Could your belief be wrong?

[Acumen]

For the record, I know for a fact that I do not know everything, but I do know that my Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and that the Church's teachings on faith and morals are infallible.

So basically, your beliefs are infallible as long as they align with issues of faith and morals.

[Beautiful_Dreamer]

Urge to debate Pascal's wager rising, rising, falling, falling, passing, let it go "all" let it go....


 

Oh, I know its not foolproof. But I think the idea of living a good life is something anyone can understand, even if there isn't any 'afterlife' reward for it. It can be said that a good life is its own reward in and of itself, and if there is an afterlife bonus, that's just groovy. But if not, you haven't lost because you still would have lived a good life. 

That is an idea I had when I was still in my agnostic/deist phase...

I think the Wager is a good way to start one's pursuit into Christian learning, but probably not a good way to start a relationship with God.

I can see that. I was just putting that out there to say that, even when I was not a Christian, I had ideas about how to live a fulfilling life. That religion is not the only way to do that. It certainly helps and has added a lot to my life, but living a fulfilling/good life can be done otherwise.

[SquirleyWurley]

For the record, I know for a fact that I do not know everything, but I do know that my Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and that the Church's teachings on faith and morals are infallible.

But your church didn't always condemn slavery, and I don't recall a clear teaching against torturing heretics.  Some centuries ago the Church's teachings on morals certainly did not sufficiently challenge torturers or slave holders, i.e., it certainly wasn't infallible THEN, when it was excusing/acquiescing to slavery and torture of heretics, etc.

[SquirleyWurley]

The Church not declaring an infallible proclamation on an issue does not equate to the Church infallibly condoning what it is not condemning.

Re: unethical and objectively harmful behaviors...

I do make a distinction between:

1) Acquiescing to/rationalizing/neglecting to identify or acknowledge unethical and objectively harmful behaviors while claiming to be morally superior
2) Making an unethical and objectively harmful proclamation
3) Engaging in unethical and harmful behaviors



Re:'infallibility'

I do make distinctions between:

1) Positions which are understandably and easily interpreted/treated as more or less 'infallible' by followers in various times/places
2) Officially identified/institutionally endorsed 'infallible' declarations
3) Situations where there is a 'de facto' attitude of infallibility/lack of humble self-criticism through the use of power/enforcement to censure or harm others

I'm most concerned with #3 in each case, and for this reason, concerns about #1 and #2 can be particularly serious.

[Acumen]

Second, a Catholic has the opportunity to become free from the guilt of any sin, including mortal, at the sacrament of reconciliation.  This is, of course, if the person is truly repentant.  Most people I ask are honest on whether or not that they are practicing Catholics.

Here is what you said before:

But that's besides the point, any person who commits mortal sin is not a faithfully observant Catholic anyways, they may be Catholic, but not faithfully observant.

The fact that an ordinary Catholic has an opportunity of reconciliation after a mortal sin was committed misses the point that a faithfully observant Catholic cannot commit a mortal sin.  So, this brings us back to my question again: is it your position that any Catholic who has premarital sex, committed adultery, or has hated another person in their lifetime is not a faithfully observant Catholic?


Acumen:  What do the scriptures say?  Do the scriptures say that baptism saves us and that without it we are damned?  Do the scriptures demonstrate any examples of infants being baptized, or baptism of the unrepentant?

El:  Maybe you should ask your Protestant brethren, because many of them say that baptism is not necessary and many of them think infant baptism is appropriate.

---------------------

Why would I ask my Protestant brethren? 

I said that a faithfully observant Christian is one who is humble enough to be purged, guided, and taught by the Holy Spirit to live out the precepts of the scriptures with steadfast reliance, which includes loving God, your neighbor, and oneself all the while seeking out the wisdom of spirit-led men of God.

There is nothing in that definition that requires the consultation of Protestant brethren to verify or validate my interpretation.  Catholics, on the other hand, must vote in a democratic assembly on correct doctrine after thoughtful discussion and critical debate, which we are told is guided by the Holy Spirit.  So, it is YOU who has to consult someone in order to believe something, not I.  It must be a real pain to consult the Church in order to validate every one of your biblical beliefs.   

[SquirleyWurley]

What are you suggesting?  I am not sure.

I'm trying to skip over suggestion right to directness.  I'm most concerned with the fact that people engage in unethical and harmful behaviors, and that there are situations where there is a 'de facto' attitude of 'infallibility'/lack of humble self-criticism through the use of power/enforcement to censure or harm others.  That said, there are things which may be related or may contribute to such problems in certain cases/places/certain times.

At the risk of moving on to too many other hot-buttons subjects, I will specify, but in the interest of being on topic, I think it needs to be considered in light of the issue of abuse of power, the presumption of trust in infallibility, the inability to criticize too much/think there is too much wrong going on.  All of these criticisms could be made of various movements/institutions/churches/parties/ideologies/states which have their own degree unwillingness to consider how often/how much they may be wrong.

=========

For all practical purposes...

It seems to me that when the Church has 'de facto' control over what is considered 'heresy' and gives 'de facto' support to the powers that be in one's region and there are inquisitions going on and theologians, priests, etc. speculating about how torture can give a heretic a taste of Hell before hand so maybe they will repent, and the Church makes all sorts of proclamations on lesser matters but does not say 'hey, um, torturing these heretics is wrong, you can't do that just because we found them guilty of heresy' -- that's a problem.  To someone who is tortured because of the way the Spanish authorities responded to the Church's inquisition trial, condemend by Papal decree as anathema while Spain is not criticized for torture, it certainly does seem that the Church is acting like it has 'infallible authority' to accept/approve of torture against heretics, and the populace at large certainly GETS THAT IMPRESSION LOUD AND CLEAR.

Now, officially, the Church doesn't HAVE to SAY 'from the chair' that it's infallibly decided that torture of heretics is right and Spain should do it, that is certainly the obvious interpretation for anyone with sense in that time and in that place.  The fact that later on there are rules further elaborated as to just what 'infallibility' is claimed for the Pope and the Church and which pronouncements are 'from the chair' doesn't change this de facto situation.

The Church acts AS IF a whole heck of a lot that it says and does is infallible (including telling German Catholics to support Hitler), AT THE TIME, and the faithful definitely GET THAT MESSAGE, even though it is (thankfully) revised some decades later.

========

Abuse of Power

Abuse of power is a huge issue.  The Catholic church doesn't treat that issue as THE huge issue that it is.  The Catholic Church dallies instead on lesser things, and then when later on someone criticizes some oversight, some acquiescence, some poor judgment, some hideous incident, the Church distracts by bringing up some OTHER issue.  The Catholic Church's infallibility doctrines don't help matters, they make the situation worse, they make honest self-reflection, humble self-criticism, VERY difficult IN PRACTICE for the hierarchy.  There are people who do quite well despite such potentials, but I would say it is IN SPITE OF the infallibility doctrine, and at any rate, you can't say a good Catholic (in the sens I'm talking about) would be good BECAUSE OF the infallibility doctrine.

So the 'infallibility' doctrine is not only no guarantee of goodness, it can definitely get in the way.  "I was just obeying orders" wasn't just claimed by Nazi's, but by good Spanish Catholics who executed the law (and the heretics, often after torture, with a 'clean conscience' by a self-righteous 'infallible' church which condemend heresies as the great evils of the time)

Everyone gets distracted by ideology, rhetoric, abstractions, etc.  Critics may blame the pedophilia scandal on rules about priests having to be cellibate (I disagree with them vehemently, I don't see how having married priests would solve the problem), for example.  But for the hierarchy, far too often the idea that it's about the abuse of power, the presumption of using secrecy and privilege, a culture of such arrogant lack of self-criticism as it regards responsibility to others, is quite out of the paradigm: instead it's about 'sin in general' or 'sexual sin in general' or 'homosexuality' is emphasized, 'obedience to the church' and whatnot.

=============

But again, the main point is, the idea that one must reserve some special area of infallibility for this institution, or for a Pastor/Shepherd/Bishop associated with a local Pentecostal congregation who people say is 'annointed', or for the man of the house, the idea that it's ominously dangerous to question/criticize one's political leaders in certain areas, all of these easily contribute to arrogance, abuse of power, and cover up.  The rationalizations flow forth easily.

[Acumen]

I tend to agree with 17, that religious people live more fulfilled lives.

IYO, would that include Buddhists and non-theistic Hindus?

Yes, if their belief system is dependent upon a purpose-driven life.

[peacebringer]

I know there are things that I believe about God that are flawed, and partial, or even not true. I do believe that what God has revieled of himself to be true. Do I consider the possibility it is not, yes, but my interactions with God at a personal level seem to make that less than remote. 

[peacebringer]

I tend to agree with 17, that religious people live more fulfilled lives.

IYO, would that include Buddhists and non-theistic Hindus?

Yes, if their belief system is dependent upon a purpose-driven life.

fullfillment is actually more about personal satisfaction then any "purpose-driven" life.

[Acumen]

I tend to agree with 17, that religious people live more fulfilled lives.

IYO, would that include Buddhists and non-theistic Hindus?

Yes, if their belief system is dependent upon a purpose-driven life.

fullfillment is actually more about personal satisfaction then any "purpose-driven" life.

No, it's about purpose - for without purpose, there can be goal achievement.  Without goal achievement, there can be no satisfaction.