"Nonsense" about Christianity

[Xar]

Awareness of your self?

To paraphrase Bach again, the sky is always a perfect sky, and the sea a perfect sea. They're changing all the time, but they're always perfect. Perfection doesn't mean stagnation. In fact, I think it could mean the opposite. Just because perfection is subjective doesn't mean it doesn't exist...it just might be different for everybody.

--A

Except then....what is your definition of a perfect God might not be my perfect God.

Indeed. If perfection is subjective, then God (or any other entity, or any cake) can never truly be perfect, only perceived as perfect by some. Now, a being, that might be perfect or imperfect depending on your point of view, feeling a drive to create - that makes sense. But it also shoots down most of the idea of divinity.

Then again, your concept of perfection and my concept of perfection (and so on) might simply be facets of a larger whole. The attributes you use for perfection are shared by my definition, although not entirely. I'm reminded (if you'll forgive my digression) of The Sandman, the comic book by Neil Gaiman in which Dream once entertains one of his servants with a cryptic (at the time) musing about gems and facets. He said (if I remember correctly) that if we look at a facet of the gem very intensely, we may be tempted to believe that is all there is to the gem, but turn it by just a little bit, and you will see an entirely new facet, which is however still part of the same gem.

This is similar to the example I provided earlier about the three-dimensional book seen in a two-dimensional universe: if God isn't constrained by the laws of the universe, there may be more to Him than we are able to imagine: it's the panentheistic view which is also present in the Kabbalah (where "panentheistic" means that the divine is more than the universe, in contrast to "pantheistic" which means that the divine is entirely identifiable with the universe)

In a similar way, your definition of "perfection" might fit a facet of God, while mine might fit another; neither of us sees the complete picture, which is why we argue about this.

[danlo]

Right-Buckminster Fuller, Alan Watts, Gary Snyder and others have said, "No two people view the universe the same way."

[Seven Words]

Except then....what is your definition of a perfect God might not be my perfect God.

Indeed. If perfection is subjective, then God (or any other entity, or any cake) can never truly be perfect, only perceived as perfect by some. Now, a being, that might be perfect or imperfect depending on your point of view, feeling a drive to create - that makes sense. But it also shoots down most of the idea of divinity.

Then again, your concept of perfection and my concept of perfection (and so on) might simply be facets of a larger whole. The attributes you use for perfection are shared by my definition, although not entirely. I'm reminded (if you'll forgive my digression) of The Sandman, the comic book by Neil Gaiman in which Dream once entertains one of his servants with a cryptic (at the time) musing about gems and facets. He said (if I remember correctly) that if we look at a facet of the gem very intensely, we may be tempted to believe that is all there is to the gem, but turn it by just a little bit, and you will see an entirely new facet, which is however still part of the same gem.

This is similar to the example I provided earlier about the three-dimensional book seen in a two-dimensional universe: if God isn't constrained by the laws of the universe, there may be more to Him than we are able to imagine: it's the panentheistic view which is also present in the Kabbalah (where "panentheistic" means that the divine is more than the universe, in contrast to "pantheistic" which means that the divine is entirely identifiable with the universe)

In a similar way, your definition of "perfection" might fit a facet of God, while mine might fit another; neither of us sees the complete picture, which is why we argue about this.

Ah, now your LAST sentence there closely follows my own concept of the divine....that every religion on Earth is one facet of the divine. As far as Afterlife goes...I believe that if one is a Christian, and honestly upholds the teachings of the faith, then one goes to the Christian concept of Heaven. I simply believe that the exact FORM of one's beliefs is not important, but rather the SUBSTANCE of belief is what counts. So a Buddhist who strives to their utmost, follows the Noble Eightfold Path, will indeed achieve Nirvana.

There's no evidence to support this....but it feels right and true to me. The ONLY thing that will change my mind is objective proof, or my having a personal experience, to the contrary.

[Menolly]

...strange how I only just stumbled upon the definition of panentheism yesterday, and saw my own concept of The All outside of formal worship pretty much defined by it...

Ah, now your LAST sentence there closely follows my own concept of the divine....that every religion on Earth is one facet of the divine. As far as Afterlife goes...I believe that if one is a Christian, and honestly upholds the teachings of the faith, then one goes to the Christian concept of Heaven. I simply believe that the exact FORM of one's beliefs is not important, but rather the SUBSTANCE of belief is what counts. So a Buddhist who strives to their utmost, follows the Noble Eightfold Path, will indeed achieve Nirvana.

There's no evidence to support this....but it feels right and true to me. The ONLY thing that will change my mind is objective proof, or my having a personal experience, to the contrary.

*wishing I knew who to attribute this to*

Behind the mask of every religion...
...is the face of G-d.

...Mother Theresa, maybe?

[CovenantJr]

Except then....what is your definition of a perfect God might not be my perfect God.

Indeed. If perfection is subjective, then God (or any other entity, or any cake) can never truly be perfect, only perceived as perfect by some. Now, a being, that might be perfect or imperfect depending on your point of view, feeling a drive to create - that makes sense. But it also shoots down most of the idea of divinity.

Then again, your concept of perfection and my concept of perfection (and so on) might simply be facets of a larger whole. The attributes you use for perfection are shared by my definition, although not entirely. I'm reminded (if you'll forgive my digression) of The Sandman, the comic book by Neil Gaiman in which Dream once entertains one of his servants with a cryptic (at the time) musing about gems and facets. He said (if I remember correctly) that if we look at a facet of the gem very intensely, we may be tempted to believe that is all there is to the gem, but turn it by just a little bit, and you will see an entirely new facet, which is however still part of the same gem.

This is similar to the example I provided earlier about the three-dimensional book seen in a two-dimensional universe: if God isn't constrained by the laws of the universe, there may be more to Him than we are able to imagine: it's the panentheistic view which is also present in the Kabbalah (where "panentheistic" means that the divine is more than the universe, in contrast to "pantheistic" which means that the divine is entirely identifiable with the universe)

In a similar way, your definition of "perfection" might fit a facet of God, while mine might fit another; neither of us sees the complete picture, which is why we argue about this.

Not a bad explanation. I'm not convinced, but this at least makes enough sense to me that I'll give it more consideration. I'm a relativist at heart.

[aliantha]

In a similar way, your definition of "perfection" might fit a facet of God, while mine might fit another; neither of us sees the complete picture, which is why we argue about this.

Ah, now your LAST sentence there closely follows my own concept of the divine....that every religion on Earth is one facet of the divine. As far as Afterlife goes...I believe that if one is a Christian, and honestly upholds the teachings of the faith, then one goes to the Christian concept of Heaven. I simply believe that the exact FORM of one's beliefs is not important, but rather the SUBSTANCE of belief is what counts. So a Buddhist who strives to their utmost, follows the Noble Eightfold Path, will indeed achieve Nirvana.

Aaaaand we're back to the blind men and the elephant.

If perfection is subjective, then God (or any other entity, or any cake) can never truly be perfect, only perceived as perfect by some. Now, a being, that might be perfect or imperfect depending on your point of view, feeling a drive to create - that makes sense. But it also shoots down most of the idea of divinity.

Of a single *perfect* divinity, yeah. Which is one reason why polytheism makes more sense.

[CovenantJr]

Or my choice, Anytheism Which amounts to "Whatever..."

[Kinslaughterer]

Try Discordianism. Forget about perfection.

[aliantha]

I really do need to read that series, one of these days...

[rusmeister]

I'm going to preface this by saying that I am not a theologian, and I speak for no one other than myself. I'm also not interested in changing anyone's mind. If someone does, it's on them.

Cail, serious questions here, I ask because I don't know. : How can this be? I am a little ignorant of Catholicism -- Christians as you know beleive Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven. So those who don't accept Jesus as a personal savior and God's Son will go to hell. So according to them, Catholics are going to Hell. Is this your understanding of Baptists beliefs as well?

From the way things went in the Baptist church I went to, it seemed like if you weren't attending the sermon, you weren't going to Heaven. I've never understood a lot of the hate towards Catholics from the various fundamental Protestant sects. I think it's a lack of understanding, but I honestly don't get it. The thing that I (now) find ironic about many of the fundamentalist churches is that they stress the importance of being "born again" in Christ, but they rely almost solely on the Old Testament, which is utterly devoid of His teachings.

How do Catholics allow that Christians will go to heaven (salvation) if they (presume) falsly that Jesus is God's Son and therefore don do the things Catholics do (ie confession, etc) to make sure they have salvation??

I think there's a ton of confusion about the Trinity. The best way I can explain it is that God exists as more than one thing. God is God, yet he is also Jesus, who is also God's son. Jesus was both divine and human. It's that dichotomy that made the sacrifice so meaningful. God gave us His son, quite literally part of Him. He died horribly....as one of us. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go that way.

Anyhow, we (Catholics) do believe that Jesus was/is God's son. Yet He's also God. From the Profession of Faith:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made."


As far as the various sacraments are concerned, they are not a prerequisite in order to have salvation. They're important, and we (or at least, I) take them pretty seriously, but there's no checklist at the Pearly Gates.

again, I ask because I dont understand and would love to. Because This is a big problem of mine. It appears to me that all religions claim salvation is available to everyone, but when you get down to it, if you arent part of their religion, you are out.

Again, I think this is yet another misconception. One of the first questions I asked of my Priest when I converted was, "Do you believe that Jews go to Heaven?". His answer (the right one) was simple. The New Testament speaks of "the new and everlasting covenant" that Christ declared His blood to be at the Last Supper. The old covenant never ceased to be....That is, the Old Testament promise made to the Jews.

Now as far as everyone else is concerned, there's this from our Profession of Faith:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, and of all things seen and unseen."

One God, period. One God who (being God) can manifest himself in many ways to many people. The God who made Heaven and earth has revealed himself to me as the God of the Catholic Church. To someone else, he's the Presbyterian God, to another he's Allah, and so on. No mortal can claim the knowledge of God, so who the Hell are we to say which faith is the "only" one and the rest are wrong?

One God, different ways of getting to Him.

Point is that anyone can achieve salvation. There is no single path.

This post (pointed out at the watchies) explains a ton to me. I missed it, and I'm sorry I did. (In my fig leaf defense, I'll say that this thread was going in a number of different directions).

So much I quite agree on, yet things that create a gulf that I don't think I would have with most Catholics I know. The big one I agree on (no "checklist"), and yet, a reduction that seems to say that Catholicism is not necessary. Saying "There is no single path" - an anti-Catholic/Orthodox/Christian statement if I ever heard one, yet being able to acknowledge that God can save whom He will.

Like I said, it explains a lot.

I apologize for what I didn't understand earlier, Cail. But I do think that you are at odds with your own faith - by which I mean the organized expression of the religion that you espouse (which I think one of the best, btw).

[Cagliostro]

Everybody loves to hear that they don't understand what they believe. Nice tactic, Rus.

[rusmeister]

Everybody loves to hear that they don't understand what they believe. Nice tactic, Rus.

No, C, you've missed my meaning entirely. I mean that what I know about what the Catholic Church teaches about itself contradicts what Cail has said he personally believes. You can't believe in many paths and believe that Jesus Christ is the one Way, the Truth and the Life. I'm not saying he doesn't understand it. But it's clear when someone doesn't accept certain teachings of an organized faith that they claim to be part of. It's eclectic, and it's an individual, not a corporate faith.

[Cagliostro]

Well, maybe I'm being naive and combative, but from my experience having gone to several churches, each one hits upon basic principles, but each also is run differently, depending on who is at the helm of passing the gospels down, if you catch my meaning. Then again, I'm not a regular church goer, and have only been in Catholic churches below the number of fingers on one hand.
But, my point is this - is there one single decided path of Catholicism that is well agreed upon on every topic of life, the universe and everything? I wouldn't think so, as interpretation is a part of faith - at least to my understanding. Saying that someone is "at odds with their own faith" seems ludicrious and offensive to me. Has God appeared before you and said, "Hey, Rus...let to clarify a few things to you. This is truly the way it is." If he has, then you are either someone very special, or a nut. And if a nut, then you are in good company here.
My limited understanding of Catholicism is that the Pope gives marching orders, but there are differences in interpretation between the Popes through the years as well. Therefore, and again, maybe I'm being naive, but there is no One True Path, and taking someone to task for worshipping the "wrong" way is silly.
And as a Discordian Pope myself, I would like to invoke my infallibility on this subject.

[rusmeister]

Well, maybe I'm being naive and combative, but from my experience having gone to several churches, each one hits upon basic principles, but each also is run differently, depending on who is at the helm of passing the gospels down, if you catch my meaning. Then again, I'm not a regular church goer, and have only been in Catholic churches below the number of fingers on one hand.
But, my point is this - is there one single decided path of Catholicism that is well agreed upon on every topic of life, the universe and everything? I wouldn't think so, as interpretation is a part of faith - at least to my understanding. Saying that someone is "at odds with their own faith" seems ludicrious and offensive to me. Has God appeared before you and said, "Hey, Rus...let to clarify a few things to you. This is truly the way it is." If he has, then you are either someone very special, or a nut. And if a nut, then you are in good company here.
My limited understanding of Catholicism is that the Pope gives marching orders, but there are differences in interpretation between the Popes through the years as well. Therefore, and again, maybe I'm being naive, but there is no One True Path, and taking someone to task for worshipping the "wrong" way is silly.
And as a Discordian Pope myself, I would like to invoke my infallibility on this subject.

Thanks, Caglio,
It seems to me (from your description) that the authority you experienced was really not corporate authority. It totally echoes my Baptist upbringing, and yes, there whoever is running the show really does deliver "the Gospel according to Pastor Mike".

But I think I can go far enough to say that there are some definitive things common to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches which differ from that experience; one of which is that that which is held as dogma is not subject to personal interpretation. The interpretation can only be corporate, and a person must profess it to be accepted into and considered part of the Communion.
One thing that these ancient traditions both state rather clearly is that there is only one path - Jesus Christ, and that it is necessary to learn about Him via the Church.
Now it is true, and I think the closest we might all agree on - the OC, the RCC, Cail and I - is that we do not claim a monopoly on God's ability to save; He can save whom He will. However, as far as Church teachings go, unless I am greatly mistaken, both Churches stress that the only known, sure, and quite narrow path, is via what these Churches teach - which do coincide on a heckuva lot, making it odd that any Catholics and I would "loggerheads" on a significant number of issues - something fully explained if someone who claims to be Catholic (or Orthodox) decides that on some point of dogma they are free to differ with their own Church, at which point I ask, why should I trust an individual to know better than the Church on one point, and yet trust the Church on anything else? On the authority of that individual? Then I have merely replaced an institutional authority with the authority of an individual. In Orthodoxy, at any rate, you accept the Church and its teachings "whole hog" on faith, or not at all if you want to be Orthodox. That's why people usually spend a fair amount of time learning about the Church before being formally received into it (catechumens).

[DukkhaWaynhim]

In Orthodoxy, at any rate, you accept the Church and its teachings "whole hog" on faith, or not at all if you want to be Orthodox. That's why people usually spend a fair amount of time learning about the Church before being formally received into it (catechumens).

This is what makes me not such a great Catholic, because I know that the Catholic church practices something similar -- Catholic dogma is officially *not* a la carte -- so there are points where my own little personally-held beliefs differ from Catholic teachings, which in my humble opinion are not soul-destroying departures. However, that's just my little opinion in the face of generations of People Who Know Better. That's the part of it where I get wrapped around the axle... we are encouraged to think about aspects of accepted faith, to cogitate on the "mysteries", to somehow plumb the depths of our feelings and come to a deeper connection with the accepted belief -- which I can't help but feel is like continually measuring the box you are placed in, with greater and greater degrees of precision. So, you are encouraged to find different paths, but only so long as it leads to the same destination, and does not go through any of the forbidden parts of the map -- i.e., think and question as much as you want, but only within the strictures of the dogma, which seems to leave very little room. We are actively discouraged from challenging 'basic beliefs', because to do so is to flirt with no longer being Catholic.... that is, such questioning comes with the clear understanding that until we regain the truth of the dogma, we stray from the fold. So, philosophize all you want, but only in the safe area over <here>. Truly questioning anything is beyond the safety ropes, where your eternal soul is in obvious peril.

So, sometimes I wonder why I persist in identifying myself as Catholic, aside from the fact that I was born and raised Catholic, when I know I do not accept the full dogma. So, why claim a denomination that, when all the cards get laid down, probably wouldn't claim me unless I change my beliefs? In other words, should I really strive to be more like Jesus when I find myself in disagreement with so many of his purported friends?

dw

[Cybrweez]

Yea, for me, the longer the list of black and white issues, the more wary I am of such dogma. And the Bible's pretty clear, meditate on God's Word, day and night. The emphasis is meditate on God's Word, not church dogma.

[Avatar]

Thing is, how confident can one be that it is God's word? What about the Gnostic Gospels, excised from the bible on the order of the church? Do those form part of God's word?

--A

[Orlion]

Thing is, how confident can one be that it is God's word? What about the Gnostic Gospels, excised from the bible on the order of the church? Do those form part of God's word?

--A

I'd say it depends. One could cut those out because gnosticism developed outside of Christianity and then adopted some of the mythology to support its own. It then becomes a matter of Christianity vs. gnosticism.

This, ofcourse, just helps with the internal logic of a religious belief, and not the accuracy thereof. Of course, with faith that's blind enough, confidence is not in short supply.

[Avatar]

I think it developed from it, not outside of it.

I think my point is that, AFAIK, they were part of the bible at one point. With (presumably) the same claim to divine inspiration.

--A

[Cagliostro]

Well, I guess my point about the popes will never get addressed.