2.- If we ignored Leviticus, why don't we ignore all the books altogether?
3.- Did Jesus Christ cleaned up all of these other books?, if he did, tell me specifically which parts of the Bible are Ok.
4.- (Watch the video in the bottom) Do you realize that with that kind of conformist philosophy none of the independence movements that had happened trough out history would have happened?
5.- (Watch the video in the bottom) Where exactly it is said that you should report them to the authorities?
6.- Haven't you thought that maybe the entire Bible wasn't meant for us but for the ancient people of Israel?
[caption id="attachment_290" align="alignnone" width="300"]
Ok, you'll hear them but... will you answer them?[/caption]Today I want to talk about religion.
I'm not a religious person in any way , but religion has been something that I have been really interested, specially the tremendous psychological power that it has. I have been expose to some much atheistic media recently but despite of that I have never consider myself an atheist, there was a time that I considered myself an agnostic, but if you start to think about it, WE ALL ARE AGNOSTICS!!!
I don't consider myself an atheist either, because: "An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God or rejects the idea of a God or Gods".
And my perennial question is: What the hell is a God?, I mean, God is one of the most relative, allegorical and formless terms that I have encounter. At the end of the day, God is just a flying term that can be use to describe a lot of things like: nature, peace, harmony, perfection, happiness, etc. For me God is just a vague, formless and relative concept that can acquire the meaning that anyone wants to give it. So by that definition, I cannot say that I don't believe in a concept that can acquire multiple meanings.
It's a relative concept, it has a religious connotation of course, but it's a relative concept.
But that's just for the idea of a God, I not getting inside any religious stuff yet, I was just talking about my views on basic theology.
But if you ask me: Do you believe in Yahweh?
I'm going to say: Of course not! I reject that God and everything that he stands for!!!
I like atheist... to some degree. I sympathize with them, and there's a statement that they always made that I find it extremely interesting: "Religion and religious people are dangerous" ... and... as far as Catholics and Christians go, I think that's a complete YES!!!
The religion, the philosophy and the values that those religions stands for are extremely regressive, oppressive and dangerous.
But chill out!, if you claim to be a religious person and if you're about to close this blog, HANG ON A LITTLE BIT! and just read the next sentence: Most people who claim to be religious, are not religious at all!!!
What makes you a religious person?
... believing in God!
Not exactly, believing in a God makes you a Theist but it doesn't precisely makes you a religious person.
To be a religious person you must accept a pre-formulated religion and follow it, that's what makes you a religious person. What is a religious person? Someone who follows a religion, that's the true answer.
And just be honest with yourself, do you really follow the religion that you supposedly practice?, to be a religious person, you must accept everything that your religion says and follow it, do you do that? Do you even know what your religion says and which are the values that your religion stands for?
For the majority of suppose "religious people" who I know, that's a complete NO!!!
I remember the other night I was about to get into a religious debate with my girlfriend's mom(who is really really "religious") about Catholicism, and she didn't even knew that her God was name Yahweh!!! , when I realized that she didn't even knew the basics about her own religion, I just changed the subject.
But yeah, that's the case of a lot of people, that's the case of the majority of supposedly religious people. They don't know their own religion! They have never truly read the bible! They have never do research of what their religion is about!, and that just kills me!
Going to church all Sundays does not make you a religious person. Knowing your religion, accepting your religion and following your religion is what makes you a religious person. If you just go to Church all Sundays for trying to be religious, you're not religious, you're a tourist, you're a wannabe.
So after all that I've just said: Do you still consider yourself a religious person?
If you answer is yes, if you claim to truly know your religion, accept your religion and follow your religion, then I'm in luck because I need your help:
This is a video that I made a few months ago, it was a video that I made for Mr.MinistryMan (if you don't know him, he's like a christian missionary YouTube personality), in this video I challenge his religion by just asking seven simple questions about Christianity and the Bible, this are questions that I'm really interested about and I guess they're simple and basics questions that any Christian or Catholic should be able to answer, sadly Mr.MinistryMan never answered my questions, maybe you should be able to answer them, as matter fact you must be able to answer them since you're a true Christian or a true Catholics, you should be able to answer these 7 ridiculous simple questions:
Now if you cannot answer these amazingly simple questions regarding your religion, I guess you are not truly a religious person.
But you know something, that's completely fine because what most religious people don't seem to realize is that: There's 2 types of ways in believing in God.
The religious way and the philosophical way. And people don't seem to know the difference and they end up mixing them all together.
I already explained what does it means to be religious and what does it means believing in God in a religious way.
But what does it means to believe in God in a philosophical way: It's just believing in the concept of God, saying: yeah sure, there's got to be a God out somewhere, I don't know what my religious says or which are the values that it stands for, but yeah there's got to be a God.
If you think that this second description suits you better, you're not a religious person, you just believe in a concept of God that is truly independent of your religion, you are a Theist. You believe in a God but you really don't follow your religion, that's what it means to believe in God in a philosophical way.
You believe in the notion of a God, not in a religion.
Now, if you want to try to pull out the next card: "I'm religious, I don't know much about my religion or the values that it preaches but I believe in that religious God and at the end of the day that's all that matters"
Okay, you don't really follow your religion, you don't really follow their values, you don't really know your religion, you just believe in the notion of a God... can you explain the difference between you and my concept of philosophical believe that I just explain?
You're just believe in God the way you want, and my final point is: If you're already believing in God the way you want, do society a favor and at least believe in a God that is not racist, anti-tolerant, oppressive, jealous, arrogant, superficial and homicidal.
And that's it, if you think that you're a true Christian or a true Catholic then answer me the questions that are presented in the video.
Anyway a really cool YouTube user name KurtzGMSD messaged me and he told about two particular books name
"Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament" By Peter Enns
and "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuality: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis" By William Webb
He says that these books address some of my concerns without taking a fundamentalist approach, I will check them out and I'll tell you all about it.
In the meantime, is there a Christian or Catholic that can answer the questions that I present in my video?
From your description, I'd guess you're an ignostic. I'm a former Lutheran and consider myself agnostic; I don't reject the idea of god outright but the concept holds no bearing on my life at present.
ResponderEliminarAs for the idea that a member of a religion who doesn't know or follow their religion in its entirety being a tourist, I think that overreaches. There are many religious people that can read their sacred texts with appropriate context. Prohibitions against pork, shellfish and homosexuality can be ignored because we understand why, in a given time and place they were necessary, and why this is no longer true today.
I do think people can accurately consider themselves religious without knowning their religion in detail. The main reason for this is that their spiritual leaders don't promote this kind of knowledge. They can listen to the sermons and use their faith's study guides and never encounter certain sections of the bible because their church prefers to emphasize other sections. But if someone is following the guidance of their religious leaders, then they are practicing their religion and are therefore religious.
I must say my own first complete reading of the bible was a bit of a shock. And there is much in the bible that can't be correctly understood without context, so I don't necessarily blame them for steering people around those parts. But when a church promotes ideas that are grossly different from what the bible says, like "God wants you to be wealthy," uninformed members of those groups can be more easily countered if you know your bible well enough to point out the problems in their ideas.
I really don’t think that I overreached, well maybe this is just my own experience in my own country but I have met a lot of people who don’t even know their basics of their own religion and they don’t want to know, they just want to go to church and that’s it, that’s enough, they’re saints and they don’t even really believe or follow what their religion says. You call that a religious person?, Come on! they don’t even know their own religion, they’re not even interested in their religion, they’re effectively wannabes.
ResponderEliminarAnd yeah there’s this other problem in what you said, “They can listen to the sermons and use their faith’s study guides and never encounter certain sections of the bible because their church prefers to emphasize other sections”. You can call them religious I suppose, but their religious belief is not base on the true religious text that formed that religion. It’s just base on the interpretations of one man or a group of men. By that, the religious people are completely vulnerable of what those men say, because they believe that their interpretation is the only one and the correct one, and that’s what happens when someone doesn’t know his own religion, that’s why I think that you must have at least a middle amount of knowledge regarding your religion.
It comes down to a question of what a religion is. In your definition it's a collection of people that follow a spiritual ideal and become scholars of it. I agree, that would be the ideal and probably save a lot of trouble.
ResponderEliminarIn practice, it's a social group. People gather with common interests, and the actual religious texts play a varying importance from almost none to fairly important, but the ideal you describe is truly rare. For centuries the church did their sermons in Latin, preaching to a populace that didn't speak Latin! Actual knowledge of the bible was unneccessary, all you had to do was show up and Presto! you're saved.
It's also a form of government, because the leaders of the group often seek to control the members.
These are all reasons why I am a former Lutheran. I took the time, I read the texts, and I saw the vast gulf between the writing and the practice. People doing what I did runs counter to religion as government, because if people make their own interpretations they will usually dispute the leaders or leave.
I agree, people should learn what it is they are following. I'm just saying they are often actively discouraged not to do so.
Stan Andermann, that was one of the greatest and honest explanations that I've read about religion and religious people in general. In a way, you answer a lot of my questions. I really wanted to respect religion but sadly, the more I learn about it, the least I respect it.
ResponderEliminarThank you. I would add one thing to this, which is that you should not underestimate the value of a social group. It's in our nature to form groups, whether it be nations, cities, congregations or clubs. It's a survival necessity. I have encountered some very cohesive Christian groups, and they do take care of their own. Many even do personal outreach to the poor and homeless, providing food, clothing, health care, etc., and of those some do it without proselytizing. I respect this.
ResponderEliminarThe down side is that joining the group often means adopting a bronze age morality. The Bible has a significant amount of paranoia and talk of people being led astray by false prophets. The "Us vs. Them" thing promotes internal group cohesiveness, but can be very off-putting to non members. I have heard of multiple cases of Christian ministers/preachers/priests discouraging members from things like Yoga, martial arts and Tai Chi Chih because they feared the philosophical side that sometimes comes with those things. (These were personal experiences from friends who were instructors of these things.) To me this is one of the biggest problems of Christianity: it crushes curiosity for many things outside the religion, even when it is entirely unjustified.
I used to struggle with whether the good outweighs the bad in religion. My determination is that altruism will occur with or without religion. And so will "Us vs. Them."
I have to admit that I understand so much stuff now, thanks for all the great info man, your explanation was exactly what I needed
ResponderEliminarA thing that is 'true' is true for all people in all times. It is true for the best of us and the least of us. If your truth requires interpretation or context then it is not truth. If parts of your holy text are not truth because they no longer apply in this modern world where we know better then parts of your holy text are not true, not even contextually. If parts are untrue (and you admit as much) then how can you know what parts are true? The parts you like? The parts not proven false yet? Maybe just the parts your preacher or pastor tells you are true? You simply cannot know and your god has left it up to you to figure out which of his lies were not lies.
ResponderEliminarYou might decide that perhaps the text was not the inerrant word of your god, nor even inspired by your god. If so, then what motivates you to believe in your god? If your belief in your god rests solely upon those scriptures that you have not marked as false, can your beliefs be honestly called true? I think not, for you have made up your own religion with your own version of a holy text and your own version of doctrine. Why, then, should we believe your religion is true?
We're not talking about the truth here, we're talking about beliefs and I guess your comment is out of context, at who exactly are you responding? Nobody is preaching a religion here.
ResponderEliminar[...] 6 Questions That Any Christian Should Be Able To Answer (ourbrainhurtsalot.wordpress.com) [...]
ResponderEliminar[...] 6 Questions That Any Christian Should Be Able To Answer (ourbrainhurtsalot.wordpress.com) Share this:Share on TumblrPrintEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
ResponderEliminarI really like this statement because I think it captures the heart of the problem:
ResponderEliminarI used to struggle with whether the good outweighs the bad in religion. My determination is that altruism will occur with or without religion. And so will “Us vs. Them.”
That statement separates all the problems you see in the modern church, with the God of the Bible. The problem is not in Christianity or the Bible being manipulative. It is you and I that are manipulative, that conform to the "Us vs Them" mentality. The real issue is us. Humans. We bend and distort and disrupt all that is good. And that is a very Christian sentiment.
Also, If you like reading, then I recommend the book "The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism" by Timothy Keller. Definitely a great read if you like logic and reason as part of your faith walk.
ResponderEliminarI guess I should erase this article all togheter, I wrote it a while a ago and I don't even see religion or faith in that way anymore, altought I'm glad that I wrote it because it may me realize that I was asking the wrong questions. In these few months my views on religion have change a lot, I think that you can see that in another later article that I wrote entitle "If you are an atheist please never become this"
ResponderEliminarThanks for the book, and I would gladly like to talk to you about all these things, I didn't have a lot of time to read your comments yesterday so I'm reading them now. I guess I understand religion better nowadays, I used to see religion as a set of principals and definitive standarts for people to live by, but once that Stan Anderman told me to just look at modern religion as just another social club, that was the moment when everything made sense and all my question were answered, I wasn't trying to prove anything I was honestly asking what the hell what's up with so much ignorance?, basically what I was asking in this post was: If you can already believe in God without been part of a religion what's the point of joining a religion if you're not even going to follow the principals that they stand for? And then I realized that modern religions nowadays are like "reading clubs" you know those clubs middle-aged women made to join togheter and "talk about books" when in reality they don't even read the books and just gossip, that's what religion is, just another form of comunity that doesn't questions it's origin or it's substance and I'm OK with that. But I also have to add that (well maybe this is just in my city or in my country) but most of the people who I know who go to church are possible the most moraly ambiguos, intolerant, arrogant and hypocrite human beans that I have met, and I'm been completely honest here and I have to admit that that stil bothers me to this day. There had been a few times when I have even defended religious christians but I just cannot stand those horrible ignorant attitudes that a lot of them tend to have, Thanks a lot.
ResponderEliminarI appreciate your honesty most of all.
ResponderEliminarHello. I stumbled upon this article today and was skimming through the comments. If I understand correctly, your views on religion have changed since you first wrote it. I am Catholic, that is, in a meaningful sense; I reverted to the Catholic faith about 2 years ago, having never held any firm convictions about religion in general; I was Catholic in name (aka a "cradle Catholic") but had no knowledge of the Faith, and I didn't know why Catholics (authentic Catholics, that is) believed and taught what they did. The reason I've decided to comment is because you said something very interesting in your last response, comparing modern religion to the concept of a "book club."
ResponderEliminarIn these cases, in "book club religions," and all "faiths" for that matter, atheism included, there seems to be a pervading attitude of relativism, that is, the idea that MY religion (or non-religion) is just as good as YOUR religion (or non-religion); Everyone is right and yet all are wrong. But think about this (and you've probably heard this before), That there is no such thing as "relativism," precisely because it denies that there is such a thing as Objective Truth. One way we know that there is an objective truth is in the often-seen statement: "There is no such thing as objective truth." That statement in itself appeals to the idea that it is true; it tries to pass itself off as true, while at the same time it betrays itself, as I'm sure you know. How could it be true, if there is no truth?
If you are open to discussion, I will begin by making a statement: I am a Catholic, and I know what I believe (although there is, of course, much that I still do not know, I'm only 20); and having studied and considered the "origin and substance" of Catholicism, (and after NOT having held these beliefs all my life, but only somewhat recently), I believe it is the True faith, and I pursue a spiritual life in conformity with EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches, and I continue to further study and integrate these principles into my daily living; I don't pick and choose what to follow and discard the inconvenient parts, aka like a "Cafeteria Catholic." That is, after having pursued the truth, I have good reason to believe that I have found it, and not because it feels right, or because it's what my family practices. (By the way, I don't know anyone in my family who is a faithful practicing Catholic, and my faith "journey" was, and still largely is, with the exception of my new spiritual director, and a few new friends, solitary). That may seem different from other "religious" people you have come across, who tend to practice their religion superstitiously or just intellectually, rather than from the core of their very beings, as the result of deep logical, psychological, and spiritual insight. This would include the "intolerants" and "igonrants" who don't appeal to reason and logic, and only spit out "hell fire rhetoric" towards anyone who doesn't agree with them. Such people themselves have no true basis for their belief; their "spirituality" is really a form of hostility that is, at its core, an act of hatred, and a mere psychological defense against their own vulnerability. Again, if you're open to discussion, I'd be more than glad to talk to you, and perhaps answer any questions you may have.
Thanks. I wasn't trying to promote relativism or to deny objective truth in the "Reading Club " analogy I was just trying to ilustrate that most religious people don't know or they simply don't care about knowing the teachings of their religion deeply. And they're attrac to religion more by the social aspect of it. Of course in this group they have to have something in common, and that something should be "Believing in X god" in some kind of way. That would be the core essence of this group. But they don't want to learn, understand or follow that core further than the basic essence that they already grasp. I think that's what I meant xD. I would like to discuss with you, but to be honest I don't know what to discuss about. If your believes don't spread violence, antitolerance, ignorance or fear, I completely respect them. I guess I only have one question: How do you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church? Do you follow the teachings of the Bible or a priest's interpretations of those teachings? Thanks for reading.
ResponderEliminar"the only intolerable thing is sin (which all are guilty of)" that's the exact problem that I have and that I will ever have with catholicism, the essence that there's something wrong and evil in all of us. That cycle of misanthropy and self-hate is something that I will never agree with. I know that this is the basis to spread all of their teachings and ideas but sadly is one of the worst and most sinister basis that they could have chosen. I think even patriotism is better than this. I don't hate humanity as matter fact I love it as it is. I don't think that there's something wrong with us, an original sin or something deeply evil inside of us than we need the forgivness of an outside force to live, that is just a bad formulated philosophy and really susceptible to mind control. I think that there's nothing wrong with us. Of course we fight, we create wars, we have sex and we kill but such as everything in nature. Is another part of the constant cycle of energy, and we are players in that cycle too. We are just another part of nature and we don’t have to hate ourselves for that, or to ask the forgiveness of an imaginary character. Yes we fuck things up but we learn from those mistakes, or better yet we HAVE to learn from those mistakes. A sinister philosophy is not need it to create moral values, people themselves create their own moral values according to the way that they want to live and the things that they want to honor.
ResponderEliminarThe catholic tradition wasn’t name like that because everybody in the world agreed that this was meant to be the universal religion. It was named like that as an attempt to englobe all the religions (or traditions) of the western Christian world into one absolute tradition that could stand against the prominent and alarming rise of Islam and the Muslim Empires, which we’re pretty much kicking Europe’s ass at that time.
Do you believe that God is imaginary? Have you ever heard of the First Cause?
ResponderEliminarTo clarify something, the Church being called "Catholic" has nothing to do with Islam. The first was first called Catholic in the second century. Islam, as I'm sure you know, did not appear until much later. The fact that the Church is catholic in nature has to do with the fact that its existence is for all peoples of all nations. Since Jesus Christ fulfilled what was said to Abraham, that his descendants in faith would be a source of blessing for all nations.
Contrary to you impressions that the Catholic Church believes that human beings are evil (I do not know if you mean "all evil"), the Church actually states the opposite. Human beings are essentially good, but we have evil inclinations, as you stated (FYI, sex is not evil within the context of marriage between a man and a woman. Nor is war necessarily a bad thing when it is for the right reason. This isn't intolerance by any means, as I will support all of these statements with the rationale as taught by Christ and His Church.) There was a reason why a spoke of relativism in my first response. It was not because I thought you were promoting it, but rather because it is the very thing that we must guard ourselves in forming a true understanding of Natural Law. As in nature, physics can explain the workings of created objects, so can proper morals, based on Natural Law, be discovered, and if chosen, adhered to. Human beings are unique in that by their free will, they can accept or reject moral law. In this way, we are specially privileged.
However, I don't think it is quite enough to spend time on philosophical ideas, although I am not opposed to them whatsoever. If you want to have a better understanding for the teachings of the Catholic Church, and what it truly professes, you need to know who Jesus Christ is. The entire authority of His teachings, and the veracity of them, lies on one thing, and one thing alone: that He claimed to be God, the Creator of the Universe. If He is God, and He is Truth itself, then logically human beings would do well to follow it. If He is not, and He is just some fanatic, a lunatic even, then His teaching, and the Catholic Church's teaching, is to be rejected as nothing other than arbitrary. The claim is that He rose from the dead, as He Himself foretold, He who said He is Life Itself. I encourage you to read this: http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
Yeah, but there's a big problem within the teachings of Jesus Christ and Socrates. Everyhting that was recorded from their teachings wasn't recorded by them but by another person. Thus we encounter biased information, everything that we know about Socrates pretty much comes from Plato and a few other biased sources and everything that we know about Jesus comes from his apostles and a few other biased sources. I'm not saying that biased information is bad, but you have to take into consideration that is in fact biased. The teachings that you’re being taught do not come from their main source but from other person’s point of view of that main source and that’s something that you have to take into consideration. That’s the big problem with oral teachers and philosophers we’re are never sure what did they exactly say and what they exactly meant because everything that we know about them comes from other person’s point of view and not their own point of view. And would you believe that at that time claiming to be son of God or the son of a God wasn’t that amazing, in fact it was pretty common and a lot of people were doing it. The unique characteristics that Jesus Christ had was that he was incredibly charismatic, a great leader, he preached one of the most pacifist philosophies at that time, and perhaps the most important of them all, he was poor. I’m afraid that the resurrection theory doesn’t have any real evidence to back it up really to call it a fact, is just a belief and you may believe or may not. Is good to follow the word of a philosopher however is incredibly hard to follow it if you’re not sure what his exact point of view was. Even the fact that the church claims that we have evil inclination is ridicule and bad formulated and susceptible to mind control. And c’mon dude, the best and most important sex that you’re going to have in your life is going to be before you get married xD and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not saying that God is imaginary, God is a huge concept that can acquire many physical or metaphysical forms, that’s why I think is stupid to debate about it existence. However the concept of a personal human god that is always watching you like big brother and judging you like an adult version of Santa Claus, is the least believable in my point of view and the most susceptible to mind control. That human god in essence is a molded manifestation of your own Super Ego combined with the teachings that you’ve taught, in that sense God exist and it is you, you’re your own God.
ResponderEliminarI'm not trying to disprove the existence of Jesus in any way, but for what I've learned, he didn't found the Church of Christianity in any moment, he started the movement, as a radical movement, or cult or ministry or like whatever you wanna call it, and after he died, their followers founded the Christian religion based upon his teachings, thus transforming Chrisitanity into a World religion and not another Judaist cult. I’ve never heard that he actually abandoned Judaism to convert in to this new already established religion that he himself formed, I would like to know more about that moment because a lot of historians have ignore it. When it comes to it resurrection, sorry but there’s not enough serious convincing evidence to call it a fact and I don’t think that there ever will be. Is a christian belief and not an historic fact. I don’t think that the word of Jesus became so powerful because he claimed to be the son of God or God or whatever. I think that Jesus fitted into many of the Jewish prophecies of the messiah, especially at a big time of need for the Jews because they we’re suffering the tyranny of the Romans. Making Jesus the right prophet at the right time. The other reason is because of Paul, a lot people claimed that he was the one who founded the actual Christian church, what your sources say? I don’t know. But despite of everything Paul was an official Roman citizen, and he could teach Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. Another reason is the fall of the Roman Empire itself, many Romans where looking for hope and something transcendent to hold on to and Christianity was just that. Finally, Constantine the emperor of the Byzantine Roman Empire convert into Christianity and that was the thing that gave Christianity the big boom! Sorry but not I’m not a believer of the Intelligent Design Theory at all and I wouldn’t like to waste my time discussing it. But I’m interested in the values and views that you’re talking about however you’re not explaining like human sexuality , I would like to talk more about that.
ResponderEliminarOK, let me see if I understood this correctly, according to the Catholic's point of view:
ResponderEliminar1.- Sex (sexual relationships) is a holy ritual or some kind of sacred activity designed by God.
2.- The purpose of sex is to reproduce and that's the only fundamental purpose that it has.
3.- If you’re not practicing sex in this kind of way , that is to say if you’ve engaged in pre-marital sex, masturbation, homosexual relationships, used forms of contraception or even sex inside marriage but for the sole purposes of recreation and enjoyment you’re a sinner ,you don’t have self-control, you’re a narcissist ,you’re disorder and you have acted against the very own Natural Law itself because you didn’t practice sex the way that it was meant to be.
Am I correct?
1. Yes, because sex serves a higher purpose, creating children. In doing so, a couple takes part in creation itself, and so it is sacred, in that you are participating in God's creative work, creating an immortal soul. The sexual act is God's means of accomplishing this through the parents. "The two shall become one flesh" in the Biblical mindset.
ResponderEliminar2. Marital union serves that functional purpose, but there is more to it. The ecstatic union that the two share, the physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects of the conjugal act, ultimately point to, and are quite symbolic of, the union of the soul with God in accordance with mystical theology. To be clear, sexual pleasure and satisfaction are not at all sinful in themselves. They are quite good within a true marital union, and they are a real privilege that husband and wife can experience and share. Again, this union ultimately symbolizes the reality of mystical marriage with God, which is fully explained here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09703a.htm
3. Committing acts against the virtue of chastity [those sins that you mentioned], are sinful and disordered in themselves, in that they don't tend towards any higher purpose that could have been intended by God [as everything must tend towards a higher purpose]. Sex only for the sake of pleasure is narcissistic, in that the goal is towards one's own personal satisfaction, and nothing else (remember, pleasure itself is not sinful, but only when it is illicitly sought). Even the goal of satisfying another has this characteristic, as its ultimate root stems from the desire for social acceptance without higher purpose. The word "sinner" is accurate in that all of us sin at some point or another, even more frequently than we think; this word, however, carries an unnecessarily negative connotation within the speech of contemporary secular society, and does not have the same connotation in genuine Christian spirituality.The point of Christian spirituality is to be purified of sinful tendencies, so that one can learn how to give others real love, which is not at all synonymous with affection or emotion; it is the total gift of one's self, gifts, and talents for the good of others. "Lack of self-control" is somewhat misguided thinking. Culpability for sin is determined by a few things. Such as: Does a person know that a particular act is sinful? Are they at the age of reason (which is around 6 years of age)? Did they commit the act with the full consent of their own will, or were they forcefully compelled to do so by someone else? Is there a force of habit in a particular acquired sin? (which tends to be the case when many begin to control masturbation, for example; it is a difficult thing to stop all at once, but it is entirely possible to do so, and stopping this habit is not at all a bad thing, as contemporary society would have one think. Even based solely on brain chemistry, one could see how masturbation leads to a subtle, or not so subtle, depression and neurosis. The commandments of God essentially have a person's best interest in mind.) Does mental illness prevent one from recognizing their behavior? Is there some kind of addiction? Is there an issue of emotional immaturity? These factors, and more, are taken into careful consideration when distinguishing different levels of culpability and personal responsibility for sin. It is not as rigid as it is made out to be. You might find this particular page interesting and informative: http://www.chastitysf.com/motivation.htm
It would be a mistake to say that knowledge belongs to the realm of science, because science is not the only way we can know things. The problem with comparing, for example, astronomy with the search for objective morality is that those are two separate fields which require two separate methods to come to the conclusion of what is true. Concerning objective morality, one has to use an entirely different "system" in order to observe it and make sound conclusions. At this point, I don't want to say too much. I want to let the videos do the speaking first.
ResponderEliminarI will ask another question regarding the pornographic industry: What makes the way that the actors are treated so horrible? Just because you say that it's horrible? What if someone thought it was great treatment?
I should have remembered from my human sexuality class that there are people who are born who don't fit into an XX or XY genotype. Sacred Scripture actually refers to inter-sexed individuals. But one must also remember that these are exceptions, rather than the rule. Only the union of a man and a woman can bring forth a child.
I don't see what Freud has to do with therapy for persons suffering with same-sex attraction. Like you said, many psychologists take his theories with a grain of salt, although they do not discredit all of his work. There is much more to SSA therapy than Freudian concepts. I also don't see the connection between the religious background and Freud's ideas, or how any of these factors credit or discredit the work of therapy.
Anything else I have not mentioned I will leave for the videos or until a later time. Regarding what I said in the email, we do not have to leave the realm of philosophy per se, because sound philosophy and epistemology leads one straight into sound theology, Catholic theology. The Catholic religion is based on faith AND reason. To say that you need to refer to theological and supernatural concepts in order for this philosophy to "work" is misguided thinking. Rather, rational conclusions lead one straight into Catholic theology. If you have questions about "what" God is or "means," and what His nature is, then we can begin to start exploring those questions, beginning from a rational perspective.
You're correct, science is not the only way in which we know true, but is one the most loyal system that we could have created to understand complex fields, science is the light that help us see the universe and ourselves. You can’t apply science in astronomy the same way that you do in the humanities, science doesn’t contribute in the debate in a direct way but it always does in an indirect way, when you see two people debating about morality or other types of humanities there are always scientific facts constantly popping out in a lot of the arguments of all the debaters, science may not say “hey this is ok or this is not ok” but it helps us reach to a better understanding of it all. If someone knows all the dark side of the porn industry and they come and tell me that despite all, they find the treatment of a pornstar as “great” I would say that they should try it, perhaps is the right profession for them, I don’t think is really that hard to get in anyway. If a female friend comes to me and says that she wants to become a porn actress, I wouldn’t recommend her that and I will present my case justifying my claims, because I care about her and I don’t want her to find any harm because I have form a strong bond of empathy with her and I want to let her know what is all about (I would also try to find out if she’s a nympho). If after that, she still wants to be a porn actress, well there’s really nothing more that I can do, she’s free to do it and perhaps is the right profession for her at this moment.
ResponderEliminarI guess that I confused you in that part, I was trying to say that it was really hard to:
A) Find a reparative therapy book that doesn’t have a religious background.
And:
B) Find a reparative therapy book that their arguments cannot be traced back to Freud.
Freud could be considered as the father or pioneer of reparative therapy, but it seems that this field needs a complete revolution because it has done more harm that good.
I have seen up until the third episode, and they have started to talk about the natural law, the doctor said that, the first thing about the natural is to seek the “good”. He defined good as something that is in accordance to one’s nature. But he didn’t defined what is “nature” in this context. Hahahahaha and ok you win: What is God?
There's a tremendous parallel between the concepts of spirit and consciousness, but there was something that I really didn't understand “A spiritual being, therefore, cannot lose its identity" How do they define identity in this context? Another thing that I don't understand is, according to Christian theology: Is there only one spirit? or multiple independent spirits or multipible spirits but they're all entagled in one big spirit?
ResponderEliminarAnother video by Fr. Barron which follows and emphasizes the above principles, and talks about the relationship between faith, science, and the human person.
ResponderEliminarhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eyF0PiIY_o