Guest JP wrote:A decent response, fishbelly. But, I still disagree with almost everything you said. How would the RC Church descending into shamanism (Tengriism) even be possible? That wouldn't be Catholic. That wouldn't even be Christian. I think disbanding the church would be preferable.
Well, that's kinda the trick, isn't it?
One can either choose to accept that the Church contains the "correct things" that all "religions" and philosophies/thought of all humans exhibit, or one doesn't.
It's a choice. A choice that can only be made "in faith", as there is (as yet) no way to evaluate the available data to prove that that is a correct choice.
I choose to accept that the Church is "the territory" and not some transcribed and translated "map" of the territory.
Maps are very very useful, but they aren't well used if they are confused with their representative underlying reality.
Of course, that means that I have the unenviable task of having to PHYSICALLY walk an absurdly huge amount of actual territory (ground) to see how it actually does fit together. Oh well. Ya makes your choices, ya gets to live with 'em!
The best solution would be to splinter the church into different churches like the Orthodox are doing right now (or have always kind of done anyway). Then you could have Pre-Vatican II Catholics forming one church under a devout Pope (hopefully a return to Crusader Era church militant); another RC church could be openly homosexual.
The Episcopal Church split over homosexuality and formed two separate churches (the other is Anglican). Both are part of the Anglican Union. Personally, I think homosexuals serving in the church is ridiculous. No wonder the Muslims openly despise and laugh at us.
That IS what is happening, whether it's "officially recognized" or not, as is perfectly predictable and (probably) necessary.
Therefore, why suggest something that is happening anyway?
If one sees the Church as containing all the "good parts" of all the factions in the first place, then the only issue (other than staying alive in the midst of fervent zealots) is to figure out (or agree on) what "the good parts" are.
And I'm not suggesting some syncratic religion (constructed via syncratism) cobbled together to "force fit" ideas together. I'm suggesting paring down the "core" religion to "agreeable (quite vague) principles", and allowing the expression of those principles (and those principles "extensions") to be created by any culture interested in doing so.
I also believe the western world is becoming a bunch of New Age loons who are creating their own religions that allow them to wallow in degeneracy and feel good about.
Agreed.
One of the "universal principles" might well be that it is good to listen to people who complain that some "excuse for degeneracy" is wrong. That would obviously be an iterative process, which requires sincerity and accurate description-of-things, and an actual desire to understand and "make things better".
Also, they create new faiths so that they don't face the prospect of going to Hell when they die. (Although they will anyway.) Islam will sweep everyone aside. Women, being women, will accept hijab and sexual slavery to survive. The 'men' will be killed. Europe will become Muslim, but remain racially and ethnically divided. Even Islam has never been able to totally overcome tribalism. Europe will resemble Somalia. I hope to be dead before all of this happens.
My bet is that you will be, because that scenario ain't hap'nin'. Yay!
On the "going to hell" thing; I also believe that you can indeed condemn yourself to eternal separation from God. And I do mean actual "irrevocable personal choice" through all time.
You might have a decent core, fishy, but you are so smug and strange it's hard for me to tell.
I get that a lot. <chuckle!>
I am smug, in that I do truly believe this "religion-y" stuff that I talk about, and it's quite obvious that me and strangeness are VERY old friends.
But,.. in my own defense, I relish being asked any seemingly crazy-assed question, and I'll be the first to admit that the words that emerge from me could very well be completely wrong (in some but not ALL ways), or at least VERY easy to misinterpret.
I wish you wouldn't talk in riddles so much; you might really have interesting insights to share with everyone.
...
My riddles are not very difficult to "solve", because I'm really bad at making riddles. They simply, and rather obviously, point at "scenarios" that pose a question to be thought about.
Most of what I say are just descriptions of "scenarios" (things) as I see them, presented so as to elicit reciprocal descriptions from my conversation partners which I can then respond to, ad infinitum.
Many things I say are simply attempts at "comic relief". My sense of humor is a bit weird, granted, but I do try to tie most humor back to the subject of inquiry on the table.
..sometimes I fail. <chuckle> Oh well... it's a numbers game. Can't "win" if ya don't play...
Aloha nui ʻoe!
<shaka!>
[quote="Guest JP"]A decent response, fishbelly. But, I still disagree with almost everything you said. How would the RC Church descending into shamanism (Tengriism) even be possible? That wouldn't be Catholic. That wouldn't even be Christian. I think disbanding the church would be preferable. [/quote]
Well, that's kinda the trick, isn't it? :)
One can either choose to accept that the Church contains the "correct things" that all "religions" and philosophies/thought of all humans exhibit, or one doesn't.
It's a choice. A choice that can only be made "in faith", as there is (as yet) no way to evaluate the available data to prove that that is a correct choice.
I choose to accept that the Church is "the territory" and not some transcribed and translated "map" of the territory.
Maps are very very useful, but they aren't well used if they are confused with their representative underlying reality.
Of course, that means that I have the unenviable task of having to PHYSICALLY walk an absurdly huge amount of actual territory (ground) to see how it actually does fit together. Oh well. Ya makes your choices, ya gets to live with 'em!
[quote]
The best solution would be to splinter the church into different churches like the Orthodox are doing right now (or have always kind of done anyway). Then you could have Pre-Vatican II Catholics forming one church under a devout Pope (hopefully a return to Crusader Era church militant); another RC church could be openly homosexual. :roll: The Episcopal Church split over homosexuality and formed two separate churches (the other is Anglican). Both are part of the Anglican Union. Personally, I think homosexuals serving in the church is ridiculous. No wonder the Muslims openly despise and laugh at us.[/quote]
That IS what is happening, whether it's "officially recognized" or not, as is perfectly predictable and (probably) necessary.
Therefore, why suggest something that is happening anyway?
If one sees the Church as containing all the "good parts" of all the factions in the first place, then the only issue (other than staying alive in the midst of fervent zealots) is to figure out (or agree on) what "the good parts" are.
And I'm not suggesting some syncratic religion (constructed via syncratism) cobbled together to "force fit" ideas together. I'm suggesting paring down the "core" religion to "agreeable (quite vague) principles", and allowing the expression of those principles (and those principles "extensions") to be created by any culture interested in doing so.
[quote]
I also believe the western world is becoming a bunch of New Age loons who are creating their own religions that allow them to wallow in degeneracy and feel good about. [/quote]
Agreed. :) One of the "universal principles" might well be that it is good to listen to people who complain that some "excuse for degeneracy" is wrong. That would obviously be an iterative process, which requires sincerity and accurate description-of-things, and an actual desire to understand and "make things better".
[quote]
Also, they create new faiths so that they don't face the prospect of going to Hell when they die. (Although they will anyway.) Islam will sweep everyone aside. Women, being women, will accept hijab and sexual slavery to survive. The 'men' will be killed. Europe will become Muslim, but remain racially and ethnically divided. Even Islam has never been able to totally overcome tribalism. Europe will resemble Somalia. I hope to be dead before all of this happens.[/quote]
My bet is that you will be, because that scenario ain't hap'nin'. Yay!
On the "going to hell" thing; I also believe that you can indeed condemn yourself to eternal separation from God. And I do mean actual "irrevocable personal choice" through all time.
[quote]
You might have a decent core, fishy, but you are so smug and strange it's hard for me to tell. [/quote]
I get that a lot. <chuckle!>
I am smug, in that I do truly believe this "religion-y" stuff that I talk about, and it's quite obvious that me and strangeness are VERY old friends. :)
But,.. in my own defense, I relish being asked any seemingly crazy-assed question, and I'll be the first to admit that the words that emerge from me could very well be completely wrong (in some but not ALL ways), or at least VERY easy to misinterpret.
[quote]
I wish you wouldn't talk in riddles so much; you might really have interesting insights to share with everyone.
...[/quote]
My riddles are not very difficult to "solve", because I'm really bad at making riddles. They simply, and rather obviously, point at "scenarios" that pose a question to be thought about.
Most of what I say are just descriptions of "scenarios" (things) as I see them, presented so as to elicit reciprocal descriptions from my conversation partners which I can then respond to, ad infinitum.
Many things I say are simply attempts at "comic relief". My sense of humor is a bit weird, granted, but I do try to tie most humor back to the subject of inquiry on the table.
..sometimes I fail. <chuckle> Oh well... it's a numbers game. Can't "win" if ya don't play...
Aloha nui ʻoe! :) <shaka!>