That Star Trek sequel sucked.

 To be honest, I don't even know what you're saying. You don't know what's on the other side, but you don't know if you're saved, but you know that you'll be judged ...

I don't even know if I'm capable of getting it any more.

What is your point here? Seriously, I am not attacking you, just confused as to this post's purpose.  This is supposed to be an articulation of your faith that is"to explain my faith in such, and how that belief governs my actions." If you say you have no idea about the existence of life after death, but then say a few sentences later that you are going to be judged by a "just judge" for your life's actions, then you have just contradicted your own presupposition. If you don't know exactly how the supposed system of judging is going to work, but know you will be judged in an afterlife, then you have already assumed that:

1. there is an afterlife

2. there is a just judge who will mete out justice(punishment and perhaps reward?)

3. you assume that you have done bad things in this life that will necessitate punishment

4. you fear this punishment and would like to extend your trial date as far as possible into the forseeable future to avoid said punishment

5. this fear of punishment informs your personal philosophy of eternal justice leading you to wonder if atonement for your perceived bad deeds will grant you immunity from judgement

6. it is fear of this punishment, not a rational justification for doing good, that is your primary motivation to change your moral modus operandi

7. you are still having philosophical questions about the plausibility of sin transference and salvation

 

I would suggest reading actual arguments concerning the utterly ridiculous ideas of sin, sin transference, and salvation from sins. By asking these questions, I think you may be onto discovering the benefits of rationality. The fact that you have not taken these contradictory ideas as given, but are consciously trying to understand them makes me want to encourage you to study and learn about the topic you have brought up. Good luck and may you find the path of reason.

I would start here as a jumping off point on your journey to grasping the totality of these concepts atonement of sin through sacrifice

 

So as a side question, if you believe accounts of the afterlife are coloured by emotion, etc., do you think that a belief in an afterlife is grounded in the same sorts of emotions?  If not, why not?  If so, what effect does that have on the validity of the belief?

So at least part of your fear of death is fear of the unknown.  I can understand that.  Have you read the book Variable Star, by Robert Heinlein and Spider Robinson?  There is a good description in there about the basic conservative/liberal dichotomy (meaning not just politically).  He argues that the basic split is how people feel about the future; liberals are excited by it and conservatives are scared by it.  Your explanation lends some support to the idea.

From this, it sounds like the other part of your fear is that given your beliefs, you must assume that 1) an afterlife exists and that 2) your current existence is sufficiently distasteful to the god of your beliefs that your impending afterlife will probably be less than pleasant.

Do I have this right so far?

Good to see you again pauljohn, thanks for joining us.

To clarify a couple of points.

First, I think fear may be a bit much ( not a whole lot, but  a bit much) of an overstatement.  Apprehension, perhaps, like that we face when confronted by any unfamiliar experience.

Second, dark nights of the soul, periods of spiritual dryness, are not uncommon even amongst the staunchest of believers.  That's what all the ballyhoo was about when Mother Teresa's letters were published.  But such experiences have been documented by religious writers, contemplatives and mystics for at least hundreds of years, so much so that one writer, St John of the Cross actuall wrote a book chronicling his "dark night of the soul". 

Lacking definintive proof of the existence of God, I must say that the possibility does exist that theism is a mistaken premise.  I would say, however, that argument sfor God certainly make His existence plausible, and my emotional (eek) bent is definitely inclined towards belief.  Any argument that emotuion does not and should not play a role in our decisions is hogwash.

As far as deconverting, thanks but no thanks.  As tempting as you make those Sunday mornings inventing a better mousetrap sound, I'll stick with spending it with friends, family and my Eucharistic Lord.  I, for one, am a much better person under the influence of religion than I am without.  I've tried life both ways, so I know.

With the mess of kids I've got, there's nver money for anything anyway.  Most of what I give to the Church is in the form of time and labor, and then mostly in the pursuit of her social justice agendas.

Time presses me right now.  I'm going to have to adress the second half of your post later, but I wanted to get something on here before you thought I'd bailed on you. 

 

I beleive that any decision we make, or that any belief we hold can be colored by emotion.  I don't see where that invalidates that decision, or renders that belief invalid.  So, yes, I think that belief in an afterlife, and theism in general can be colored by emotion.  Please note, that I say "colored" by emotion, I do think that there is enough rational evidence of a deity to make that belief a rational proposition.  Kelly's blog article on the positive effects of anger is an perfect example of this.

No, I havent read the book, but an interesting proposition.  I think of myself as a pretty conservative fellow.  Although I think some of my stands on political hot topics would surprise folks.  For example, I am ardently pro-life, but at the same time opposed to capital punishment.  I  support the war in Iraq now (although I was less than enthusiastic in the beginning), but at the same time espouse the rights of "illegal" immigrants (to a degree).  I try to base my political views on the ideals of basic human dignity.

Somewhat.  But I think I need to expand a bit on the concept of sin.  Not only do I fear the judgement of a just God, but I realize that I have done things which are an affront to the basic dignity of human persons, not only the dignity of others, but the dignity of myself.  

Hi Totus_tuus, thanks for responding to my question.

I always thought, especially being a catholic, that if you confessed your sins and loved Jesus you were guaranteed of being saved.

I understand the emotional response, this is why many theists can't let go, but it is actually very improbable that there is a god at all and I think if you look closely (without your emotion) as if it wasn't your religion the probablility of christianity being true is 0%. (this goes for all of the other religions too).

Hi, Ronin.  No problem.

If I confess my sins with a firm purpsoe of amendment, yes, they are forgiven.  This doesn't give me license to continue committing the same sins over and over again and not change my ways.  Further, my sins are forgiven, but, as my sins are to some degree a reflection of something less than ideal love (whether towards God or towards my neighbor) I'm am still liable for the damage thay have caused.  Also, just as not every crime against human laws does not merit a life sentence, not every transgression against God's laws merits eternal damnation.  There's a hell of a difference between an 8 yoear old kid snatching a cookie when mom's not looking and serial murder.   While I amy not be damned for those sins I have had absolved through confession, I will be called to account for them.  Hence, the Catholic doctrine of "purgatory".

I disagree.  While Thomistic arguments do not prove to a certainty the existence of God, they make it seem to be a reasonable proposition. 

 

True.  And I do discuss the idea of confession in my reply to ronin-dog as well.  I won't rehash it here otjher than to say that to blieve I'm a shoo-in for salvation would be presumtuous.   Further, I must hope to be able to persevere in my faith.

I haven't read her letters yet.  It's on my to do list.  I've only heard excerpts, but there is no doubt in my mind she experienced the "dark night of the soul" so aptly described by St John of the Cross.  At one point she experienced a very deep sharing with Christ for a short period of time.  Then, for forty years nearly nothing, yet throught that spiritually dry period, she persevered.

I agree that emotionalism is less prevalent in Catholicism, though not totally absent.  Nor should it be.  The robust thinkers of the Catholic Church further attract me.  Historically, I have to cite John Henry Cardinal Newman, who said that to be "deep in history is cease being Protestant."

How many really new thoughts do you suppose there are?  How many theses do you think you or I are capable of formulating?  I must admit that you are correct, many things that I think, most things that I believe are the thoughts of others.  But how uncommon is that really?  You, I presume, believe that the earth is round, that it revolves around the sun while rotating on its axis.  Is this something that you devised on your own?  Or is rather something you were taught, and to which your will has assented?

So it is with the philosophy which guides my life.  The Church and I see alike that there exists an objective truth.  The Church has the wealth of thought on which to draw, and the resource of time on which to ponder how our actions complement or oppose that truth.  I don't always have that luxury, which is not to say that I do not think.

Thanks (I think].  I try to be tolerant of others.  I don't know your full stroy, or how you came to lose faith, but I can certainly understand those who have done so for a multitude of reasons. 

 

Lemme ask this, do you really think the world as it is now is the best it could possiby be?  Or do you think it could be better?  If you think this is as good as it gets, why?  If you believe it could be better, what fuels that belief?  From whence springs that which Abraham Lincoln called the "angels of our better nature"?

Right.

Correct.

True

Yes.

To the same extent that Tolkien's saga of Middle Earth bears no resemblance to the struggles of the earth we know.  Yet his commentary on  the battle between good and evil, the temptations to use evil in the pursuit of good, or the benefits of hope for humankind are clearly to be seen.  The Creation account of Genesis is meant to illustrate that a God created the Universe, that the crowning achievement of that Creation is Man.  It demonstrates that the universe was created over time, in stages with each stage dependent on the previous, that Man is an intentional creation whose formation was guided by God.  It's not a science text.

I'll address the last section of your post later.  Time's short right now.

Salvation from a hell, yes.  That's the negative punishment, the absence of God's perfect love.  Furhter, there's the positive reward of a new heaven and a new earth, that is, Creation restored to the state it was meant to be

Discussion is how new ideas begin in the minds of individuals. Discussion cause those to consider new ways and ideas. As I pointed out I was involved in R & D in consumer products and in main frame computer systems. I have been involved in development of new ideas that you have in your home or that benefit your life. A small thing such as a smoke alarm which saves countless lives, I was involved with the development of new techniques over 30 years ago. I was also involved in hardware development of high tech main frame equipment for data storage. The low cost of data storage just didn't happen, we went down new roads. When I first began in the field of data storage, 30 megabytes were stored on a disk drive as big as your stove.

The point was it validated what I had learned. Yes others develop theories which are put in books, taught in schools such that each of us don't have to discover fire, electricity, evolution, and relativity on our own. Learning and storing knowledge is how we have progressed. Each person has the chance to use their abilities to add to this knowledge.

Of course I haven't tested every single theory or principle, I accept past practices in most cases without testing. Though if there is doubt, it is possible to do. Each person has questions about specific things that cause them to delve further into understanding of its nature.

Currently the Church considers research into DNA, stem cells, and genetics are wrong and sinful. See:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125676.html

The Catholic League goes to great extents to suppress any derogatory information against the Church. See:

http://www.population-security.org/23-CH15.html

The Catholic Church for hundreds of years maintained a forbidden book list, which ceased in 1967. See:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/features/article_1070798.php/Vatican_opens_up_secrets_of_Index_of_Forbidden_Books

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

The Church also suppressed views of its own priests and theologians in recent times. John Paul II was involved in suppressing or silencing at least 100 of his own. See:

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1119

 

 

I previously told you that I have a graduate degree from a Jesuit University so I am clearly aware of the Church's support of education. Many things were not allowed to be discussed in my classes by individual professors based on their interpretation of the Church's rules. Of course similar attitudes occur ed in the public university where I received my undergraduate degree as well. The Church is not necessarily against progress, but wished to control the process if possible.

The preservation of texts was also done by Islam. In some cases documents were not preserved as they were primarily against the Church.

 

My point to you was this was completely against the teaching of Jesus. The Gospels do not contain the command to kill others to spread the word. No, it says to turn the other cheek. So the entire Inquisition of all forms was contrary to the teaching of Jesus. The Catholic Church has no recourse in scripture to grant it the right to shed blood at all. The scriptures specifically say that God will judge, not man.

They should have never even been allowed by The Church as it was completely contrary to the Gospels and early Church tradition.

Similar to the Inquisition, the Church violated its directive from Jesus by authorizing the murder of others. If the Soul of the sinner is its only concern how does grabbing land save the soul. Palestine could be claimed by many at the time, but certainly not Europeans who were not Jewish. The Greeks of the Byzantine Empire still had claims based off of the Roman conquests but not the Catholic countries of Europe. Arabs and Persian had a far better claim to the land than English, Germans, or Spanish who had no claim at all.

The Crusades in Palestine did not save Europe from Islam. The wars in the Balkans and the Iberian peninsula did.

 

Consider your justification is one American Indians could use to expell all whites and blacks from North America. If they perceived (probably rightfully) we were the vicious enemy who siezed their lands and demanded we leave, are you planning on leaving?

Such is their directive from Jesus of the Gospels.

Pius XII is another story. As the secretary of state Bishop Eugenio Pacelli he signed the concordat with Hitler in 1933. This removed criticism from the Church of all activities of the Nazis. If Catholics had protested his actions murder of Jews may have been prevented. After the war claims were made he was involved in smuggling Nazis and hiding them at the Vatican. As Ayn Rand said, any compromise with evil only evil gains.

Except the Popes are supposed to be the Vicar of Christ God's right hand man on Earth have shown themselves to be some of the most vile men ever.

It isn't any one action of the Church that is less then stellar, its' the continued trend of immoral activities, suppression, control, traditions of ignorance, and lack of criticism of its failure.

In the late 18th century are you aware the Church condemned the United States for its freedom and its democracy? Pius IX if memory serves me correct looked unfavorably on the U.S. I think he was the same pope that developed the concept of papal infallibility which is limited to faith and morals (see Vatican Council of 1869-1870).

 

I should have spoken more directly.  I took what you wrote to mean that you believe people's afterlife accounts are solely social conditioning and not actual experiences thereof.  What I was asking was based on that; is belief in an afterlife despite all evidence that it does not exist, predicated on emotional need of believers?  I understand that faith dictates that it does exist, but it is nothing more than that: a dictum; offered without a shred of physical proof, and a mountain of evidence on the con side.  It seems as if that belief is nothing more than gee-wouldn't-it-be-nice for when things are bad.

I, for one, would like you know how you square your belief in "ideals of basic human dignity" with supporting the war in Iraq, but that will be getting too far off topic.

Ay yi yi, who hasn't found things in their past for which they feel remorse?  I can think of a few situations in which I was a right bastard, despite feeling my actions were justified at the time.  I feel both remorse for having done these things and determination to not do them again.  That just means you are actually interested in becoming what you see as a better person, not a reason to fear the inevitable end of your collection of biological processes.

Because I am alive, I am going to die.  I accept this as inevitable, and since it is unavoidable, I see no need to get execrised (exorcized? ha!) about it.  I don't look forward to it because I enjoy living, but it seems analogous to hoping against hope that the wine bottle won't get emptied during a great dinner.

 

I agree enthusiastically.  Time does not allow the testing, the deep cconsideration of each and every precept we accept to be true, hence, we often accept the thinking of others as, if you will pardon the pun, gospel.

You and I are pretty much in agreement here as well.

War is not prohibited Scripturally.  The right of nations to defend themselvs is reserved.  Read the wole Gospel, not one verse.

The period 700AD through nearly 1600 AD is one long struggle against the aggression of Islam.  It is, perhaps, a struggle we are witnessing the renewal of today.  The wars in the Balkans and in Iberia were fought in the name of European Christendom and were not separate events from the Crusades, but merely episodes in the same vast struggle.  The Crusades were an offensive phase in a defensive war.  They bought breathing space for a Europe besieged from the north, south and east.  Had the Crusades been successful, if the Crusaders seized damascus and severed Islam into two halves, we would most likely not be facing the threat that militant Islam poses to western civilization today. 

The Concordat guaranteed the rights of the Church in the Reich and time after time was violated by the Nazi government.  These violations prompted numerous objections on the part of the Vatican and resulted in the condemnation in the Encyclical Mit Brenneder Sorge by Pius XI, largely authored for his signature by Eugenio Pacelli.  That's only the beginning of Pius XII actions opposing Fascism, which is probably good fodder for another discussion.

Gotta run right now, more later.

You might quote the verse then where Jesus tells the Apostles to kill others to spread the Gospel, as I can't remember ever reading it. The discussion in Luke to sell their clothes to buy swords isn't it. Neither is the comment in Matthew where he said he came not to send peace but a sword.

My argument against the Crusades directed at Palestine by Urban II is it was sanctioning murder of non-Christians. Jesus never told them to kill others to spread the Gospel. He clearly told them the Father was the judge not man. He told them in no uncertain terms to turn the other cheek. The Christian martyrs executed by the Romans held this position that they could not kill or fight back per the directive of their savior. Urban II did fight back and used the Catholic Church to sanction murder. He went against the words of their savior. Read Luke 6:27-36 and Matthew 5:38-48.

I don't take issue with war to stop invasions at all, rather I take issue with hypocritical concepts of the Church. The other Crusades directed at heretic Cathars and enemies of the pope's family are even worse.

 

 

What I asked was basically did Jesus tell his disciples to use force to spread the Gospel? The comment about render to Caesar (Matthew 22:19-23) was regarding money and things of this world. It's a real stretch to take that to mean war. The Jews had been exempted from serving in the Legions by Julius Caesar in May of 48 BCE and that exemption was in place during Augustus' and Tiberius' reigns when Jesus was alleged to have lived. The words of Jesus seem clear to me. Turn the other cheek and do good unto your enemies. How this is misinterpreted to justify war I don't see. Other things he says is to Love your neighbor as yourself do not support killing.

You are somewhat fuzzy and in error on the Cathars. In the region of greatest concentration in Languedoc there was little authority by any king. The closest would have been the Count of Toulouise who had no control over the area. Many of the nobles and most of the people were believers in Cathari ideas. There were over 1000 perfects, those who had achieved the state of being fully initiated and many more believers. The 1208 Inquisition against them was not the first attempt to suppress their beliefs it had been more or less relentless since 1179. I suggest you read a book or 2 on the Crusades especially the Albigensian Crusade such as The Crusades by Jonathan-Riley Smith or even some of the works by Norman Cantor. Clearly the Catholic website NewAdvent is very biased in this matter and you should read non-Catholic histories for somewhat of an objective look. Your contention that this was a rebellion against an established government is in error. Even if it was so, which it is not, the United States is a country where the people rebelled against established authority as well. So do you think England still has the right to exterminate us all?

This discussion is somewhat drifting from your original intent of the fear of death though all these issues are related to having faith in Jesus as the savior. It seems to me many Christians haven't heard or understood what Jesus actually said. Or they just ignore them and go about in selfish pursuit of power and control of others. My complete objection to the Crusades is on the basis of it was against the words and commands of Jesus in the Gospels not to mention the unknown at the time concept of freedom of religion . The fact that religion is used for power and control over people is one of my major complaints against the Church. As you are part of the Catholic Church I maintain you have the blood of those murdered in the name of Jesus on your hands too. Therefore you should fear death as you may pay for the sins of complicity. After all if God can hold you as a sinner for Adam and Eve he surely can do so for all those that were murdered in his name as well by the Church you so esteem.