from understanding and an indication of some kind of unhelpful prejudice/closemindedness. We shouldn't do that.

Both of my sisters have gone to Jesuit universities, one at Loyola Maryland and the other at Boston College. The crap they're learning is evil and borderline heretical, in direct contrast with Rerum novarum and Centesimus annus.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Both of my sisters have gone to Jesuit universities, one at Loyola Maryland and the other at Boston College. The crap they're learning is evil and borderline heretical, in direct contrast with Rerum novarum and Centesimus annus.

Does Peter Kreeft still give classes at BC? Those would be good for your sis.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

How do you feel about other religions, such as Hinduism, who also believe in demonic possesion? From all accounts, they seem to have the ability to exorcise evil spirits as well, while not believing that the power to do so comes from the judeo Christian god.

For the vast majority of human history, peoples from all over the world have believed in malign spirits in some form or another. Secular modernists are outliers in dismissing such beliefs as silly superstition (though if you look at their actual practices, you'll find plenty of "spirituality"). I can of course understand the attraction of believing that everyone who lived before the modern era was a knuckle-dragging idiot, but studying ancient history belies that prejudice pretty quickly.

As for the effectiveness of Hindu exorcists, I'm skeptical. Homeopaths claim that their remedies are just as effective as modern medicine, which obviously isn't true. But an inability to cure doesn't necessarily mean that the diagnosis is wrong.

I reject that assertion directly, unequivocally, without reservation.

Bogs, that you feel this way doesn't surprise me at all. It's in line other such assertions like:

• Jesus had brothers and sisters;
• Mary Magdalene was an apostle, which was immediately covered up by misogynistic Christian patriarchs;
• Jonathan and David were homosexual lovers; etc.

What a coincidence that Jesus turns out to be such a progressive fellow, who's teachings perfectly support and in no way challenge the beliefs of modern secular liberals! Most of the "scholarship" pushing these views is coming from secular liberals who are explicitly setting out to "demythologize" Jesus, and they always seem to find exactly what they've brought with them to the texts. Polemicists make bad historians.

I've found the scholarship of Bauckham and NT Wright to be much more rigorous than that of the form critics like Ehrman.

Anything on liberation theology and the aftereffects of their repression. No specific titles though. I'll try to embed a tweet later of a Dominican begging Fr Martin to stop tweeting.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Jesuits vs. Dominicans <a href="https://t.co/QdJDqzRnUl">pic.twitter.com/QdJDqzRnUl</a></p>— Tradical (@NoTrueScotist) <a href="https://twitter.com/NoTrueScotist/status/829405925182017536">February 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

How awful the Jesuits are? Good Lord.......

There are over 50 canonized Jesuit saints.
They have been leaders in scientific research and attempts to smoothly heal differences between Religion and Science since the 17th century (Pope Francis himself has a chemistry degree.)
Their stories speckle our intellectual history (it was a Jesuit scientist who wrote the book that inspired Enrico Fermi to pursue physics --- without Fermi we might all be goose-stepping today.)

Broad-brush labeling is not a good thing and almost always is a subtraction from understanding and an indication of some kind of unhelpful prejudice/closemindedness. We shouldn't do that.

I do think it's important to distinguish between the current state of the Society of Jesus and its historical accomplishments. And if you are fortunate enough to meet an orthodox Jesuit, he's likely to be an incredibly erudite and articulate priest. Hell, I attended a Jesuit high school, and the education I received there has served me well. But that school has changed a lot in the 15 years since I graduated, and there's no way I'd ever send my boys to it now. Orthodox Jesuits are harder and harder to find, and orthodox Jesuit institutions are basically non-existant now.

Just another example of the Baby Boomers ruining everything they touch. God willing, the Society of Jesus will be renewed one funeral at a time, though it might not survive the machinations of the current leadership.

 

[tussin]

I do think it's important to distinguish between the current state of the Society of Jesus and its historical accomplishments. And if you are fortunate enough to meet an orthodox Jesuit, he's likely to be an incredibly erudite and articulate priest. Hell, I attended a Jesuit high school, and the education I received there has served me well. But that school has changed a lot in the 15 years since I graduated, and there's no way I'd ever send my boys to it now. Orthodox Jesuits are harder and harder to find, and orthodox Jesuit institutions are basically non-existant now.

Just another example of the Baby Boomers ruining everything they touch. God willing, the Society of Jesus will be renewed one funeral at a time, though it might not survive the machinations of the current leadership.

Can you expand on the current problems within S.J.? I have an incredibly close-knit family and we are considering paying for my niece to a local Jesuit school.

 

[woolybug25]

Both of my sisters have gone to Jesuit universities, one at Loyola Maryland and the other at Boston College. The crap they're learning is evil and borderline heretical, in direct contrast with Rerum novarum and Centesimus annus.

Oh... well it's settled then... Wiz's sisters ruined Jesuits....

 

[Rack Em]

Both of my sisters have gone to Jesuit universities, one at Loyola Maryland and the other at Boston College. The crap they're learning is evil and borderline heretical, in direct contrast with Rerum novarum and Centesimus annus.

I attended a Jesuit law school and I flat out confronted our Dean after the contraception mandate.

Me: "As a Catholic law school isn't it our duty to push back against laws and regulations which violate the conscience of the Church?"

Dean: "No <insert other nonsense that didn't make sense>"

He REFUSED to look me in the eye for the next 1.5 years unless I explicitly said hello to him. Then he'd immediately put his head back down.

 

[Greenore]

**No Brown Nose**

To ALL the posters in this thread, I would like to thank you for your input and discourse. A lot of the discussion can be very challenging particularly when our own clergy can be at odds.

I love facts, but I equally love the Faith and the Mystery. To me, as I understand them, they don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Rack Em]

Can you expand on the current problems within S.J.? I have an incredibly close-knit family and we are considering paying for my niece to a local Jesuit school.

Through my extensive Jesuit education, I've found them to basically ignore the "Catholic" part of the education and focus on service and social justice. The latter is fine and dandy, but it should not be separated from the "Catholic" aspect of their educational mission.

Consequently there are lots of Jesuits and Jesuit schools who, like Fr. Martin, tend to embrace SSM, are loose on abortion, and are overall VERY selective on Catholic Social Teaching.

To be fair, you can find those types of faculty at any Catholic school. Fr. "Dick" McBrien (as he was referred to by some conservative Notre Dame alums) was a heretic in every sense of the word (look him up). Yet he weaseled his way into Notre Dame and proceeded to pollute the minds of young Catholics with his crappy "Catholicism" book. But by and large, I believe Jesuit education has run off the rails in the last 15 years. I would be extremely cautious if I were to send one of my kids to a Jesuit school because I'd worry they wouldn't actually learn the truth about Catholicism.

 

[wizards8507]

Through my extensive Jesuit education, I've found them to basically ignore the "Catholic" part of the education and focus on service and social justice. The latter is fine and dandy, but it should not be separated from the "Catholic" aspect of their educational mission.

They don't focus on social justice, they focus on socialism. They're not the same thing.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FPiZS1v47b4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

God willing, the Society of Jesus will be renewed one funeral at a time, though it might not survive the machinations of the current leadership.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

They don't focus on social justice, they focus on socialism. They're not the same thing.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FPiZS1v47b4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I was just about to point out that orthodoxy does not entail siding with the heretics on the opposite end of the liberal spectrum, and as if on queue, you embed a video from the Acton Institute. Speak of the devil...

ND's Alasdair McIntyre, arguably the greatest living philosopher, is an orthodox Catholic and a Marxist. Ain't nothing wrong with socialism if the theology behind it is right.

I was speaking mostly of Spadaro, Coccopalmiero, and Sosa. I have my concerns about Il Papa, but propriety demands that criticism of him be much more circumspect.

 

[wizards8507]

ND's Alasdair McIntyre, arguably the greatest living philosopher, is an orthodox Catholic and a Marxist. Ain't nothing wrong with socialism if the theology behind it is right.

MacIntyre's ethics are incompatible with his politics. I'm not well-versed enough to go into great detail, but suffice it to say that any criticism of neo-liberalism on the basis of greed or exploitation applies tenfold to the administrators of a Marxist state. Maybe folks like Jeff Bezos and Doug McMillon have too much power but it's better than Vladimir Putin or Mao Zedong.

From "After Virtue":

I remarked earlier that as Marxists move towards power they always tend to become Weberians. Here I was of course speaking of Marxists at their best in, say, Yugoslavia or Italy; the barbarous despotism of the collective Tsardom which reigns in Moscow can be taken to be as irrelevant to the question of the moral substance of Marxism as the life of the Borgia pope was to that of the moral substance of Christianity.

This ^ is utter bullshit, and historically ignorant. The "barbarous despotism of the collective Tsardom" is not some historical anomaly unique to the Soviet Union in 1981. It's a feature of Marxism that proves itself true throughout history. I'm not a big CS Peirce fan, but "...consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." Alternatively, Matthew 7:16.

McIntyre is THE textbook example (literally) of "communism looks good on paper but fails every time it's tried," and it's particularly egregious for a Catholic. An Ethics that needs to implicitly deny the Fall of Man in order to imbue state leaders with a God-like sense of righteousness and justice is no model for a flourishing society. That's the beauty of capitalism. It doesn't require that Man be perfect. It channels our imperfections to virtuous ends.

ETA: Once again I'm reminded how lucky we are to have Irish Envy. I wonder what they're discussing over at MGOBLOG.

 

[IrishLion]

That exorcism stuff is interesting.

Even if you are Bogs, who doesn't believe in "the Devil," there is still plenty of room for "if it's not described by current medical knowledge, then what in the hell is it?"

A belief in God is naturally going to create knowledge within one's mind of the opposite, the "other." And even if you do not believe this "other" to be Satan, it's still present in some form.

A "possessed" believer may not be legitimately possessed by Satan, or a lesser demon, or even an evil spirit somehow anchored to our plane of existence. They may simply be "possessed" by an attack of conscience, coming from that "other" half that exists in opposition to how our brains understand our belief of God (whatever that belief may be, individual-to-individual).

I believe this IS mental illness, rather than possession. I don't think the devil has ever possessed someone, nor have any of his Generals, Captains, Corporals, or lesser Demon Lords. But it is an illness born from our spiritual selves, not able to be explained by current medical science, because it comes from a mental place that science can't touch.

I don't know why someone would suddenly develop a mental illness related to their spiritual selves. I don't know why a believer of God might suddenly be subject to fits of "demonic rage" that comes from that subconscious "other" place, opposite of God, other than to speculate that perhaps they have a legitimate mental illness that COULD be diagnosed by medical science, which then triggers other mental issues, such as a crisis of faith.

And suddenly, someone's brain is attacking itself, using their subconscious understanding of whatever lies opposite to "God," and science doesn't know how to help.

Perhaps Rosa had an underlying self-image issue, or perhaps anger issues, and those issues were triggered by her brother's girlfriend's "curse." Rosa's spiritual beliefs were so closely tied to her essence of life, that there was no other outlet for those mental issues to manifest themselves than to take the form of "possession." Her weakness was infiltrated by the "satanic believers" and took hold, and modern mental health assessments couldn't possibly touch the part of Rosa that was affected and overrun.

I don't believe in demonic possession literally, but I do believe that people can be possessed by subconscious beliefs that act upon preexisting mental health issues in the guise of "the devil," if that's the belief that individual happens to subscribe to.

It comes from a part of the brain that only develops within a believer. That's why you'll never see an Atheist become possessed.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This ^ is utter bullshit, and historically ignorant. The "barbarous despotism of the collective Tsardom" is not some historical anomaly unique to the Soviet Union in 1981. It's a feature of Marxism that proves itself true throughout history. I'm not a big CS Peirce fan, but "...consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." Alternatively, Matthew 7:16.

His point is that the Godless communism of Stalin and Mao is not exhaustive of Marxist philosophy anymore than the Prosperity Gospel heresy of Joel Osteen and Oprah is typical of Christianity.

To be fair, I don't think a just polity has to be socialist. If you're really into free enterprise, give Distributism a try. Or even Guild Syndicalism. But it does need to get its theology right, and it definitely needs to emphasize a collective responsibility for caring for the poor and powerless. Capitalism not only fails on both of those fronts, but it makes it increasingly difficult for orthodox Christians to live out their faith properly.

I don't have time at the moment to mount a proper defense of Christian socialism, so consider this bookmarked for next week.

It comes from a part of the brain that only develops within a believer.

I obviously believe that man is both body and spirit, so I agree with you that there are aspects of human consciousness that will likely never be empirically "solved" by medical science. But from that position, I don't see how your disbelief in demons follows. For instance, the articles above were both written by well-educated skeptics who have submitted the relevant evidence to scientific scrutiny, and they both conclude that demonic possession is the most reasonable diagnosis for what afflicts their patients. How else to explain a child suddenly speaking in an ancient tongue she's never been exposed to?

That's why you'll never see an Atheist become possessed.

Possession does seem to require a certain degree of openness to the occult (which is why f*cking around with things like Ouija boards is extremely ill advised). So to that end, a secular mindset offers a sort of spiritual buffer. But at what price?

 

[wizards8507]

His point is that the Godless communism of Stalin and Mao is not exhaustive of Marxist philosophy anymore than the Prosperity Gospel heresy of Joel Osteen and Oprah is typical of Christianity.

I understand that. My point is that the Godless communism of Stalin and Mao is exhaustive of Marxist reality. I don't give three shits if "Marxist philosophy" is compatible with Christianity if said philosophy is impossible to implement.

To be fair, I don't think a just polity has to be socialist. If you're really into free enterprise, give Distributism a try. Or even Guild Syndicalism. But it does need to get its theology right, and it definitely needs to emphasize a collective responsibility for caring for the poor and powerless. Capitalism not only fails on both of those fronts, but it makes it increasingly difficult for orthodox Christians to live out their faith properly.

I don't have time at the moment to mount a proper defense of Christian socialism, so consider this bookmarked for next week.

These systems are all very utopian and sound splendid on paper. But again, to put any of them into practice you need an administrative state. You need someone to enforce the system. Unless you can find me a governing body with papal infallibility, put me in the "no thank you" column. The administrators, like the rest of us, are sinners. And sinners left alone can do a lot less harm than sinners who are literally in charge of an entire society. That's why capitalism is so elegant. It's not a system at all. It's just what human beings naturally do when they're left to associate freely with one another. It doesn't need to be created or imposed, it just happens.

Literally any other system requires a state authority to administer. The state authority is far scarier than any of the purported evils of capitalism because 1) it wields police and military power and 2) it doesn't answer to the profit motive. The will of the people is not democracy, the will of the people is a marketplace.

That's my standing question for you whenever we have these conversations: ...and who's in charge? For capitalism, the answer is easy. Nobody, and everybody.

 

[NorthDakota]

Can anyone give a brief explanation of the key parts of the Jesuits, Franciscans, and Dominicans?

 

[no.1IrishFan]

For the vast majority of human history, peoples from all over the world have believed in malign spirits in some form or another. Secular modernists are outliers in dismissing such beliefs as silly superstition (though if you look at their actual practices, you'll find plenty of "spirituality"). I can of course understand the attraction of believing that everyone who lived before the modern era was a knuckle-dragging idiot, but studying ancient history belies that prejudice pretty quickly.

As for the effectiveness of Hindu exorcists, I'm skeptical. Homeopaths claim that their remedies are just as effective as modern medicine, which obviously isn't true. But an inability to cure doesn't necessarily mean that the diagnosis is wrong.



Bogs, that you feel this way doesn't surprise me at all. It's in line other such assertions like:

• Jesus had brothers and sisters;
• Mary Magdalene was an apostle, which was immediately covered up by misogynistic Christian patriarchs;
• Jonathan and David were homosexual lovers; etc.

What a coincidence that Jesus turns out to be such a progressive fellow, who's teachings perfectly support and in no way challenge the beliefs of modern secular liberals! Most of the "scholarship" pushing these views is coming from secular liberals who are explicitly setting out to "demythologize" Jesus, and they always seem to find exactly what they've brought with them to the texts. Polemicists make bad historians.

I've found the scholarship of Bauckham and NT Wright to be much more rigorous than that of the form critics like Ehrman.



<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Jesuits vs. Dominicans <a href="https://t.co/QdJDqzRnUl">pic.twitter.com/QdJDqzRnUl</a></p>— Tradical (@NoTrueScotist) <a href="https://twitter.com/NoTrueScotist/status/829405925182017536">February 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>



I do think it's important to distinguish between the current state of the Society of Jesus and its historical accomplishments. And if you are fortunate enough to meet an orthodox Jesuit, he's likely to be an incredibly erudite and articulate priest. Hell, I attended a Jesuit high school, and the education I received there has served me well. But that school has changed a lot in the 15 years since I graduated, and there's no way I'd ever send my boys to it now. Orthodox Jesuits are harder and harder to find, and orthodox Jesuit institutions are basically non-existant now.

Just another example of the Baby Boomers ruining everything they touch. God willing, the Society of Jesus will be renewed one funeral at a time, though it might not survive the machinations of the current leadership.

Why just skeptical? You believe their gods are not real.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's my standing question for you whenever we have these conversations: ...and who's in charge? For capitalism, the answer is easy. Nobody, and everybody.

But as I mentioned before, it'll take some time to properly lay out that case. So until next week...

Why just skeptical? You believe their gods are not real.

That's true. But I believe in the Christian God, and the angels created by Him. So it's very possible that a Hindu mystic could recognize demonic possession. I'm skeptical that anyone but an ordained priest could successfully exorcise it, though.

 

[wizards8507]

Can anyone give a brief explanation of the key parts of the Jesuits, Franciscans, and Dominicans?

 

[NorthDakota]

Can't rep via mobile

 

[Bogtrotter07]

OMG. For 2+ years I thought you were this uber Catholic guy who loved his Catholic school upbringing. Wow. This is mind blowing.

So you believe in some undefined deity that created a world in which good and evil exist but operate independent of each other... if they exist at all? If not what does, "I do not believe in any iteration of Good versus Evil" mean? Using a overly simplistic example: Charles Manson breaks into your house with the intent of murdering your daughter but is stopped by a police officer before he can carry it out. That's an iteration of Good vs Evil. No?

I don't know what uber Catholic is. I have done my best to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

As far as Catholicism, I am the embodiment of Irish social, historic, and ethnic influence on Roman Catholicism. Read your history, few places have produced the saint, scholars, or poets, that Ireland has, nor have few places so resisted the authoritarianism of the Church.

What I believe or don't believe is immaterial. My actions, for example, are guided by what I know. Which includes the moral and ethical system to which I subscribe.

So, I think I would fit quite nicely with what Pope Francis II is trying to teach.

Good and evil are both constructs of relatively sophisticated human languaging, and not entities not exclusively imbued with that particular definition humans have given them. The reason I express and emphasize this in not acknowledging this, people lose all subtlety, nuance, and expression in their thinking, immediately, and in their moral development long term. (I can give examples if need be.)

What does not believing in any iteration of Good versus evil mean? It means that I don't believe in the Manichean Dichotomy, which scholarship has identified as having a non-Christian origin. The only dichotomy is the the teachings of Jesus Christ as relayed by the Church, and the non-Christian theology, and ensuing epistemology.

Again the Manichean Dichotomy, results in clear, black and white representations of things that are anything but that, and therefore, retard growth on many levels.

Instead, as I have observed in my lifetime, dialectic as opposed to dichotomous thinking, promotes mental health, growth, and is fully evident in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Thomas Jefferson, noted this and considered it of paramount importance.

The Manson example? It is a really flawed example, because in it you have interjected you own desires or actions on the part of a character you call Manson.

As far as if anyone breaks into your house and is stopped by a police officer, that is an example of an individual breaking a law, and being arrested by someone bound to uphold the law.

See the bottom line is we all want to believe we are the embodiment of God's will. And what good does that do? It drove Thomas Aquinas mad!

I do not say God is undefined, or defined. I say I am powerless to define God. It doesn't affect my belief, my faith, or anything else. What it does is save me a lot of energy, hatred, and ill-will, that keep me from following God's plan for me, especially as expressed in the words of Jesus Christ.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I don't know what uber Catholic is. I have done my best to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

As far as Catholicism, I am the embodiment of Irish social, historic, and ethnic influence on Roman Catholicism. Read your history, few places have produced the saint, scholars, or poets, that Ireland has, nor have few places so resisted the authoritarianism of the Church.

What I believe or don't believe is immaterial. My actions, for example, are guided by what I know. Which includes the moral and ethical system to which I subscribe.

So, I think I would fit quite nicely with what Pope Francis II is trying to teach.

Good and evil are both constructs of relatively sophisticated human languaging, and not entities not exclusively imbued with that particular definition humans have given them. The reason I express and emphasize this in not acknowledging this, people lose all subtlety, nuance, and expression in their thinking, immediately, and in their moral development long term. (I can give examples if need be.)

What does not believing in any iteration of Good versus evil mean? It means that I don't believe in the Manichean Dichotomy, which scholarship has identified as having a non-Christian origin. The only dichotomy is the the teachings of Jesus Christ as relayed by the Church, and the non-Christian theology, and ensuing epistemology.

Again the Manichean Dichotomy, results in clear, black and white representations of things that are anything but that, and therefore, retard growth on many levels.

Instead, as I have observed in my lifetime, dialectic as opposed to dichotomous thinking, promotes mental health, growth, and is fully evident in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Thomas Jefferson, noted this and considered it of paramount importance.

The Manson example? It is a really flawed example, because in it you have interjected you own desires or actions on the part of a character you call Manson.

As far as if anyone breaks into your house and is stopped by a police officer, that is an example of an individual breaking a law, and being arrested by someone bound to uphold the law.

See the bottom line is we all want to believe we are the embodiment of God's will. And what good does that do? It drove Thomas Aquinas mad!

I do not say God is undefined, or defined. I say I am powerless to define God. It doesn't affect my belief, my faith, or anything else. What it does is save me a lot of energy, hatred, and ill-will, that keep me from following God's plan for me, especially as expressed in the words of Jesus Christ.

Strangest.
Post.
Ever.

From what source did you read Thomas Aquinas going mad?

Also, it sounds like from your vantage:

Thomas Jefferson >> The Church

Interesting theological perspective.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Strangest.
Post.
Ever.

From what source did you read Thomas Aquinas going mad?

Also, it sounds like from your vantage:

Thomas Jefferson >> The Church

Interesting theological perspective.

I assume he's interpreting The Angelic Doctor's vision of Christ as madness.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Against my better judgement to walk into the heated holocaust that is an IE "discussion":

A). I've done a "scholarly/within the literature" study of possession which has been quite extensive. The phenomenon exists and is definitely not "merely" biological. In fact, although misdiagnosed MPD and certain drug states and tumor or epileptic problems are surely a sociological-physical combo, there are other "situations" which are in the realm of spiritual-paranormal quite separate from those. Our Catholic Church's expert on these matters was a VERY highly respected scholar named Herbert Thurston --- dare I note that he was a Jesuit?

I have spoken with a priest who is not an exorcist, but who was told that he was needed for a one-time stint as an assistant during one. He said that the experience, where he was required to be in constant intense prayer in the room, was "interesting" to put it mildly. During the hours, wherein he almost fainted from a sort of psychic "beating" to his soul, things of violence seemed to happen all around the room --- like objects flying about and smashing. But when the ritual ended, and he rose from his knees, he saw that everything physical was precisely where it had been before, and the "attacks" both spiritual and apparent-physical had taken place in the paranormal/consciousness realm.

I have also done a fairly extensive logging and simple-statistical study of persons reporting on their experiences with Ouija (which I have not done nor ever will.) Although usually beginning as if some juvenile lark, the large majority of "my" 250 case study turned "dark" rather quickly, being morbid at best and one what would only call demonic at worst. In a small number of the severest cases, bad poltergeist phenomena broke out. {I had a student who had been in a Ouija foursome, where the apartment of the board owner experienced even fires. An exorcism was going to be tried there, but by the time, my student had moved on in her curriculum, so I don't know the ending.}

One can believe in these "lesser" (what CS Lewis might call) darker Eldils without believing in a Big Bad Ass Devil/Lucifer. Actually, who cares? Our concern is that such phenomena exist. The bright side of this is that their mere manifestation is data coming pretty close to proving the spiritual realm.

B). Now to p!ss everyone else off..... The early Church Fathers warned us as much as anything about our hubris/arrogance in thinking that any of us had a full dogma of "proper beliefs" all connected neatly together. In fact, all through history our greatest theologians (including Aquinas) have warned us against that. They have tried to make us keep in consciousness that our brains aren't large enough nor sharp enough to penetrate all the thoughts and demands of GOD. We might attempt a small foray on a very narrow subject, and Holy Spirit Willing we might get a little insight on that one point. The Church Fathers admitted that, based in specific revelation and humility, we might just be gifted with several specific insights. THAT IS WHEN WE THEN GO WRONG.

We of course are not satisfied with the specific bits. We begin, again in our arrogance, to "rationally" connect them together, weaving chains of "logic" and creating systems of Dogma. At this point, we're so happy with how we've woven this that we decide that it's all revelation, whereas it is not. In fact the woven mass of the Dogma contains more of us than it does of GOD. At that point we begin including or excluding people, sometimes adding the distinctly non-Christ character of shunning and judgmental derision, and what-do-you-know: Bad vs Good people, Popes, Priestly orders... IE Brothers.

Someone in The Church way smarter than I has tried to remind me every time at Mass, that the foundational beliefs are fairly few and in their way, simple. It's called the Creed. Does Francis believe in the Creed? Do the Jesuits? Do the Franciscans? Do the Nuns? Do you? Do I? I can tell you that I read The Creed seriously all the time and non-casually --- i.e. I meditate upon it. And I'll bet a bunch that, although I believe The Creed, I don't "believe" the same "other things" that many Creed-believers here on IE do. Those differences are, in my opinion, almost entirely differences of human interpretation leading to different allegedly "obvious" dogmatic "logical" derivations.

Thoughtful Catholics, rather than lazy mentalities in search of easy answers, have sought real sources of guidance in these difficulties (i.e. good loving Catholics who practice the Beatitudes but nevertheless believe differently about important things) by asking what resources The Church provides to help them in their confusion (if they are humble enough to admit confusion.) There are several answers. Go to Mass and Communion and get serious about being a member of the Mystical Body --- you will probably surprise yourself in how lovingly forgiving you become about those horrible other Catholics who don't see it exactly as yourself. You can get a living Spiritual counsellor and regularly meet. One should pick that person due to his or her humility and sense of peace.

Some types, although they don't want to go too far out of their way just to acquire love and wisdom, feel that all they have to is find out what The Magisterium says, and go with that. I used to think that this was a good route, but that was before I read deeply in Catholic history. And THAT is because "The Magisterium of the Church" (defined as it is as its leaders) has been so disastrously wrong-headed so many times in the past that future Magisteria have had to utterly reverse some of their opinions. I therefore am cooled off a bit when an alleged authoritarian pronouncement comes down. (For the rightwing, "orthodox" Catholics out there, you should keep in mind that Francis is head honcho of The Magisterium currently, and you don't like his style.) But it's good and honest to listen to one's leaders, so I read, meditate, pray, listen to The Holy Spirit, and try to live my life according to the Beatitudes --- without name-calling my Catholic brethren heretics and hypocrites and candidates for the stake, particularly without knowing how they've come to the positions that they hold.

 

[zelezo vlk]

OMM preaches wisdom and has the most interesting stories.

OMM have you ever considered being the spokesperson for Dos Equis?

 

[Old Man Mike]

I don't ever drink beer. And when I don't it's Dos Equis

 

[zelezo vlk]

I don't ever drink beer. And when I don't it's Dos Equis

I can't rep this, somebody get me.

 

[IrishLion]

I don't see how your disbelief in demons follows. For instance, the articles above were both written by well-educated skeptics who have submitted the relevant evidence to scientific scrutiny, and they both conclude that demonic possession is the most reasonable diagnosis for what afflicts their patients. How else to explain a child suddenly speaking in an ancient tongue she's never been exposed to?

I don't know how you explain that. Perhaps flawed understanding of just *what* the individual had actually been exposed to previously? I believe that these mental issues manifest themselves from a subconscious place that evolved from previous exposure to religion or belief. It seems natural that an individual, particularly a child or young adult with a still-rapidly developing brain might have retained, subconsciously, bits and pieces of Latin here, some Italian there. Suddenly, when that mental "break" occurs that people believe to be possession, and that person is shouting phrases in a language that "they've never been exposed to," there is no explanation.

I call bullshit on all of these people having never been exposed to Latin or Spanish or other foreign languages. If they go to church, or are from Latin America, or any area of Western Europe, they've been exposed to every language, and in decent amounts.

So they have an as-yet undiagnosed and undiscovered mental illness that only an individual raised in/around religion could develop, due to the effect that spiritual development has on an individual's brain, and that illness manifests itself in violent outbursts, using the retained information from that subconscious as ammunition.

So where a trained medical professional has no explanation for how this Catholic chick might know some Latin, and so assumes it must be a demon, I see a chick that probably retained bits and pieces of Latin in church, where duh of course she's been exposed to foreign languages. If not church, then television, movies, books, etc. (This also depends on an allowance that our subconscious is mighty with it's potential to retain information that we might never recall in our waking moments, which is a belief that I hold)

That is more plausible to me than a demon spending time on the earthly plane of existence and inhabiting the body of a random individual.

As for knowledge of "unknowable" details that some possessed individuals seem to display, I would probably be more inclined to believe that they are using common "generalization" techniques, akin to what a psychic does.

Possession does seem to require a certain degree of openness to the occult (which is why f*cking around with things like Ouija boards is extremely ill advised). So to that end, a secular mindset offers a sort of spiritual buffer. But at what price?

To the first part, I'm not trying to say that I'm not open to the occult. I don't know if there is a "Satan," but I do believe that there is bad energy/karma out there, and I agree that messing with a Ouija Board is a legitimate magnet for that energy.

As for the second part, I subscribe to the belief "I don't care who you are or what you believe. Just don't be a dick."

An Atheist that lives a long and just life, knowing of God but refusing to believe, is probably safer in the event that there IS a Heaven, than a devout Catholic that beats his children and ignores the poor guy on the street corner every time he goes to the bar.

 

[wizards8507]

Wait, are Ouija board real? I thought they were just a kid's game.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Wait, are Ouija board real? I thought they were just a kid's game.

Fly-by post:

The Church would say that they aren't inherently powerful, or magic, or anything like that. Rather, it would basically say that you are playing with fire when you are calling on spiritual powers that aren't God or the angels that expressly serve him.

When you crack open the door to unclean spirits, you can end up getting more than you bargained for. By inviting them in, you are giving them some level of permission to influence you.

Now if you just played with one to mess with your friends, and you were purposefully pushing the thing around to say what you wanted it to say, you'd probably be fine, because you were never open to any outside force. But curiosity killed the cat. Also it would be bad for your friends who were open to it.