Survey: Your Current Religion Or Belief

[Selah]

Yes, it is and should be about love. But it seems so many are concerned more with being right than they are with love. And that is what breaks my heart the most. Be honest, but as St. Paul said, do so out of gentleness and respect (Todd will disagree with the way I worded that, lol)

[little_miss_late]

I am a new convert to Catholicism- baptized Easter 2010, no religious affiliation prior to that. Married to a cradle Catholic (my high school sweetheart and a very patient man).

My parents had a mixed faith marriage and us kids were exposed to lots of different religious practices, but never taught or initiated into any one religion. Most of my extended family who actually practiced a faith were Jewish.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='JoyfulLife' timestamp='1283286748' post='2166034']
Do you mean you were focusing more on all the intellectual and book-learning, as opposed to the spiritual, meditative/contemplative prayer, Adoration, just loving God and growing in His Love? There are huge scholars and things without deep prayer, holiness, or much love.

It's about love.
[/quote]

I had both. I had a whole system that propped up my beliefs (like most catholics). Something like:

The gospels were written by historical persons
Most of the apostles were martyred rather than deny Christ
From this we can be certain that they truly believed that what they had written was true because no one would die for something they knew was a lie.
From this we know that Jesus performed miracles and was resurrected.
These miracles and the resurrection prove that he was the son of God.
etc.

I realized a lot of problems with that later on in life though. Like maybe the apostles did retract their beliefs and were killed anyway. Or that Catholicism is hardly the only religion with martyrs or miracles so that logic can be applied to most religions.

I used to go to Mass and adoration a lot although that was probably more out of an aesthetic appreciation for beauty than love for a God (which is probably why I prefered the EF).

[Sarah147]

OraProMe,

Have you read any of the lives of the Saints? Did you relate to any of them?

[OraProMe]

Ss. Josemaria Escriva and Maximillian Kolbe are pretty cool. I don't see what that's got to do with anything though

[Sarah147]

I would just think that might get you past being stuck on the details. I had a time where I was going through Apologetics online, and that helped a lot. I had to finally come to where I realized that as you live the Faith, the Faith will be revealed to you and grace helps you understand. I had to go in Faith, and be okay to learn more as I live and grow. It was pride for me to think I could figure everything out; much is a mystery, much I'm sure far exceeds what we could learn in a lifetime, much could be refused if your will wants it one way and is unwilling to be open to it (like a blinder). Faith and love is key.

Edited September 1, 2010 by JoyfulLife

[OraProMe]

[quote name='JoyfulLife' timestamp='1283311411' post='2166162']
I would just think that might get you past being stuck on the details. I had a time where I was going through Apologetics online, and that helped a lot. I had to finally come to where I realized that as you live the Faith, the Faith will be revealed to you and grace helps you understand. I had to go in Faith, and be okay to learn more as I live and grow. It was pride for me to think I could figure everything out; much is a mystery, much I'm sure far exceeds what we could learn in a lifetime, much could be refused if your will wants it one way and is unwilling to be open to it (like a blinder). Faith and love is key.
[/quote]

Before I could put any faith in a God (even if his existence could be proven philosophically) that has an infinite amount of love for me and His creation I'd first have to answer the question of why everywhere one looks in the world there's pain and suffering, something that indicates the absence of a loving God. To be honest (and I am in no way trying to offend anyone's beliefs, I have a lot of respect for phatmassers) I find original sin to be an intellectually vacuous and unfair explanation for the problem of evil better suited to a time when punishing one's children for their ancestors crimes was an acceptable practice.

Edited September 1, 2010 by OraProMe

[MithLuin]

I agree that pain and suffering is a mystery, and a stumbling block to many. I also believe that the Church's view of suffering is one of the, well, 'highlights' of the Catholic faith. It is not a fun answer, of course, but it is a meaningful one.

As for your other thoughts.....

No one dies for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for the simple reason that no one believes that it is real. The presence of martyrs in a faith indicates a certain level of 'True Believer'. It doesn't make the faith true, of course; it just means that someone (for whatever reason) believes it is true. That person could be duped, deluded, crazy, desperate, foolish, etc...but a willingness to die for the faith implies there is faith.

The apostles chose to publicly proclaim Christianity after the execution of Jesus. They certainly knew they were risking their lives going into it. Even if they (heaven forbid) became apostate before their martyrdom, their decision to become missionaries and public witnesses says that they were accepting the risk up front. There is also no indication that they had dropped their faith prior to their deaths. So, the apostles were 'True Believers' - fanatics for their faith. They could certainly have been duped into it, but....what they were claiming was to have seen Jesus risen.

There are other founders who have claimed divine insights, too, but what they tend to get out of it is followers (and not death). When things do get dicey, they skip town, maybe change their name.... In other words, founders of cults tend to value self-preservation and 'living it up' over their message. The apostles were being thrown in jail often and eventually killed, so the lure of 'prestige' seems a bit hollow by comparison.

Still, if you wanted to posit that they were just in it to con people out of their life savings, you could consider the hypothesis that they were charlatans. In that case, they [i]knew[/i] that Jesus had really died (and stayed dead) but were just perpetuating a lie for their own benefit. In this case...we would expect a certain limit to their zeal. Their [i]followers[/i] might be willing to die for the cause, but they should be quietly retiring into obscurity and living on the spoils. We...don't really see that in their story.

The two ideas don't fit together well. Either the apostles knew it was all a hoax (and yet still made a point of dying for it?) or they died for it because they were genuinely convinced the gospel was true (and that conviction came from seeing Jesus in person after his death - not exactly easy to fake/mistake).

This isn't airtight. But I do have difficulty lending credence to other interpretations. It's easy to say St. Paul's behavior doesn't really make sense. The only way to make sense of it (to me) is to admit his conversion experience was a genuine encounter with the Risen Christ.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1283437148' post='2166936']
I agree that pain and suffering is a mystery, and a stumbling block to many. I also believe that the Church's view of suffering is one of the, well, 'highlights' of the Catholic faith. It is not a fun answer, of course, but it is a meaningful one.

As for your other thoughts.....
[/quote]

That suffering is meaningful and okay because God experienced it Himself? I can see the appeal, it really is quite beautiful. It reminds me of this comedy sketch by a comedian I like where a guy called John Safran talks about how Buddha was the prototypical middle class kid getting around in the slums and that any of those millions of peasants he was trying to imitate would much rather be living in a palace with food than meditating under the Bodi tree. He concludes that if Buddha were alive today he'd be the bassist for 'The Strokes'. I guess my point is that I'm sure that the starving children and cancer patients would much rather God remove their sufferings (which, according to Catholic doctrine, are the result of a sin they didn't commit) than think "hey, it's okay, God went through this too". Also let's be honest, as disgustingly draconian and painful as the passion of Christ would have been there are still people in the world who suffer harder and longer.

[quote]
No one dies for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for the simple reason that no one believes that it is real. The presence of martyrs in a faith indicates a certain level of 'True Believer'. It doesn't make the faith true, of course; it just means that someone (for whatever reason) believes it is true. That person could be duped, deluded, crazy, desperate, foolish, etc...but a willingness to die for the faith implies there is faith.

The apostles chose to publicly proclaim Christianity after the execution of Jesus. They certainly knew they were risking their lives going into it. Even if they (heaven forbid) became apostate before their martyrdom, their decision to become missionaries and public witnesses says that they were accepting the risk up front. There is also no indication that they had dropped their faith prior to their deaths. So, the apostles were 'True Believers' - fanatics for their faith. They could certainly have been duped into it, but....what they were claiming was to have seen Jesus risen.
[/quote]

Sure no one dies for the flying spaghetti monster. But fervent Muslims do get their own version of stigmata, exhibiting the wounds of the martyrs. An indian guru (Baba Said is his name I think) performed miracles and later appeared to his followers after his death. Hundreds of people killed themselves and their children for Jim Jones. The point isn't to deride or ridicule anyone elses beliefs, just to point out that miracles and martyrs can't really be used to prove the veracity of the Catholic faith because they're in no way unique to Christianity.

I actually brought this up with my best friend (who's an atheist) a few years ago when I was struggling with these questions. I think he summed it up well: "Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on people doing inexplicable things".

Jake.

[MithLuin]

I agree that miracles/martyrs alone does not imply veracity. My contention was that it (strongly) implies faith. Meaning, the person thinks it is true. They might be wrong, but they (the believers) are at least themselves authentic. Martyrdom rules out con artists [i]from the point of view of the martyr[/i] - they could be duped or insane, but they are at least not consciously lying, generally speaking. In a case like Jonestown, where drinking the Kool-aid was forced and hardly optional, it could be ruled mass murder rather than mass suicide. Jim Jones died for his cause in a 'I'm taking you all with me and the gov't can't win!' kinda way. He died to prove he was in charge, not because his beliefs were more important than his life.

When you consider the life, ministry and deaths of the apostles, you see that they were quite convinced that their message was true, and that they maintained the truth of their statements through personal hardship, torture, imprisonment and death. So....why did they go through all that? Were they crazy? Or did they act for a rational reason? If they were crazy, there's no making heads or tales of it, though maybe a bit surprising they could have won so many over with the ravings of lunatics. If they were just in it for some sort of personal gain (they would hardly be the only people in history to start a religion to gain sway over followers and the material possessions of said followers), then why maintain the pretense through such hardship? [And why bother distributing the alms to the community and putting others in charge of that activity?] And if they were convinced it was real, but it wasn't, how did they mistakenly think Jesus had risen from the dead? Considering just [i]what it is[/i] the apostles thought was true is the other part of that - they claimed repeatedly to be eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus.

I am not saying there is no answer to those questions. I am just saying that, all things considered, it is difficult to argue against the Apostles' faith. Now, were they right? To answer that question, you have to evaluate how trustworthy they are. Were they just fanatics who couldn't accept the reality of their leader's death, and chose to continue his mission without him? Were they conartists, knowingly taking people in? Were they self-important megalomaniacs relying on charisma to pull people towards their message? Or were they the real deal? That, I cannot answer for you. I just wanted to separate out the questions. But the martyrdom of the Apostles [i]does[/i] present strong evidence that they themselves believed in their message, even if it does not necessitate that [i]you[/i] believe in their message unless you trust them.


So...suffering. No, suffering isn't just okay because Jesus suffered, too. That would, I agree, be a case of 'that's nice...but can you fix the problem, please?'

Suffering has meaning because, linked to Jesus' suffering on the cross, it gains a redemptive character. Thus, the cancer patient isn't told 'grin and bear it,' but 'offer it up.' Now, no one likes to hear that, either - it certainly isn't easy, and as advice from a non-sick person comes across as insensitive. But the truth behind it is that the suffering counts for something, it has a purpose and a meaning, and that some good can be gained through it. Thus, the suffering soul [i]is[/i] 'fixing the problem' and making the world a better place somehow. Of course, this aspect is voluntary. But the answer is there. Sure, I wish it were easier. I wish no one had to suffer. But then, none of us would wind up in heaven, so....maybe suffering is the more humane approach here. No one wishes a married couple sufferings in their marriage on their wedding day. But we all know that sorrows [i]will[/i] come, and weathering them together is what makes some marriages so strong.

I do not wish suffering on anyone. But when it strikes, I think it is important to see the good that can come from it. In time - not right away. I certainly don't feel adept at pointing out to someone else what that may be.

[Anastasia13]

Does not apply.

Ok, I selected too many. Sorry. At least it is only messed up by one vote. Attend/participate in Messianic synagogue and Oriental Orthodox church. I am still slightly involved in my old Charismatic (but not crazy) campus ministry, and my views on things were slightly influenced by my mom's non-denom approach from our old church.

Does not apply. I selected Judaism though because half of my religious practices outside of reading my Bible and praying when I drive is based on Judaism, more so than the majority here. Baruch HaShem.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Light and Truth' timestamp='1295257220' post='2200967']
and praying when I drive is based on Judaism,
[/quote]

I usually say a prayer before I go out on the road too!

[Papist]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1283215233' post='2165699']
Atheist --> Convert class of 2007 So very much Roman Catholic. Future
[/quote]

AWESOME!!! [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/banana.gif[/img]

[Papist]

Cradle Catholic --> Dormant Catholic[my 20's] --> Hardcore Obedient Roman Catholic.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/bible.gif[/img]

[Papist]

[quote name='little_miss_late' timestamp='1283300657' post='2166093']
I am a new convert to Catholicism- baptized Easter 2010, no religious affiliation prior to that. Married to a cradle Catholic (my high school sweetheart and a very patient man).

My parents had a mixed faith marriage and us kids were exposed to lots of different religious practices, but never taught or initiated into any one religion. Most of my extended family who actually practiced a faith were Jewish.
[/quote]

Welcome home.

[socalscout]

I don't understand the distinction between Cradle and Roman Catholic as I am a cradle Roman Catholic. As I understand you are either a cradle or a convert to Roman Catholicism. Maybe I am nit picking because it is a very interesting topic and thanks for posting.

[AudreyGrace]

Cradle Catholic --> Chose to be Catholic

My mother raised my Catholic, took me to daily Mass when I wasn't in school, on and on. Thank God she did that, because I know that God was working in me even then. (At age 6 I wanted to be a nun, but that's changed a little lol).

It wasn't until July 7th, 2010 that I really started taking my religion seriously, fully, and faithfully. I call it my "re-conversion day" because it was the point where I realized the beauty of the Church and God's overwhelming love for all of us. So now, I've chosen to be Catholic for life, realizing that I can't be happy anywhere else. And I feel more joyful now than I have in my entire life. Praise God.

[Papist]

Thanks for not having Devout Catholic as a choice.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1295287720' post='2201034']
because I know that God was working in me even then.
[/quote]

God was working in me even through the years that I wasn't a Catholic but he knew that one day I would and I thank him for choosing me.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1295287871' post='2201036']
Thanks for not having Devout Catholic as a choice.
[/quote]

Us converts tend to be very Devout!

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1295287720' post='2201034']
Cradle Catholic --> Chose to be Catholic
[/quote]
Ok, so a cradle catholic chose to be Catholic? Then how is that different from a convert Catholic?