Kevin's Watch

Warmark Jay wrote: Misinterpreted your comments - my apologies. And I agree with you about doubt and faith, although that kind of talk will get you kicked out of the Bloodguard.

Warmark: as Tolkien said, it's an article of Catholic faith. I'm not forcing anyone outside the faith to believe in Catholic dogma. but Catholics have to. and I never said it was wrong to question anything. I'm talking about in downright rejection. I have questions, I ask my priest or I research it through the New Advent site. I pray and ask God for guidance. what I don't do is reject dogma because I don't believe in it.

Plissken: the Church has never told me which canidate to vote for. if they did I would not have had to struggle with the last election. I didn't like having to figure the lesser of two evils.

Fist: we have had one Catholic president.
As John Kennedy said very clearly, 'I will be a president who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic president.'"
having to compromise our faith would lead many Catholics to not run for the office.

dennis,

what I don't do is reject dogma because I don't believe in it.

I offer you a quote from my favorite play, "A Man For All Seasons" about my hero Sir Thomas More who was killed, if you didn't already know, in England for not accepting Henry VIII as head of the Church of England and later canonized as a Catholic saint.

Norfolk: I'm not a scholar, as Master Cromwell never tires of pointing out, and frankly I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not. But damn it, Thomas, look at those names...You know those men! Can't you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?
More: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

Just something I noticed, the "Creed" that Dennis posted there doesn't mention anything about having to believe that the pope is infallible.

--A

The Nicene Creed is a statement of faith used in the liturgy both Catholic and Episcopal/Anglican Churches. "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church; I believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life in the world to come."

The infallibility of the Pope is doctrinal, rather than liturgical. Liturgy reflects doctrine; it doesn't encompass all of it. The Anglican/Episcopal Church shares a lot of the same liturgy as the Roman Catholic Church--incliding the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds--but not all of the doctrine. The Anglican Church considers its priests and bishops to be in direct apostolic succession from St. Peter, much like Catholic priests; Anglicans consider the Pope to be Numero Uno in that succession; but they do not believe in his infallibilty. They do, however, embrace the statement of faith made in the Nicene Creed.

Likewise the United Methodist Church.

...Interesting to note..that the Lutheran faith has its Nicene and Apostle creeds as well. I guarantee you that they don't read exactly like the Roman Catholic Versions do either..Now..to make it even more ...human...didn't the Lutherans split a while back,,two synods exist now. I wonder how much the Creeds differ between the two? I think there is a pattern here. Each demanding a " Loyalty Oath" in effect from its members. It strikes me same as Feudalism and or Nationalism.....MEL

duchess of malfi wrote:Likewise the United Methodist Church.

I stopped going to church regularly when I realized that I was reciting the Nicene Creed by rote rather than as a statement of belief. I didn't want to be a hypocrite; since I wasn't actually sure if I believed what I was saying, I thought it would be better to stop saying it until I was sure.

My favorite idea about Faith actually shows up in the movie Dogma. Whatever you think of the movie (and I know that a lot of Catholics hate it, and I do understand why), I think that this particular idea is true: Faith is like a glass of water. When you're a kid, the glass is small, so filling the glass doesn't take much. As you get older, the glass gets bigger, and it takes a lot more water to fill it. But finding that much water is really, really hard.

Personally, I'm still looking for that water. I'd like to find a creed--a statement of faith--that I can recite with confidence. That's why I have so much respect for people who do have faith--even if I don't share it.

lurch wrote: think there is a pattern here. Each demanding a " Loyalty Oath" in effect from its members. It strikes me same as Feudalism and or Nationalism

I'm not sure that this is really the right definition. Creeds aren't oaths--they're statements of belief. There's a difference between pledging to believe and simply stating what you believe. As I said, I stopped going to church when I realized that I didn't know if I believed what I was saying or not, but that was a personal decision. Other people might make different choices--for some people, working through a crisis of faith by maintaining the outward observances even while their own beliefs are struggling is simply the best way to go.

No church, not even the Catholic church, forces anyone to believe anything. The only religion I've heard of that comes close is the Mormon church, which, if you convert to Mormonism, will baptize all your deceased relatives to the umpteenth generation post mortem. Personally, my deceased antecedents would roll over in their (primarily Protestant) graves. But frankly, I think that God (assuming that the monotheists definition of Him is correct) will probably sort it out no matter what we do.

I think that Myste is right essentially, in the sense that they're statements of belief. And also that churches don't force you to believe anything. But then on the other hand, while they might not force any belief on people, the over-riding opinion seems to be that you can't be a member of any church without cleaving to all their beliefs, dogmas, etc. (That was a great movie BTW.)

--Avatar

Shouldn't each individual make their own creed/oath? Everyone arrives at things differently...

I have never posted my brother's journal entries anywhere but in his thread, but I thought I would post this one here. It speaks of his faith, his belief, and is love for the Lord.

I thought it would give a rather unique glimpse into the realm of faith...

(an open invitation is always standing for those of you who wish to read his journal entries in his thread in the Hall.)

Peace

July 26, 2001 8:12pm

A call from the one who seeks proof of our Lord rings in my head this night. Over and over I hear his whispered questions. Belief, faith requires no proof, no miracle. Only the opening of the soul, heart, to receive the grace of our Lord is required. To you, who must be convinced, what is it you require? Is it a direct affirmation from Him? And if it is, in what form? Do you wish to see a fiery proclamation? Or will a gentle word suffice?

Anything I say, would convince no one. So I don’t try. All I can do is profess my faith, offer up my belief, and speak of the visions granted me during my time here. Such things could be waved off as the dementia of a very ill man. Yet, I speak of them, for they are the breath and heart of my life. There is no separation between Heaven and Earth for me. I live in both, trod in both, see, hear, feel both every day. From the time I first became aware of myself, I was aware of God and Jesus. No one had to tell me who They were, I knew Them, saw Them, felt Them, heard Them and yes, deeply adored Them.

When I was three years old an angel came to me. He was glorious, appeared to me as me and called my name. “Stephen, I too am Stephen, and I walk with you.” And I knew him. He was my guide, is my guide, for he walks with me still.

When I was four years old, Jesus himself came to me. “Is it time to go Home?” I asked Him. “No.” He said. “Not yet.” And I began to cry, being still a child, and He smiled. “I love you, Jesus” I said to Him. “I know, and I love you.”

When I was nine years old, I had my first encounter with Satan. He tried to enter me, but I fought him, and told him that I love God and no act on his part would ever sway me from my service to Him. He did not frighten me, he sickened me. But, I knew what power I had on my side and stood against him. He fled.

It took me quite a long time to realize that others did not experience life the way I do. That their sight and vision are not like mine. This sadden me, saddens me still. Why I should be blessed with such glorious gifts and not others, I could not understand. And still do not. Ah, such things are still beyond me! If others could feel and see what I do, then there would be no doubt of Him! And, so I asked and asked the Father why. Did I get an answer? No. Do I need an answer? No. Do I desire an answer, yes. If an answer was there, then I could convince you, he who calls his whispered question to me this night. All I can offer is this….

If truth of Him is what you seek, look no farther than your own heart. If a miracle or a booming voice from the sky is the only means you will accept to convince you, then you will never be convinced. If He must prove Himself to you, you will never have your proof. Remember this, He walked among us 2000 years ago, and only a few knew Him. He performed His miracles, and spoke of His Father, and still, many were not convinced. So I ask you, what will it take? He is not obligated, or beholding to us. We are to Him.

Avatar wrote:the over-riding opinion seems to be that you can't be a member of any church without cleaving to all their beliefs, dogmas, etc.
--Avatar

It seems that way sometimes. But every single Catholic I know uses birth control, except for the ones who are too old or too young to need it. That makes them sinners in the eyes of the Church; it doesn't make them not Catholic.

I like Lenny Bruce's take on this: "More and more people are turning away from the Church and turning to God."

My conflict with some of what I hear espoused by organized religions is that the doctrines seem to conflict with what I know of the Bible. I look at the Pope, for example, and the adulation heaped upon him and the power he possesses and all of the trappings and ornamentations of the Vatican and I think, is this truly what Jesus, a humble carpenter whose message was really quite simple, had in mind?

I prefer to think that a relationship with whatever God one believes in is deeply personal, and should be between that person and his/her God, unfiltered by the interpretations and rules of those who would presume to speak for Him...or Her. If that makes me a sinner, or puts me on the short list to Hell, well, I'll take my chances.

Warmark Jay wrote:I prefer to think that a relationship with whatever God one believes in is deeply personal, and should be between that person and his/her God, unfiltered by the interpretations and rules of those who would presume to speak for Him...or Her. If that makes me a sinner, or puts me on the short list to Hell, well, I'll take my chances.

The difficulty with this idea is that people are infinitely inventive in recasting the idea of God to suit their own prejudices. There are those who hear 'God' in their Rice Krispies, telling them to blow up buildings. There are those who find 'God' in their fantasies, telling them to use other people as sex toys, wrecking their emotional and physical health in the process. There are those who find 'God' in their pocketbooks, telling them to lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate their way to easy millions. All these are 'deeply personal relationships between that person and his/her God', and they're sure as hell 'unfiltered by those who would presume to speak for Him'. That doesn't make them true, or good, or useful. And it doesn't mean that those personal gods have anything to do with the real God.

Human beings, I fear, will worship any damned thing. I mean that quite literally. If organized religion served no other purpose than to call BS on people's private idols, that in itself would be enough to justify its existence.

Variol Farseer wrote: Human beings, I fear, will worship any damned thing. I mean that quite literally.

That's the CRAZIEST thing I've ever heard of!

Oh wait, nevermind.
It seems this is:

tinyurl.com/acv38

Human beings, I fear, will worship any damned thing. I mean that quite literally

Yep, my point exactly...
No wonder we come up with all manner of outlandish and irrational mythology to make up our religion. When it reaches enough complexity it takes on the status of being mysterious and larger than the members. Soon it engulfs our lives and we just know its the truth. How could it not be? We've devoted such time and effort and thought to something, it just has to be true, doesn't it? Never mind that it controls the way its members think and act. It takes their money and influences their vote. It tells them what to eat! It tells them what to drink! No need to consider the real life consequences on today when you can think about heaven...

The difficulty with this idea is that people are infinitely inventive in recasting the idea of God to suit their own prejudices.

One could say that about the guy(s) who wrote the Bible. What makes one group's interpretation of the Divine more valid than another? How is believing that God speaks through, say, a head of lettuce any less odd than saying that God spoke via a burning bush? Believers of any religion will simply answer, to the point that I brought up earlier, "because MY God is the true God."

As I so often do on matters of this nature, I pretty much agree with Kin there.

And I agree With warmark Jay too. There is essentially no difference.

--A

What, no comment on the Papal resignation?

First one in 500 odd years.

Hard to believe its been 8 years. As I think I mentioned somewhere, I didn't expect him to last too long.

Now there are mutterings about an African Pope. Interesting, but if it happens, you can forget about any modernisation or liberalisation of church policy.

--A