Unquestioning faith **Mod Warning in final post**

Safehands wrote: »

That Church doctrine is that the sacrament of Holy Orders requiring a member of the clergy to be celibate and chaste.

Actually, celibacy is required only for bishop and priests, not deacons (which is also a Holy Order).

Is your friend a priest, or a deacon in the Catholic church?

If he is in the priestly order, then he has taken a vow not to marry if he becomes widowed, reflecting his change in understanding and acceptance of priestly celibacy under Catholic doctrine.

A deep thread. I hope I can add to it, or at least offer something of quality enough to justify my presence on it.

Safehands wrote: »

It occurs to me that there are two types of logic. The logic that tells me that the Biblical stories and Christian beliefs cannot be true and the logic that tells me that when I am on my deathbed I will be better with her unquestioning faith, than with my lack of it.

I guess it depends what you mean by "better" and what aspect of her faith in the face of death you find yourself envying.

You describe two opposing points on a continuum in a tone that suggests you think them to be mutually exclusive. As if your logic, which sounds like it has left you somewhere on the deist side of not being a theist but not an atheist, can not afford you the comforts in the face of death that this girls faith grants her.

I believe it entirely possible to come to terms with the human condition, up to and including the realities of death, that can leave one entirely at peace with it in a way that would compete with your friends. Maybe not quite to the point of actively looking forward to it, but certainly to the point of facing death with every ounce of dignity, calmness, and zen acceptance to rival her own.

You speak of the "obvious" answer to which you would prefer. For some the answer is not as obvious as you might expect. To cite your exact wording I would PREFER to face death as an "oblivion where I will never meet a loved one again" than " A certainty that I will meet my deceased family and friends again" which I suspect is the opposite of the answer you were calling "obvious"?

This is mainly because the idea of an eternal after life is not only unsubstantiated (a subject for another thread on another forum as per the charter here) but also quite horrific. For me the value of human life, human action, human sacrifice, and many human ideals is not just related to but entirely rooted in the precious rarity, individuality and delicate transience of human life.

Much like flooding the market with 1 million tons of gold tomorrow, I think an infinite life pool would cheapen to nothing the value of human life here. And while the loss of friends and families and loved ones to death is a wound of great pain that sometimes never heals......... I would not trade that pain away while it defines the very value of that which I have "lost".

Christopher Hitchens put it well when he was facing impending death. He described how being told you are going to die is like being at the best party ever, getting a tap on the shoulder and being told that you have to leave but the party will go on without you.

While painful however he contrasted that to the Christian Narrative which he felt was like being tapped on the shoulder, told you can NEVER leave the party, and what is more (threatening tones) while you are there the host positively insists you have a good time.

r3nu4l wrote: »

The possibility that the Christian god or other gods exist is just too awful to contemplate however, because if it did, it would be the cruelest, most vindictive creature in existence, across the entire universe. A thing either too stupid or indifferent to understand our suffering and therefore idle in helping us, or too willing to take a perverse delight in watching us suffer. Not a loving God certainty!*

I have heard that position espoused by a few people, including Richard Dawkins. I guess it is what is called the "problem of evil" position on god belief?

I like to partake of the Devils Avocado Salad on that one however and apply what I lovingly call the "Jarvis Cocker Principle" to it.

What I mean by this is that the position you espouse suggests the god can not understand our suffering due to stupidity or evil. I would suggest that neither is true and IF such a god exists (A big if, as I clearly am not a person who thinks any such entity does exist) then it might merely be INCAPABLE of understanding our suffering.

So Jarvis Cockers song "Common People" comes to mind. The girl in the song tries to visit and live with the "Common People" to understand them, and their ways, and their lives. (Perhaps meant like a god deigning to take a "Lower" human form to walk among us).

But, as the song tells us, she fails because no matter how much she throws herself entirely into her tourism........ she forever has the capability of an "out". She can merely pick up the phone and make her pain and suffering end by calling Daddy. So her immersion into that culture, no matter how deep, will never be "real".

I think the Jarvis Cocker principle could apply to a god like figure too. In the Christian Narrative their god is said to have "given" it's "only son" to us as a sacrifice.

However said son is now said to be sitting at his fathers right hand in a state of bliss and dominion. A bit of an insult there to any parent who has suffered one of life's most horrific pains..... that of actually losing a child to death.

A god with infinite power can never understand human suffering. Like the girl trying to understand the common people, it would ALWAYS have the capability to make it end. When it suffers, it can make the suffering stop any time. When his "only son" dies it can simply undo the death in Resurrection.

Such a god need not be stupid of vindictive to be incapable of understanding human suffering therefore. It's mere nature would make it incapable of doing so.

So the "problem of evil" position does not lead me, as it does many, to an image of a hateful angry evil god. Rather it leads me to an image of a character who suffers from the paradox of having infinite power, but being limited by that power rather than empowered or enlightened by it.

Kind of like the scene in Star Trek where Picard in a Confrontation with Q cites........

"What a piece of work is man? How noble in reason? How infinite in faculty, in form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel; in apprehension, how like a god..."

...................resulting in Q becoming instantly irate at being proffered as "god like" attributes that are, as a god himself, actually beyond him and one of the very reasons he observes humanity in the first place.

Amina Spicy Self-possession wrote: »

Based on your feelings In wondering why you would be in this forum! You are of course free to be here:) How could God be cruel since He doesn't exist?

I will not enter into discussing whether or not it exists, as that is against the charter of course and I am a respectful mostly lurking guest on this area of the forum!

But I will offer this side anecdote..........

I wrote a 10 page essay in school once (though the homework was only for three pages) on what a hateful and irredeemable character I thought Silas Marner was (which was in contrast to my teacher who actually gave us the homework to write about how and why we should forgive him).

Silas Marner does not exist, and never did. Yet I could still write the essay evaluating his character and actions and choices and motivations.

I trust I do not need to insult you by explaining why that is relevant here

Safehands wrote: »

No, it was the rule quoted by Hinault: "Church doctrine is that the sacrament of Holy Orders requires a member of the clergy to be celibate and chaste" which was discarded

Ah, apologies - misunderstood your statement to mean that their household had discarded the celibacy rule.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll get back to this again. What do you make of this?


1. Jesus went the the house of Peter in Capernaum and heals his mother in law

2.1 Corinthians 9:5

Paul says...."Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Yes, Peter had a mother in law. Therefore it is reasonable to say that Peter must have been married.

At what point was Peter married?

Maybe Peter was a widower by the time he first me Jesus Christ. This is possible.

Maybe Peter was still married when he was called by Jesus to serve.
Maybe he left with his wife's consent to follow Jesus.

Why don't the Gospel writers refer to Peter's wife by name, if she was alive, or even if she was asked to work in the ministry by Jesus?
No gospel identifies Peter's wife by name.

There is no reference to Peter's wife in the gospels. So we simply don't know what Peter's marital status was at the time of his ministry.

The gospel states that the men appointed personally by Jesus left everything to be "fishers of men". They left everything, to lead another life, a calling, a vocation.

In respect of St.Paul to the Corinthians 1 verse 5

Have we not power to bring about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

I'll give you Father Haydock's 1859 commentary for verse 5.

It appears certain, from the testimony of the fathers, that St. Paul was not in the state of wedlock. St. Jerome informs us that the apostle is here speaking of such holy women who, according to the Jewish custom, supplied their teachers with the necessaries of life, as we see was done to Christ himself.

It is evident from ancient records that this was a very prevalent custom in Judea, and therefore a cause of no scandal; but to the Gentiles this custom was unknown, and therefore lest it might prove a cause of scandal to any, St. Paul did not allow any woman to follow him as a companion.

Tertullian denies, with St. Augustine and St. Jerome, that St. Paul is here speaking of his wife. (Estius; Calmet) --- A woman, a sister.[2] Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text, by rendering it, a sister, a wife; whereas it is certain, St. Paul had no wife, (chap. vii. ver. 7. 8.) and that he only speaks of such devout women, as according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, and supplied them with necessaries. (Challoner) --- And to what end could he talk of burthening the Corinthians with providing for his wife, when he himself clearly affirmeth that he was single? (Chap. vii. v. 7. and 8.) This all the Greek fathers affirm, with St. Augustine, do op. Monach. chap. iv.; St. Jerome, adv. Jovin. chap. xiv. &c. &c. [Also see annotations on ver. 25, below]

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id170.html

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm in discussion with hinault about a topic. It doesn't matter which part of the interweb I happen to locate hurdles for his position. I'm not a mouthpiece for anyone if merely citing scripture.

I've no problem with you engaging with me.

But you've been caught copying and pasting.

I certainly had no knowledge of your copying and pasting from you, or the basis for your question to me - and I replied to you in good faith.

If I'd known you were copying and pasting from that discredited source, I wouldn't have replied.

You're his stooge.