Why not hedonism?

[TheReturnofLive]

Daniel, another thing:

In some of the Eastern Catholic Churches (I know the Melkites are rather strict), there is incredibly strict fasting which is done to subdue and lockdown the passions and to grow closer to Christ. During Lent, those Catholics have to specifically abstain from all forms of meat and dairy for the whole of Lent, and on Wednesday and Friday during every day of the year.

Do you think that those Churches would mandate such harsh requirements on people with Anorexia, or Bulimia?

Of course not.

You ought to talk with your priest to figure what's going on and to find the best course for you.

[Non Nobis]

...
Well, I believe that I existed 1 second ago, but I don't know that I existed 1 second ago. I admit that maybe I didn't exist 1 second ago.

Catholics, non-Catholics, and those unsure about their faith all know they existed 1 second ago - except a strange, out of kilter exception like you, Daniel.  A lack of mathematical proof and the ability to think the contrary thought does not prove a lack of knowledge.  You're asking far too much of "knowledge". It seems one would have to be God to have the kind of knowledge you are looking for.

I agree that it takes faith to know the authority of the Catholic Church, and I pray that you get it (or get it back). I know that only God can give you faith but often He works through some kind of moral certainty followed by PRAYER. But it doesn't take faith to know you existed a second ago. That you aren't even  sure of that makes me worry about your further thinking: your ability to accept any kind of moral certainty at all.

Maybe the Church seems hurtful to you but that is only because you are only a ghost Catholic.  You can't blame the Church for that.

You do believe in God? Pray to him for humility in the face of the knowledge He does give you.  Pray to Him for peace, because I don't think you have it.  (I know I am being repetitive (and hypocritical; I may say "pray" more than I do it) - but it is still true)

[Daniel]

The concepts of "God saving you" are concepts generally exclusive to Christianity and Islam, which implies a belief in either Christian or Islamic Monotheism, and from there, you just have to look at the claims of each of those religions to see if it makes logical sense.
There are a lot of denominations of Christianity, but you can group Evangelical Christianity / most of Protestant Christianity together insofar as they have shared concepts - Sola Scriptura, that Churches can be created from the Bible's authority, Sola Fida.

I haven't extensively researched any of them, but from what I can tell none of them are illogical. Some might be unscientific, but not illogical. Some seem more probable than others, but probabilities cannot give us certainty. Only faith gives certainty, as far as I know.

You ought to talk with your priest to figure what's going on and to find the best course for you.

I've tried with two different priests, but it didn't work either time unfortunately.

You do believe in God? Pray to him for humility in the face of the knowledge He does give you.  Pray to Him for peace, because I don't think you have it.  (I know I am being repetitive (and hypocritical; I may say "pray" more than I do it) - but it is still true)

I can't pray to God. That's too risky, because for all I know God might be like a human king. And as we know, a random guy off the street does not just barge into the king's chamber and start talking to the king. If he did that, he'd surely offend the king's majesty, and the king would rightly have him beheaded. So if God is like a king, then prayer is not an option. Rather, I would need to find some extremely holy intercessor, whom God favours, who could deliver the message on my behalf. But without assuming any one religion to be right, I know of no such intercessor. So I'm in no position to be praying to God, much less demanding that He reveal Himself to me or do anything else for me.

[Mono no aware]

1. The law obliging me to physically attend Mass on Sundays, which causes me to suffer hatred and sadness and, at times, the desire for suicide.
2. The teaching forbidding me from engaging in commerce and servile labor on Sundays, which completely disrupts my workflow and my enjoyment and my life in general. (Further, if this teaching is wrong and if God actually forbids work on Saturday rather than Sunday, then this teaching is indirectly causing me to sin against the sabbath. Because naturally if I can't do stuff on Sunday then I do it on Saturday instead.)
3. The teaching preventing me from getting married. I am now in my thirties and would like to get married but cannot because the Catholic Church says it would be a sacrilege. If the Catholic Church is wrong, then I'm going to be unmarried for my entire life for no reason at all. Not to mention that my family's bloodline will die out since I am the only male this generation.
4. The law that says we must give money to the Catholic Church. I've been setting the money aside in a locked box in my closet, but it's a considerable amount of money, and I don't have a lot of money, so I'm not about to give it to the Catholic Church or to anyone else until I know for sure that I have to.
5. The teaching that says that we must assent to Catholicism and that we must reject all of the explicitly non-Catholic religious and philosophical views. (I pretty much disregard this teaching since it is impossible for me to follow it without turning my back on Truth.)

Things would be a whole lot easier if I didn't have to obey these sorts of things. And for all I know, maybe I don't have to obey any of it. Nevertheless, I cannot disprove the Catholic Church's authority, and to disobey the Catholic Church without proof would probably be rash.
If, however, I knew that the Catholic Church's laws and teachings were in fact God's laws and teachings, then I would gladly do all of these things. Because I'd then be obeying God, and I'd know that what I am doing is not in vain.

Just to nitpick, Daniel, but there are a few problems here.  Technically a family's bloodline will not die out if the sole male heir expires without issue, so long as he has a sister who produces a child.  In old-fashioned terms, yes, it would indicate the end of the line, but those were formulated in the days before DNA testing, and at any rate they were not sufficient to protect against cuckoldry.  DNA is more reliable than family name.  Secondly, I think the obligation to honor the Sabbath on a Saturday is only incumbent upon Jews; being a Gentile, you would need only follow the Noahide Laws if you were agnostic to Judaism.  I am not however sure what kind of afterlife you could expect to earn as a "righteous pagan," as Judaism has been historically ambiguous on that point altogether.  The Sadducean sect did not even believe in an afterlife at all: when you died and went into the ground, the Creator was effectively done with you.  Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

Third, if you "don't have a lot of money" but "would like to get married" (and presumably have children), then the pecuniary matter would need to be resolved before taking into consideration what the Catholic Church teaches about marriages contracted without faith on the part of the groom.  Maximilian and queen.saints might disagree, as they contend Lady Poverty ought to be embraced as lovingly by the married as the celibate.  But from a practical standpoint it seems that a modicum of financial health is desirable for getting married with the intention of starting a family.  Occasionally the "dude bro" traditional Catholics are right about some things.

Lastly, I can only offer that suicidal thoughts are something you probably ought to discuss with your confessor if they arise from your attendance at Mass.  Perhaps you have already done that.  Xavier has termed your thought process a "dogmatic agnosticism," but I think it might be worse than that.  It seems to be more of a "paralyzing agnosticism," where your uncertainty is manifesting in a kind of existential vertigo.  You are between Scylla and Charybdis at every turn: damned if you do, and damned if you don't.  If you're in your early thirties and would like to get married and have children, then this sort of thing could intellectually bog you down for years on end at a crucial time in your life.  In your situation, you would probably be best to plump with a "Pascal's Wager" type of faith.  Granted, if you bet on Catholicism and it turns out Islam was true, then yes, you would've wagered wrong.  But we still take a hit on twelve.  Whether cruelly or not, life demands that we assess the religions and go all in on the one that looks most likely to be true.  It might not be (God could be a trickster, offering a more plausible religion, Christianity, while placing salvation in the wild-eyed Arabian madness of Islam).  You just never know, but "that's life."  Pascal admitted it's a gamble.  But one has to do something, otherwise a person stagnates.

[TheReturnofLive]

I haven't extensively researched any of them, but from what I can tell none of them are illogical. Some might be unscientific, but not illogical. Some seem more probable than others, but probabilities cannot give us certainty. Only faith gives certainty, as far as I know.

You think Sola Scriptura is logical?

That the Bible, which was a product of the Church and was given authority by the Church, is ultimately where the Church's authority derives from?

Or that the Bible is infallible because it's the Word of God, we know it's the Word of God because the Bible says so, and we can know that the Bible is trustworthy because it's infallible?

What about Islam - is it logical that in the Old Testament, a Prophet could never  give theological falsehood, yet the Prophet Muhammad literally contradicted himself when he first accepted the Three Pagan Goddesses as legitimately from God, but then later said "Oops, the Devil was whispering to me?" Is it logical that the entire point of one's spiritual life on Earth is acetic denial of the flesh, but for Islam, Eternal Life would be drinking wine and orgies with virgins? Is it logical that Jesus as a Prophet would reject divorce as immoral, yet the Prophet Muhammad re-enabled divorce for literally any reason?

Is it logical that the Prophet Muhammad ordered people to follow some elements of Kosher and the Old Law as mandated by God, because they were absolutely mandated by God and never abolished, but other parts can be arbitrarily ignored?

Is it logical that God would send Jesus to have Disciples to create communities, knowing full well they would apostatize immediately in such a short amount of time that there can be no evidence of such an apostasy ever occurring, and would wait for another Prophet 750 years later to fix things?

Is it logical that God would demand witnesses for every occasion of Testimony, yet the Quran appears in a dream with no witnesses to confirm it's legitimacy, so God no longer actually demands witnesses?


And yes, you're right - it is mostly probabilities. But humans live off of probabilities and need it to function to a certain degree. Probabilities don't always guarantee Truth, of course - but you live off the probability that your reality actually exists, the probability that you actually haven't been brainwashed with false-memories, the probability that DNA tests are accurate and you can trust them to learn more about yourself - probabilities that are necessary to function.

Belief in these probabilities are based on Faith, and likewise, Faith in God is necessary to function properly.

You ought to talk with your priest to figure what's going on and to find the best course for you. I've tried with two different priests, but it didn't work either time unfortunately.

Have you tried visiting another rite? And you don't have to listen to me, but what about visiting an Orthodox Priest - Eastern or Oriental?

I can't pray to God. That's too risky, because for all I know God might be like a human king. And as we know, a random guy off the street does not just barge into the king's chamber and start talking to the king. If he did that, he'd surely offend the king's majesty, and the king would rightly have him beheaded. So if God is like a king, then prayer is not an option. Rather, I would need to find some extremely holy intercessor, whom God favours, who could deliver the message on my behalf. But without assuming any one religion to be right, I know of no such intercessor. So I'm in no position to be praying to God, much less demanding that He reveal Himself to me or do anything else for me.

What legitimate Monotheistic religion on this earth believes that God hates unworthy people reaching out to Him, even if it's limited?

[james03]

That man always resists merely sufficient grace is not a defect in the grace but a defect in man.

Pure Lutheran Heresy.  Man is totally depraved even AFTER regeneration.  I'd like to see a cite where St. Thomas even comes close to this.  But you'll find a lot of discussion on this from Luther.  The dung pile covered with snow.  Heresy.

[james03]

The problem there is you have four claimants to who actually compiled the New Testament: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and The Assyrian Church of the East.

In 382 they were all Catholic under the Pope.  And it was the Pope that took the final table of contents and sent St. Jerome to compile a proper translation into the common tongue.

This is an external proof of the authority of the Catholic Church.  There are many others.  The claim that there is no external proof was absurd.

[Vetus Ordo]

What about Islam - is it logical that in the Old Testament, a Prophet could never  give theological falsehood, yet the Prophet Muhammad literally contradicted himself when he first accepted the Three Pagan Goddesses as legitimately from God, but then later said "Oops, the Devil was whispering to me?"

The historicity of the event you describe is disputed. Although there might be some historical basis for it, in its present form it's certainly a later, exegetical fabrication.

Is it logical that the entire point of one's spiritual life on Earth is acetic denial of the flesh, but for Islam, Eternal Life would be drinking wine and orgies with virgins?

Two remarks:

1. In Islam, the purpose of one's life on earth is not an ascetic denial of the flesh but a balance between spiritual and bodily needs.
2. The nature of paradise is described in the Qur'an and in the prophetic traditions in a profoundly symbolic language. Muhammad says in Tirmidhi that "Allah has said: I have prepared for My righteous servants what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no heart has conceived." It's no such much about "orgies" but about perfect bliss of mind and body, painlessness, justice, absence of sleep or fatigue, etc. Even the said wine does not intoxicate.

Is it logical that Jesus as a Prophet would reject divorce as immoral, yet the Prophet Muhammad re-enabled divorce for literally any reason?

This sort of thing has to be analyzed keeping in mind that Islam presents itself as the definite criterion by which all previous revelation is corrected. So the absolute prohibition against divorce, for instance, is seen an error probably influenced by Gnosticism.

Is it logical that the Prophet Muhammad ordered people to follow some elements of Kosher and the Old Law as mandated by God, because they were absolutely mandated by God and never abolished, but other parts can be arbitrarily ignored?

See above.

Is it logical that God would send Jesus to have Disciples to create communities, knowing full well they would apostatize immediately in such a short amount of time that there can be no evidence of such an apostasy ever occurring, and would wait for another Prophet 750 years later to fix things?

This can be one the strongest arguments against Islam: the historicity of the Christian belief in Christ's divinity. It can also be tricky at times, especially given the vast material of modern scholarship on Early Christianity. Nevertheless, it's the strongest argument, in my view.

Is it logical that God would demand witnesses for every occasion of Testimony, yet the Quran appears in a dream with no witnesses to confirm it's legitimacy, so God no longer actually demands witnesses?

The Qur'an was progressively revealed during a time span of approximately 22 years. Although there were no witnesses but Muhammad himself in the first instance of revelation at the Cave of Hira, the same cannot be said for the rest of his life. He often experienced these revelations in public or at home with other people. The validity of the whole corpus of revelation hinges upon two main points:

1. Historical: the teachings, integrity, demeanor, miracles and overall prophetic coherence of Muhammad, as recorded by his followers and the early Islamic community;
2. Present: the coherence, excellence and (allegedly) miraculous nature of the textus receptus itself. This is the challenge the Qur'an itself makes which presupposes the ability of each generation of people to verify it which, in turn, will confirm or deny Muhammad's prophethood.

[Daniel]

Lastly, I can only offer that suicidal thoughts are something you probably ought to discuss with your confessor if they arise from your attendance at Mass.  Perhaps you have already done that.  Xavier has termed your thought process a "dogmatic agnosticism," but I think it might be worse than that.  It seems to be more of a "paralyzing agnosticism," where your uncertainty is manifesting in a kind of existential vertigo.  You are between Scylla and Charybdis at every turn: damned if you do, and damned if you don't.  If you're in your early thirties and would like to get married and have children, then this sort of thing could intellectually bog you down for years on end at a crucial time in your life.  In your situation, you would probably be best to plump with a "Pascal's Wager" type of faith.  Granted, if you bet on Catholicism and it turns out Islam was true, then yes, you would've wagered wrong.  But we still take a hit on twelve.  Whether cruelly or not, life demands that we assess the religions and go all in on the one that looks most likely to be true.  It might not be (God could be a trickster, offering a more plausible religion, Christianity, while placing salvation in the wild-eyed Arabian madness of Islam).  You just never know, but "that's life."  Pascal admitted it's a gamble.  But one has to do something, otherwise a person stagnates.

That might be true, but, if it is, then I have no choice but to reject the Catholic Church in favour of something like deism. Because my experience and the scientific evidence both tell me that the Catholic Church is probably a false religion, and that God has probably never revealed Himself to man. Certainly deism is the most probable religious framework, to my current knowledge.
Still, I won't willingly abandon Catholicism or become a deist, because that would be dishonest and unreasonable. The best I can say is that I honestly don't know, and leave it at that. (Though I still can't help but wonder why I should submit to the Catholic Church, when, in my mind, it probably doesn't hold any authority anyway...)

In 382 they were all Catholic under the Pope.  And it was the Pope that took the final table of contents and sent St. Jerome to compile a proper translation into the common tongue.

This is an external proof of the authority of the Catholic Church.  There are many others.  The claim that there is no external proof was absurd.

But how is that a 'proof'? For all any of us know, nothing existed before "last Thursday". But even without going to that extreme, I still don't see how the biblical canon proves that the Catholic Church is really a divinely-appointed authority. Maybe everyone was duped and accepted the Catholic Church's canon despite the fact that the Catholic Church never had any authority. Here's a possibility: maybe the true Church went invisible before there ever was a biblical canon. And the so-called 'Catholic Church' later filled the void. Or here's another possibility: maybe Jesus founded the Catholic Church, but maybe Jesus isn't God and his church never had any real authority to begin with. The existence of a widely-accepted biblical canon doesn't seem to prove anything, unless I completely misunderstand your argument.

[TheReturnofLive]

The problem there is you have four claimants to who actually compiled the New Testament: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and The Assyrian Church of the East.

In 382 they were all Catholic under the Pope.  And it was the Pope that took the final table of contents and sent St. Jerome to compile a proper translation into the common tongue.

Which is why the Book of Hebrews is absent from the Pope Saint Damasus's  "definitive" list.

Again, this is just an assertion.

[TheReturnofLive]

.

[Xavier]

The problem there is you have four claimants to who actually compiled the New Testament: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and The Assyrian Church of the East.

In 382 they were all Catholic under the Pope.  And it was the Pope that took the final table of contents and sent St. Jerome to compile a proper translation into the common tongue.

Which is why the Book of Hebrews is absent from the Pope Saint Damasus's  "definitive" list.

Again, this is just an assertion.

The assertion that Hebrews was absent from Pope St. Damasus' list appears incorrect: "Council of Rome of 382 and the Biblical canon
One of the important works of Pope Damasus was to preside in the Council of Rome of 382 that determined the canon or official list of Sacred Scripture. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, states: A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus_I#Council_of_Rome_of_382_and_the_Biblical_canon

"The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

As regards Holy Mass, man should consider it his greatest privilege and joy to participate in the Holy Sacrifice. The holy Angels come to the Sanctuary trembling with reverence and joy when the Priest offers the divine Victim on the Altar. We should participate in Holy Mass with the same sentiments of thanksgiving as we would have participated on Calvary, knowing Our Lord Jesus was dying for our sins.

[TheReturnofLive]

Okay, I guess I'm wrong.

But again - why would the African Churches hold a Council determining the New Testament Canon 10 years after Rome has spoken, with the case being closed?

[Non Nobis]

You do believe in God? Pray to him for humility in the face of the knowledge He does give you.  Pray to Him for peace, because I don't think you have it.  (I know I am being repetitive (and hypocritical; I may say "pray" more than I do it) - but it is still true)

I can't pray to God. That's too risky, because for all I know God might be like a human king. And as we know, a random guy off the street does not just barge into the king's chamber and start talking to the king. If he did that, he'd surely offend the king's majesty, and the king would rightly have him beheaded. So if God is like a king, then prayer is not an option. Rather, I would need to find some extremely holy intercessor, whom God favours, who could deliver the message on my behalf. But without assuming any one religion to be right, I know of no such intercessor. So I'm in no position to be praying to God, much less demanding that He reveal Himself to me or do anything else for me.

Since you are posting on a Catholic forum, why not first consider a God who (as the Catholic Church teaches) does hear prayers.  If there is such a God,  He may help you.  If there is no God or no God who cares one way or the other, no harm will be done.  If there is a "cruel king" God such as you conjecture,  He's going to be very angry with you for being so unsure of Him - pray or not you are going to be in big trouble if not beheaded.  Pray "if there is a God who will listen...". Why should it matter if you feel silly?

You're in no position to NOT be praying. I worry for you if you are really resisting prayer.

St. Columba said:

...
I cannot fathom, for the life of me, how God could possibly reject someone who so much wants to please Him and do what is right. 

If you are trying to please Him why don't you pray?

[Xavier]

Please pray the Rosary every day, Daniel. It is a very easy, and most powerful and efficacious means to obtain or recover sanctity, and abundant wealth of grace. And remember what Jesus said, "Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things [i.e. all our daily needs in the world] shall be added unto you." (Mat 6:33), as so many have discovered when they began to practice putting God and a holy life first. God loves us and wants to Provide us with the best things - the life of sanctifying grace, great merit here below, great glory in heaven; and His Providence will also provide us with all that is needed for life, when we trust in Him and ask Him for those graces and blessings, even temporal blessings. May God bless you, Daniel, we'll be praying for you.

http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/red-rose.htm#2

A RED ROSE: FOR SINNERS

POOR MEN AND WOMEN who are sinners, I, a greater sinner than you, wish to give to you this rose----a crimson one, because the Precious Blood of Our Lord has fallen upon it. Please God that it will bring true fragrance into your lives----but above all may it save you from the danger that you are in. Every day unbelievers and unrepentant sinners cry: "Let us crown ourselves with roses." [1] But our cry should be: "Let us crown ourselves with roses of the Most Holy Rosary."... On the contrary, sinners' roses only look like roses, while in point of fact they are cruel thorns which prick them during life by giving them pangs of conscience, at their death they pierce them with bitter regret and, still worse, in eternity, they turn to burning shafts of anger and despair. But if our roses have thorns, they are the thorns of Jesus Christ Who changes them into roses. If our roses prick us, it is only for a short time----and only in order to cure the illness of sin and to save our souls.

So by all means we should eagerly crown ourselves with these roses from Heaven, and recite the entire Rosary every day, that is to say three Rosaries each of five decades which are like three little wreaths or crowns of flowers: and there are two reasons for doing this: First of all to honor the three crowns of Jesus and Mary----Jesus' crown of grace at the time of His incarnation, His crown of thorns during His passion and His crown of glory in Heaven, and of course the three-fold crown which the Most Blessed Trinity gave Mary in Heaven.

Secondly, we should do this so that we ourselves may receive three crowns from Jesus and Mary. The first is a crown of merit during our lifetime, the second, a crown of peace at our death, and the third, a crown of glory in Heaven.

If you say the Rosary faithfully until death, I do assure you that, in spite of the gravity of your sins "you shall receive a never fading crown of glory." [2] Even if you are on the brink of damnation, even if you have one foot in Hell, even if you have sold your soul to the devil as sorcerers do who practise black magic, and even if you are a heretic as obstinate as a devil, sooner or later you will be converted and will amend your life and save your soul, if----and mark well what I say----if you say the Holy Rosary devoutly every day until death for the purpose of knowing the truth and obtaining contrition and pardon for your sins.

In this book there are several stories of great sinners who were converted through the power of the Holy Rosary. Please read and meditate upon them ... TWENTY-FIFTH ROSE: THE WEALTH OF SANCTIFICATION

NEVER WILL ANYONE really be able to understand the marvelous riches of sanctification which are contained in the prayers and mysteries of the Holy Rosary. This meditation on the mysteries of the life and death of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the source of the most wonderful fruits for those who use it.

Today people want things that strike and move and that leave deep impressions on the soul. Nor has there ever been anything in the whole history of the world more moving than the wonderful story of the life, death and glory of Our Savior which is contained in the Holy Rosary. In the fifteen tableaux the chief scenes or mysteries of His life unfold before our eyes. How could there ever be any prayers more wonderful and sublime than the Lord's Prayer and the Salutation of the Angel? All our desires and all our needs are found expressed in these two prayers ...

For never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic or be led astray by the devil. This is a statement that I would gladly sign with my blood. "