Former Catholics trolling the forum

[Pon de Replay]

Dancing I get, but sex? God created/designed sex. I don't think we have a right to be ashamed of something God created. Are we all going to write Him a letter chastising him for his bad taste?

Well, yes, and that is indeed the problem.  "Will we have arguing with the Almighty by the critic?"  It is where I diverge from St. Jerome.  Assuming a personal and omnipotent God, then God is ultimately responsible for all things.  Sex, dancing, and even all the sufferings of the world would have to be said to have their existence at the sovereign pleasure of God.  This is troubling.  It seems to suggest one of two things.  So this dilemma was posed by Nietzsche: "is man merely a mistake of God's?  Or is God merely a mistake of man's?"

[Maximilian]

I would actually prefer not to read or post on this forum, yet nevertheless something compels me.  Why do I still care about any of this stuff? 

I do envy the people who are able to shake the dust from their feet and get on with their lives.

Feeling uncomfortably caught in the middle as you do, it's not the people who "shake the dust from their feet" that you envy, but those who have real faith.

It's like a man who has broken up with a long-time girlfriend. In one part of his heart he may profess to envy the men who talk about "bi**" and "hoes" and seem to have put their past love behind them. In reality, however, the ones he really envies are the ones who are still truly in love.

He may tell himself, "Those deluded fellows will get a rude awakening eventually," and yet one cannot help but envy them in the meantime. And there is always the chance that the shower of cold water might never come.

[coffeeandcigarette]

Dancing I get, but sex? God created/designed sex. I don't think we have a right to be ashamed of something God created. Are we all going to write Him a letter chastising him for his bad taste?

Well, yes, and that is indeed the problem.  "Will we have arguing with the Almighty by the critic?"  It is where I diverge from St. Jerome.  Assuming a personal and omnipotent God, then God is ultimately responsible for all things.  Sex, dancing, and even all the sufferings of the world would have to be said to have their existence at the sovereign pleasure of God.  This is troubling.  It seems to suggest one of two things.  So this dilemma was posed by Nietzsche: "is man merely a mistake of God's?  Or is God merely a mistake of man's?"

But you are conflating what God himself created and ordained, and what we humans have made of our world with the raw material provided. He created sex and told us to use it. It is literally the first commandment in the bible to men. Dancing we figured out ourselves, although it to seems to be pleasing to God when done for non-sensual reasons. David danced before the Ark...etc. Sex was not used to bring Christ into the world obviously, but it was certainly employed to bring Mary and Joseph into this world. John the Baptist too, and every single other saint, prophet, etc. If there is an argument to be had, it is with sinful, willful humanity, not God. If He created something that we must use/do/etc that was sinful, then He would be the bad parent, commanding us to do evil, whom we must disobey. That is NOT the case. All that is needful is lawful in God's eyes, extra foolishness that we have dreamed up is our problem.

[Xavier]

But people will do what they can get away with. The moderators (actually not sure if they exist) don't seem to share this perspective on who belongs.

Agreed. I believe moderators should crack down on deliberately anti-Catholic viewpoints that are very polemically put across, as in fact the forum rules say. Any blasphemy should be deleted or edited. But I also believe those with genuine doubts - Daniel of course is the first who comes to mind; and look how it's been helpful for him to continue to have Catholic fellowship as he wonderfully came out of those doubts - who express them politely and respectfully to the Catholic Faith, can be permitted to do so, especially in this sub-forum specifically dedicated to that purpose. Of course, it would be good if one of our old moderators were active, or a new one was appointed, to enforce the already existing and very good forum rules.

Edit: Anyway, started another thread on that in the Coffee and Donuts sub-forum. Let's see where it goes.

[TheReturnofLive]

But people will do what they can get away with. The moderators (actually not sure if they exist) don't seem to share this perspective on who belongs.

Agreed. I believe moderators should crack down on deliberately anti-Catholic viewpoints that are very polemically put across, as in fact the forum rules say. Any blasphemy should be deleted or edited. But I also believe those with genuine doubts - Daniel of course is the first who comes to mind; and look how it's been helpful for him to continue to have Catholic fellowship as he wonderfully came out of those doubts - who express them politely and respectfully to the Catholic Faith, can be permitted to do so, especially in this sub-forum specifically dedicated to that purpose. Of course, it would be good if one of our old moderators were active, or a new one was appointed, to enforce the already existing and very good forum rules.

Edit: Anyway, started another thread on that in the Coffee and Donuts sub-forum. Let's see where it goes.

The irony here of your whining here is that you are probably the most pretentious and rule-breaking user on this forum.

Conduct:
"1) All members must be charitable to fellow posters. If you have a concern with another member, use the private messaging feature as a first recourse for addressing said concern. If this does not adequately address your concern, contact one of the forum moderators."

Posting:
"1) Do not troll the forum. Trolling is defined as "submitting a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response.""

"5) Link your sources when posting news articles.  Conversely, do not link a news story without comment. We want to hear your thoughts and opinions. The best way to encourage discussion is to provide something for people to discuss."

Non-Catholics:
"1) Error has no rights. As such, anti-Catholic viewpoints are not permitted to be posted here."



How many times have you

Conduct: 1. Called people blasphemers, haters of God, haters of the Virgin Mary, telling people they are likely damned, haters of Christ, simply because they disagreed with your viewpoint?

Posting: 1. Posted threads not only to provoke people who disagree with you, but shove your own non-dogmatic viewpoints as something that people must agree with, and become horrendously malicious if they disagree?
Indeed, how many times have you promoted Bayside and implied that those who don't listen to Bayside will be damned by God?''
How many times have you posted a thread that amounts to "LOL GET REKT SEDEVACANTISTS XD XD XD"

Posting: 5. Posted just a news article or an article about a condemned apparition, and done this repeatedly, for the sole purpose of polemics?

Non-Catholics: 1. Posted websites and articles which undermine the authority of the local canonical Bishop, who have explicitly condemned apparitions and forbidden Catholics from promoting it?

[Miriam_M]

I will not go into Pon's persistent reliance upon rationalistic understandings of the Faith, which are destined to disappoint.  I'm pretty sure I have responded to that previously.  I will just say this, regarding Christianity and apostasy and questioning the eternal God:

Like other skeptics, Pon will believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal God at the moment of Pon's Particular Judgment.  But naturally I hope that he comes to believe that before his death, if for no other reasons than comfort, an end to the intellectual thrashing about, and a confidence that God does not depend on our intellectual understanding for His existence.

[GBoldwater]

"And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast
out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents;
and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall
lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover... But they going
forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word
with signs that followed." (Mark 16:18,20)

This passage is particularly interesting to me.  The Neoplatonist philosopher (and anti-Christian propagandist) Porphyry seized on it as a promise which Christians suspiciously refuse to test.  He offered that the drinking of poison should, rightly considered, be a ceremonial part of the rites of ordination and adult baptism.  It would affirm true faith.  We do not really see too many instances of this, however.  There are, of course, the snake-handling and strychnine-drinking cults of Appalachia, but they are a Protestant novelty.

I would say that the problem with the other miracle claims is that they tend to rely on second- or third-hand transmission.  Should you want to pursue it, we could start a different thread on miracles, as I have not yet found a convincing refutation of David Hume's Of Miracles.  He essentially says that the reasonable response to a miracle claim would be to ask the question: which is more likely, that the physical laws of the universe were suspended, or that fallible human beings are capable of lying, being mistaken, or getting deceived?

Unrelated, GBoldwater, but is your user name a spoonerism of the late Senator Barry Goldwater?

Looks like you would have to doubt everything, because everything is based on human testimony. I see that you merely rate testimony by degree of probability. The way you are going, you would doubt even yourself based on the hypothetical possibility of being deceived or mistaken.

MIRACLES:
Statistically, only among Catholics for millenia repeatedly from age to age giving testimony of miracles, most often first hand.
Statistically, by multiple people for the very same thing. (Probability of multiple people hallucinating same thing?)
Statistically, nobody has exposed these Catholics for fraud except in like .0001% of cases out of thousands (probability of such cunning among people who are so mistaken/deceived?)
Statistically, among people who are so otherwise known to be honest and let themselves be tortured and killed rather than lie (probability?)
Statistically, virtually not happening among Protestants who have same Scriptures with literal interpretation and no accounts of miracles (Probability of not being mistaken, or deceived or desire to fool? Why are Catholics SO different?)

I will make a thread in which I wish to discuss this one-on-one with you. Let me start it.


 

[christulsa]

Not wanting to derail the thread in which this was posted, I will respond here.

If I had a dime for every formerly believing/practicing Catholic madly trolling trad forums I’ve observed over the years, I could take me and the Mrs for a prime rib dinner down at Fleming’s in T-town w all the trimmings.  And they ain’t cheap, folks, no sir.

I am one such former Catholic.  And I would actually prefer not to read or post on this forum, yet nevertheless something compels me. 

I also said:

Former Catholic naysayers trolling Catholic forums, on the other hand, itself appears disingenuous, to be honest.  That is, when they do so.

Persons in question would only be a "troll" if this kind of trolling was habitual.   But said behavior is still trolling when it happens, like in the tag team scorning of Xavier in the Garabandal thread, for simply promoting his belief in that apparent apparition however questionable, and devotion to Mary.  But I digress.   If said person demonstrates good will and intellectual honesty here, over time, then I can see them as worthy of debate to convert them back to the Catholic Faith.   And you Pon, would be one such example.

Re your disposition towards monism vs a Prime Mover, I would challenge you to think about what current astrophysics tends to support: that the universe at some point in time did have an actual beginning.  Even if it has been exploding/imploding for eons, there is evidence of a first beginning.   A chain of cause/effect is evident from science and natural philosophy, so if there was a first beginning, and this cosmos has intelligent design, then there does exist a Prime Mover who existed before creation, and distinct from it.

If you are able to accept this, I would challenge you to consider the likelihood that this Prime Mover built into creation a plan of morality and religion for our temporal and eternal good, and that if you examine all the choices, Christianity (specifically Catholicism) is the religion that makes the most sense.

The last part of my argument (that the Catholic Faith is true, to be embraced) is that according to the Faith itself, faith goes beyond reason but confirmed by the testimony of verifiable miracles and revealed prophecies which makes it a supernatural system even more than a temporal one for the good of man.   

Conclusion:  I would challenge you and the other fallen away skeptics here to set aside your rationalism and doubts, to return to the sacraments beginning with confession, and pray for the Catholic virtue of faith.

[Xavier]

I think Chris makes great points, and his approach is absolutely solid.

In general, we can divide the steps from Nature to the Church in Three.

Step 1: From Nature to God. (in the first step, we refute atheists, agnostics etc by Philosophy, Natural Law, showing God is Supreme Goodness etc)

When it is proved God is Supreme and One, ipso facto it follows that all polytheistic religions, howsoever many they may be, are false.

Step 2: From God to Christ. (in the second step, we refute Jews, Muslims etc, who confess one God, but not Christ, from Prophesies, like the Messianic Prophesies admitted by Jews; from Public Miracles like those associated with the Resurrection of Christ and the effects it has left in the lives of His Apostles in history, the Shroud of Turin; those from Our Lady in Gaudalupe, Lepanto, Fatima etc. Those in the lives of the Saints and Missionary Apostles)

Step 3: From Christ to Church. (in the final stage, we refute Protestants, Orthodox etc, who believe in Christ but not the Church. This part is fairly easier than the other 2 imo, because we have at least all of Sacred Scripture as a common authority).

In the same way as polytheism is disproved by natural proofs that God is One, so is Protestant poly-ecclesia-ism disproved by Scriptural Proofs (and Traditional Proofs, from Councils like Nicaea etc if they admit it) that the Church is One. For if the Church is One, and She most certainly is, it necessarily follows, that She cannot be found within the 30,000 odd sects of Protestantism; just as it necessarily follows, that the True God being One, cannot be among the many gods of any pantheon no matter how many millions they are. And thus we are able to exclude millions in one short - for the very fact that they admit other gods beside themselves proves that they are false gods - rather than refute them one by one.

Chris said: "If you are able to accept this, I would challenge you to consider the likelihood that this Prime Mover built into creation a plan of morality and religion for our temporal and eternal good, and that if you examine all the choices, Christianity (specifically Catholicism) is the religion that makes the most sense." Absolutely agreed.

Perhaps the hardest part for us Catholics, the one demanding most study from us, Chris, may be precisely that path helping someone who believes in a generic God (i.e. who is in step 1), to specifically believing in Christ as God (i.e. to come to step 2)? Would you disagree?

God Bless.

[Kreuzritter]

I suppose I also come here to observe how traditional Catholics are still able to remain despite what I believe to be solid and convincing evidence that both the trad movement, and the RCC in general, is a doomed movement within a false church. I'll admit to being amazed at some of the things I read here and to my shame I sometimes find it entertaining. That speaks to my own character flaws. But since we're being honest I confess to it.

Perhaps there is a small measure of nostalgia since I was involved with the movement for so long? Who knows.

Much of this is true for me as well.  I still have my allegiances; I continue to sympathize heavily with particular strands of doctrine and practice over others.  I am dismayed when certain saints I still admire get put down.  Just recently Kreuzritter has been ridiculing St. Jerome as priggish and deranged, or some formulation thereof.  I think St. Jerome's views on sex are beautiful.  I have never liked or understood those who praise sex.  I will concede that it is supremely pleasurable, but aesthetically at least it contains such a horrible degree of baseness and animalism that we should be ashamed of it.  I still have strong ideas about purity, grace, and beauty.  Somebody here once called St. John Chrysostom "proto-Islamic" for his sublime attitude towards dancing (St. John disapproved of it).  What I can't stand is the "proto-Christopher Westean."  But, I try to refrain from getting involved.

This pompous observation, Pon, just sums up the absurd nihilistic moralism that goes beyond the ethical sphere to dominate your intellect, aesthetics, and sense of life. "Base" and "animalistic", and what value is there in abhorring this and other matters of deep, pulsating, and profound cosmic life for the sake of these mere words and the glorification of your abstract "aesthetics"?You're sick, taken by a Krankheit der Seele, sick like Socrates drinking the hemlock or like Origen emasculating himself. "Base" and "animalistic" indeed, as opposed to the profound purposefulness of pontificating on the nothingness of absolute transcendence of these "base" and "animalistic" things. Here one contrast the most extreme Buddhism and its flight from Samsara into nothingness with the Tantric Yoga for which transcendence is a path to power and bliss in Maya. Your existence is pitiable, without offence meant, though I suppose for your part you pity us animals, we poor wretches who see this living cosmos, this sensual reality, as something wonderful, not something to flee from but something for which we were made.

Truly, people like you are the evidence that cannot be dismissed of nominal "human beings" of being so vastly different amongst each other in their spiritual constitution and feeling for life that it becomes questionable that we are really all of the same order of being.

On a side note, see the two opposed but ultimately related and complementary aesthetic trends, both of them sick, both of them arising from a hatred of the world and the fullness of life: one to de-sensualise, particularly de-sexualise art and beauty, the other to make the sensual and sex ugly.

Should you want to pursue it, we could start a different thread on miracles, as I have not yet found a convincing refutation of David Hume's Of Miracles.  He essentially says that the reasonable response to a miracle claim would be to ask the question: which is more likely, that the physical laws of the universe were suspended, or that fallible human beings are capable of lying, being mistaken, or getting deceived?

What is to be refuted about a thing that has not been proved? A totally incoherent position from Hume, since his position on causation and induction pulls the rug out from underneath physical law and the value of statistical inference. In any case, a "miracle" doesn't require the suspension of "physical law"; it only requires a metaphysics that is radically different to that of your unprovable naturalism.

[Kreuzritter]

This will sound like semantics, but I don't believe that with any certainty, no.  It's possible such a scenario is true, but I don't know or believe it to be true.  What you have articulated appears to be deism, but accepting the proofs for an Uncaused Cause does not rule out monism or pantheism.  It could be the case that, far from abandoning creation, God sustains creation at every successive moment.  Or, being fallible, I could be in error in accepting the Uncaused Cause.  There could somehow be an infinite regress of cause and effect which goes beyond my mortal understanding. 

I also don't rule out the possibility of an interventionist God.  It might be true that God sometimes intervenes and other times withdraws, we know not why, only that it must be according to his design.  Or some would say that God's interventions are synonymous with everything that occurs: "I form the light and create the darkness, I make weal and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things."  Each of these positions refutes the other, and at present I have no means of confirming or positively denying any of them.  All I can do is ascribe likelihood.  Monism is probably the highest on my likelihood scale, but I treat it as a hypothesis and not a belief.

This is all intellectual onanism.

Either one dwells in darkness or one knows Christ, personally, man-to-man, where his reality and the reality of what he is are undeniable, and one walks in light. You will never know the blueness of the sky unless you see it - and the opinion of a blind man on that is worthless.

[dellery]

...

[christulsa]

I’d agree Xavier.  The challenge for the group of posters in question is to break free of rationalism, and find faith again, but through reason.  A lot would depend on grace and prayer to find the intellectual humility to venture back down the path to a firm, certain belief in Christ and the claims of His Church.

I’d challenge them to just go to confession once and confess their disbelief and/or separation from the Church, and ask for the grace of faith.  Its not something we merit through mere study and online discussion.

Re those who are truly Trolls here—they know who they are—I think the Old Guard could lead taking back this forum.  I’d support them.

[Chestertonian]

I have struggled with the temptation to leave the faith sometimes my own thinking is distorted to the point where i would read the great spiritual classics and just end up despondent and miserable

you would think reading imitation of Christ, spiritual exercises, prrparation for death by dt alpjonudus would make you closer to God but I felt so far from Him.  I also struggled with the trappings if embodiment the human body can be a foul disappointment especially when everything goes wrong.  and if sex between a man and his wife is yucky then imagine how hard it is for those who grapple with the abuses of human sexuality... rape, childhood abuse etc.. how God can allow these things

Tradition seems to attract a certain demographic.. The church isn't a cross section of society as it once was but traditionalist culture is full of amateur theologians.  There was a time in my life where I thought Fortescue was something important for your average catholic layman

Perfectionism and black and white thinking also seem to dominate in tradbro circles... We chase after an ideal that's impossible to live out fully.  I became offended by imperfection especially in myself and couldn't come to grips with the idea that God and imperfection could ever meet

the more i knew about God the more I was afraid of Him... The more afraid I was the harder it was to love God.  My distorted perception was telling me that God was like a sadistic 12 year old boy and I was an ant crawling on hot concrete under his magnifying glass. 

I remember the priest who told me to meditate on "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding."

He told me to focus on the Gospels that's where I first met Christ I needed to focus on Him and meditating on His life and His words.  often when I was in pain it felt like He was personally hurting me sometimes I would really believe Jesus was beating me up.. teaching me a "lesson" smashing my head against the pavement

this is my  distorted thinking and I started to try and dwell on christs actual words.  I still struggle with disordered thinking but I have the ability to bring myself out of it sometimes by turning my mind away from itself and towards God--not what other people say about Him but what He says about Himself

Blessed icons in my room have been a game changer they remin me that God is not far away at all

[Graham]

It's so good to hear you're more at peace. How pleased Our Lord must be with your persevering search for Him. He knows our trials all too well and his love for us, even in our imperfection, is beyond understanding.