Suggested Prayer for Recoverig Postmodernist

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

I firmly believe and profess that reality is objective, that is, it exists independently of any human perception, including my own, and also that truth is a state of correspondence between belief and this reality, and that all beliefs which fail to meet this criterion, no matter how meaningful to the one who holds them, are false. I maintain that my beliefs correspond to objective reality, and since two contradictory beliefs cannot both be true, in so doing I must necessarily also maintain that all beliefs which contradict my own, including those of a deeply held religious nature, do not; that is to say, they are false and the people who hold them are wrong. Moreover, I also believe and profess that truth is desirable and falsity dangerous. Hence it is profitable that those who hold false beliefs be dissuaded from their errors and brought to the knowledge of the truth, which task is best accomplished through deductive reasoning, since true premises and sound logic always yield true conclusions. Finally, I firmly believe and profess that all truth, including and especially moral and religious truth, is by nature immutable and absolute, and that it is, without any taint of error, contained in and expounded upon by the magesterium of the Catholic Church, which was founded by Your Divine Son made Man upon the rock of St. Peter, the Pope. Glory be to You almighty Father, always now and ever and forever.

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by TomSawyer
Esotericism, for example, has to be found without the help of the Church.

If by esotericism you mean mysticism, the Catholic Church has a rich heritage of mystics (Ss. Catherine of Sienna, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich, etc.). It is entirely possible to become a mystic in and through the Catholic Church.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
Even the Gospels deal only on the human condition and have no mention of animal-immortality or the existence of aliens.

With good reason.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
There are all kinds of secrets of the universe which have to be found elswhere.

Yes, in the physical sciences.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
Remember that the Church, through time, is a body of men

You're starting out on a false premise. The Church is not only a body of men, it is also the mystical body of Christ (Eph 5:23ff, Col 1:24), an institution with the authority to legislate in the name of Heaven (Matt 16:18-9; 18:18), and to forgive sins (John 20:22-23).

who burned Joan of Arc (amongst countless other women)

Very sad indeed that certain individuals within the Church would do such a thing.

condemmed Freemasonry

With good reason. Just look what the Masons have done to Catholics in Mexico. It wasn't until 10 years ago that clerics were allowed to wear distinctive clothing in public.

engaged in molestation

Again, it's very sad that individuals within the Church would do such a thing.

attacked homosexuality

If by "attacked" you mean incited violence against, the Church has not done that. If you are referring to the fact that the Catholic Church condemns homosexuality as a sinful act, it is with good reason that the Church does so. She has the Bible on her side ( http://www.scripturecatholic.com/homosexuality.html ) and science and reason as well ( http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/...riageessay.htm )

and only recently pardoned Galileo.

Galileo wasn't put on trial for heliocentrism per se. The Pope asked him to write a book outlining his tehory and the evidence behind it. Galileo came back with a Socratic dialogue which implicity mocked the Pope. This was why he got into hot water.

They even tell people not to have protective sex

Again, with good reason. It's a pity you didn't grow up before 1930. Protestant Churches were unanimous in their condemnation of contraception until the Anglicans opened the floodgates at the Lambeth conference of that year. Strange, the Anglicans always seem to be at the forefront of the liberalization of Christianity (a.k.a. making the salt tasteless).

"The Protestant faith is also the product of a tremendous creative act: the bringing into being of a formal expression of the Christian gospel in which man stands as a free, autonomous person before his God. Protestanism insists that man's dependence for his eternal welfare is on God Almighty alone; nothing can come between God and man except a medium through which God works, a medium which cannot become an authority over man, even though God's authority may be transmitted through it." (Dunstan, Leslie J. "Protestanism." George Braziller: New York, 1962. P. 35)
1. Protestantism did not bring into being an expression of the Christian gospel, free or otherwise. Penal subsitution and forensic justification comprise a gospel of an unjust god. (I realize many Protestants don't believe in penal subsitution, but almost all believe in foresnic justification.)

2. Nothing stands between God and man except a medium through which God works in Catholicism as well, that medium being ambassadors of Christ and stewards of the mysteries (Greek: mysterion, Latin: sacramentum) of God (i.e. bishops) (1 Cor 4:1).

3. I don't know why Mr. Braziller thinks it undesirable that the medium through which God works should be an authroity over men.

they are, after all, the left-overs of an archaic group who could read and teach the Bible while the rest of the population was illiterate.

Absolutely not. I could read the Bible all day long, be an impeccable scholar, and enlighten thousands with my pearls of wisdom that I dropped every 5 seconds, but if I wasn't a priest, try as I might, I wouldn't be able to absolve someone of their sins (John 20:22-23; James 5:14-15) or confect the Eucharist (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25) which is a (almost absolutely) necessary means of salvation (John 6:55ff).

[Talon]

Originally posted by TomSawyer

Science has shown that homosexuality, for the most part, is a chemical imbalance.

lol..

Really... do you actually listen to yourself speak or is it all just a hummmmmmmm

I have sympathy for them

oh I am sure thats very comforting for all those "chemically imbalanced" individuals out there

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by TomSawyer
1. It is a shame that your ideas still have currency in the world, in the knowledge that they are outdated.

There is no such thing as an outdated idea. There are ideas which have been true from the beginning of time and ideas which have been false from the beginning of time.

What you are failing to realize is that sex, properly and ideally, is a choice between two consenting adults. Not all people are ready to have four or five children, let alone one or two.

I'm not denying that sex is a "choice between two consenting adults." Neither am I denying that not all people are ready to have children.

2. The secrets of the universe are by no means limited to the physical sciences. There are acute psychological observations in alchemy, the Tarot, P.D. Ouspensky, G.I. Gurdjieff, R.D. Laing, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Lao Tsu, and classic literature.

Alchemy? You put stock in a branch of science that spent 1000 years trying to turn lead into gold and never succeeded? The tarot? At best the tarot is a children's toy, and at worst a tool of the devil.

I agree that there is much truth in classical literature. The philosophical constructs of Aristotelean philosophy (classification of causes, etc.) are very useful for explaining God's revelation (John 1, St. Thomas Aquinas).

If the Gospels were the only truth then there would be no point in the take up of philosophy, psychology or literature.

Perhaps I should rephrase that last sentence. "Finally, I firmly believe and profess that all truth, including and especially moral and religious truth, is by nature immutable and absolute, and that such truth is, without any taint of error, contained in and expounded upon by the magesterium of the Catholic Church, which was founded by Your Divine Son made Man upon the rock of St. Peter, the Pope.

Like the Buddha, Jesus did not tell the world everything He knew. As the Gospel of Thomas points out, there are 'mysteries of God.'

Why would you treat as reliable a Gnostic writing which gives no historical background or in any way demonstrates itself to be the work of an eyewitness or a companion thereof? The Gnostics were (like the Masons) sycretics who pulled whatever they thought was nifty out of all the religions they encountered. They (like the Muslims) most likely thought Jesus was nifty and tried to make Him out to be one of their own.

By the way, I agree that there are mysteries of God. The Greek word is mysterion, the Latin word sacramentum. And before recieving the Eucharist in the Byzantine Church, we pray "Not for judgment, nor for condemnation be for me the partaking of these Your Holy Mysteries, O Lord, but for the healing of my body and soul" and afterwards: "May our mouths be filled with Your praise, O Lord, so that we may sing Your glory, for You have deemed us worthy to partake of Your holy, divine, immortal and life-giving mysteries."

The Gospels, quite rightly, point to the human condition and therefore are relevant to man. There are, however, mental disciplines (like Zen or Cabbalism) which are not found in Christianity but are of some use to the world.

Christianity has her own tradition of mysticism, meditation, and contemplation. There is nothing true in a false religion which could not also be found in Christianity.

To believe that only man is immortal is, I believe, the height of stupidity: immortality is not a property of life: immortality IS life and none are exempt.

Why? Nothing has any being except that which God holds in existence. Which beings God would decide to hold in existence after death would be entirely up to him. Perhaps your belief in animal immortality stemms from a more fundamental error in your ontology. I recall you mentioning you followed Heidegger on this matter.

Besides, there are plenty cases of animal spirits.

Oy vey.

3. The Catholic Church condemned Freemasonry because it saw it as an alternative church.

Which they are; a syncretic (the Shriners swear an oath on the Koran by Allah), secretive church which has a penchant for making its members swear graphicly violent oaths about what should happen to them if they reveal the secrets of the lodge, with a history of persecuting Catholics.

The Masons are a charitable organization of men who operate on religious principles based on a belief in God. They help orphans and widows annually.

Certainly philanthropy is to be admired no matter who is doing it.

Freemasonry officially has no problem with Catholicism, but Catholicism cannot say the same.

Yes, yes, the "no one speaks for Freemasonry" argument. However, it is possible to see their actions in history. Just look at the recent history of Mexico.

4. When you say that the Church is the 'mystical body of Christ' I take these as words only.

You take the Bible as words only? Perhaps I should expound upon it a bit more.

The Father sent Jesus Christ to the world as Priest, Prophet, and King; Priest to offer sacrifice and make intercession on behalf of the people, Prophet to proclaim the Word of God, and King to legislate and to rule and judge mankind. Jesus commissioned the apostles with the authority to continue his mission as Priest, Prophet and King when He told them "as the Father sent me, so I send you." Hence the purpose of commissioning the apostles was to continue Christ's mission after He left the earth. So the Church is really an extension of the Incarnation. The apostles and the successors thereof act as priests to offer sacrifice and intercession for the people (the mass), prophets because they proclaim the Word of God to the world, and kings because they legislate and judge in the name of Heaven. All who are in union with them and participate in the Sacraments which Chirst instituted to mediate grace to us are joined in a spiritual union which is analagous to being members of one body. The sins of one wound us all and the virtues of one strengthen us all. In this unity we each are unique and serve a special function, just as the bidy has eyes, ears, and a nose. If we were all the same we would be all the poorer for it, just as would a body with 5 eyes and no ears. Likewise we are incomplete as individuals but in the mystical body of Christ we make up a whole.

5. As regards homosexuality, the Church, from an ethical point of view, has no right to call homosexuals evil and unworthy of God. Science has shown that homosexuality, for the most part, is a chemical imbalance. Telling homosexuals they are going to hell is not only rude but outright ridiculous. It is like telling someone he is going to hell because he was born with one leg longer than the other. Because it is a chemical imbalance, it is not their FAULT.

I dealt with this already in my essay which I linked you to.

"The first question we must address is whether homosexuality is an inborn trait. If it were, the government would have little right to deny legal recognition to homosexual unions. However, it is my opinion that it is not, for the two most widely publicized studies which have purported to scientifically demonstrate that this is so, those of Drs. Hamer and LeVay, have yet to be replicated by other researchers [4]. In their research paper “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraisal,” which can be found in the Archives of General Psychiatry, Drs. Byne and Parsons state “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges [5].” Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence that homosexuality is not inborn. For example, there are several documented cases of genetically identical twins who have different sexual orientations as adults [6]. Also, individuals who grow up to be homosexuals often share similar childhood psychological histories, such as hostile or distant fathers, overprotective mothers, subjection to great amounts of teasing by their peers, parental loss through death or divorce, etc. [7]. Several studies have shown that adult homosexual attraction can grow out of childhood gender identity disorder[8], which the American Psychiatric Association has defined as strong, persistent cross gender identification, a discomfort with one's own sex, and a preference for cross sex roles in play or in fantasies [9]. However, gender identity disorder can be cured if it is detected early and given proper professional treatment [10]. Similarly, among adults, treatment for unwanted same-sex attractions is about as successful as treatment for similar psychological problems: about 30% experience a freedom from symptoms and another 30% experience improvement [11]. Dr. Lawrence Hatterer, who spent a great deal of his career treating same sex attractions, has stated” I have 'cured' many homosexuals… Any other researcher may examine my work because it is all documented on 10 years of tape recordings. Many of these 'cured' patients have married, had families and live happy lives. It is a destructive myth that 'once a homosexual, always a homosexual." It has made and will make millions more committed homosexuals. What is more, not only have I but many other reputable psychiatrists have reported their successful treatments of [homosexuals] [12].” Sadly, the media has chosen to ignore much of this evidence; however it is there for anyone who is willing to search."

________________________________________________________
[4]In 1991, Dr. LeVay claimed that there was a difference between the brains of homo and heterosexual men. In 1993, Dr. Hamer claimed to have found a gene on the x chromosome which caused homosexuality.

[5]Byne, W., Parsons, B. (1993) Human sexual orientation: The biologic theories reappraisal. Archives of General Psychiatry. 50: p. 228.

[6]Bailey, J. Pillard, R. (1991) A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry. 48: p. 1089.

[7]Bieber, I. et al. (1962) Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. NY: Basic Books. p. 316.; Fitzgibbons, R. (1999) The origins and therapy of same-sex attraction disorder. In Wolfe, C., Homosexuality and American Public Life, Washington DC: Spense. p. 88.

[8]Harry, J. (1989) Parental physical abuse and sexual orientation in males. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 18, 3: p. 259.

[9]American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV. Washington DC: APA. p. 536.

[10]Rekers, G. (1988) The formation of homosexual orientation. In Fagan, P., Hope for Homosexuality, Washington DC: Free Congress Foundation.

[11]Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A., Potts, R. (1998) Towards the Ethical and Effective Treatment of Homosexuality. Encino CA: NARTH.

[12]Tripp, C. Hatterer, L. (1971) Can homosexuals change with Psychotherapy? Sexual Behavior. 1, 4: p. 42 - 49.

So-called Christians can hide behind the Bible and try to rationalize and justify it (not realizing, of course, that you're just borrowing an outdated cultural attitude), but maybe they're just homophobic.

Outdated cultural attitude? Your extraordinarily limited view of Biblical inspiration has absolutely no precedent in Christian history. Why did God let the Church Fathers, the disciples of the disciples themselves, who recieved the promise of supernatural guidance until the end of the world, believe unanimously in strict innerancy, and suddenly 2000 years later illumine you to the fact that it is only innerant when it talks about salvation? I swear, liberal's views of Biblical inspiration keep getting narrower and narrower. First it had scientific errors, then it had historical errors, now it teaches bad morality? And it puts bad morality into the mouth of God? What kind of God would "inspire" such a thing? Say I was an atheist. You tell me that the Bible will teach me everything I need to know to reach salvation, because God inspired it. Then I ask you about homosexuality and the history of Israel and you respond "oh, the historical record and the moral teachings of the Bible are just the products of an outdated mindset; that part is wrong." My response would be "So if it teaches bad morality why the heck should I trust it when it comes to salvation?

6. Priests do not have the power to absolve me of my sins. Only Christ can help. I do not need other men to have power over me so that I might communicate with God. We have prayer, don't we? I do not have to depend on the Church to forgive me my sins. Only God can.

God wants you to come to Him on His terms, and you want to come to Him on your own.

These were the words with which Christ sent His disciples into the world: "Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven" (John 20:21-23). God has esteemed it expedient to forgive sins through the ministration of men. He wants you to confess your sins to another human being, face all the humiliation which this entails, and recieve the comfort which comes from hearing the words "you are absolved" spoken by an audible human voice. Now, it's not that the priest has in and of himself the power to forgive sins, but rather that he is the channel through whom God wants you to work. You aren't technically confessing to the priest, but rather to God through him. Likewise, the priest isn't technically forgiving you, but rather Jesus is forgiving you through the priest. However, as the above Scripture shows, the verdict in heaven will always be the exact same verdict as the one pronounced by the priest on earth.

Originally posted by TomSawyer
will you take the hostile approach of Neil and Talon, saying that I am mentally ill?

OK buster, you'd better come up with the relevant quote to back up that statement. Show the members of this forum where I have said you are mentally ill.

I'll take that as a retraction of your earlier statement then.

[Talon]

Originally posted by TomSawyer
will you take the hostile approach of Neil and Talon, saying that I am mentally ill?

I would also like to point out that I did not say this either

Though I do not mind going on record as referring to you as a Drama-Queen