“That’s me in the spotlight...”

@suzianne said
After being the target of your own attacks, as well as divegeester's continuing attacks in other forums, against my personal information, I find your "indignation" to be remarkably pathetic and false.

Whether or not it was revenge and justified in your mind, it makes your comments to moonbus seem ironic, to put it mildly.

@eladar said
All you need to do is not be insulting of their beliefs. You feel it is your duty to insult christians so do not bring up religion to christians you care about.

Moonbus hasn't been "insulting" about your beliefs.

@bigdoggproblem said
The tactic itself is valid. It was just, in my opinion, done a bit over-bearingly. Even when someone got the general gist of the answer, the wording had to be adjusted. Also, thoughtful answers were not acknowledged, but instead "corrected".

I don't generally look at spiritual topics as having only one correct answer. It isn't logic or mathematics.

You were in a class where 10 year olds (or teens) were giving "thoughtful" answers on theology? That's kind of interesting.

I guess I would say this...

Most things in the world are constructed for normal people of normal means by other normal people of normal means.

The sooner that intellectuals learn that the library is a better resource than their teacher, the better.

But this is not to trash teachers: teachers are there to teach the average person in their class and produce the greatest amount of results for those kids, right? Teachers complain to one another that they have students who crave more but they can't actually give it. So, IDk, maybe that is relevant to your experience.

But your experience is important and I value it. I am just trying to make a few observations about this.

@caissad4 said
I was born and raised a Catholic. Grades 1 thru 8 were at St Matthews School in Dorchester, Massachusetts . Baptism, First Confession, First Communion and Confirmation, with a lot of church. I was a very devout child, regularly praying and striving to understand spirituality. In grade 6 I asked the nun teaching religion class why god would create people who he knew would no ...[text shortened]... eeker of truth with a leaning towards the philosophy of Buddhism

BTW I really like that REM song

What's interesting about this one is that you were talking to a Catholic Nun and to a Monsignor, but both of these people that had taken vows of chastity and dedicated their lives to the Church did not understand the Roman Catholic doctrines of free will.

You can take an Augustinian approach, which is more predeterministic, or the more standard approach of Thomas Aquinas, which is more oriented to the absolute freedom of the will... But it generally is brought back to compatibalism, a universe in which God does indeed know what is going to happen because He is omnipotent but the world is constructed in such a fashion as to allow us freedom of choice in all that we do.

God created people and gave them their freedom because, without their freedom, they would be incapable of love, right?

Of course, they probably explained this to you in a great variety of ways and you romantically try to make it out like we have a young student stumping a Monsignor and a nun who apparently have never, in the whole of their clerical careers, heard of a basic theological or philosophical debate...

But I think you are just remembering this in the way that you want to remember it.

Am I really supposed to believe that a Monsignor and a Nun never heard of these things and failed to give any amount of adequate explanation?

Good story.

@eladar said
I was not attacked. I am just telling you that if your sister actually is pentacostal you insulted her church's beliefs and if she shares them her belief.

She simply did not react like you would have if the places were reversed. Funny how you can read minds by looking in eyes.

[in response to the series of discussions concerning Elader]

I generally agree with Elader.

It was a pithy remark that was a lie iether because it makes her believe that you believe in her doctrine (which you don't) and thus will be in heaven, or potentially you communicating that you believe in a heaven that exists by a different doctrine in which you'll both be there... A lie no matter how the cake is cut, right?

She probably thinks, to this day, that he has a lot of problems with "organized religion" or something but deep down is a believing Christian because the topic isn't talked about.

Or, what is perhaps even the most likely scenario, there's a lot more context (true and unbiased context) that we never hear about what has gone on and literally anything could be the truth. IDK.

@philokalia said
I generally agree with Elader.

What Eladar is "generally" saying on this thread is that moonbus "abused" and "attacked" his sister because he is a "Christian hating bigot".

@philokalia said
You were in a class where 10 year olds (or teens) were giving "thoughtful" answers on theology? That's kind of interesting.

I guess I would say this...

Most things in the world are constructed for normal people of normal means by other normal people of normal means.

The sooner that intellectuals learn that the library is a better resource than their teacher, the ...[text shortened]... your experience is important and I value it. I am just trying to make a few observations about this.

Kids are naturally curious. I found that they gave far more thoughtful answers than most of the churched adults. Kids also aren't as aware of what they're "supposed" to say and think.

An answer does not have to be well-worded to be thoughtful. When I say "thoughtful", I mean that the kid turned it over in their head and drew their own conclusions, some of which were insights that no one else really had.

@bigdoggproblem said
Kids are naturally curious. I found that they gave far more thoughtful answers than most of the churched adults. Kids also aren't as aware of what they're "supposed" to say and think.

An answer does not have to be well-worded to be thoughtful. When I say "thoughtful", I mean that the kid turned it over in their head and drew their own conclusions, some of which were insights that no one else really had.

4-5 years ago, when I was a grad student, I taught some grade school here & there... Sure, there's some sweet and thoughtful things that are said from time to time... But I do not believe that kids are actually saying things that are right on the level at which adults say things are right.

But we can leave it at that.

@philokalia said
4-5 years ago, when I was a grad student, I taught some grade school here & there... Sure, there's some sweet and thoughtful things that are said from time to time... But I do not believe that kids are actually saying things that are right on the level at which adults say things are right.

There have been several Christians in this community over the years who have urged their religion-mates to be childlike about their faith. What do you think "childlike faith" is?

@philokalia said
What's interesting about this one is that you were talking to a Catholic Nun and to a Monsignor, but both of these people that had taken vows of chastity and dedicated their lives to the Church did not understand the Roman Catholic doctrines of free will.

You can take an Augustinian approach, which is more predeterministic, or the more standard approach of Thoma ...[text shortened]... n never heard of these things and failed to give any amount of adequate explanation?

Good story.

The rat in a maze "feels" like it is making a choice. It is certain it is making choices and many possible outcomes are available. The observer of the maze "knows" what the outcome will be and watches as an observer. The rat completes the maze and "knows" it made choices which affected the outcome, but that is an illusion.
The observer, needing more rats, places a rat of the opposite sex with the same rat and they mate, making many baby rats. Both rats may feel an emotion which can possibly be called "love". Neither rat has freedom but may experience "love".
Whether a Monsignor or a nun have understanding of any doctrinal knowledge is of little concern to me. I wanted knowledge and asked the questions.

@fmf said
There have been several Christians in this community over the years who have urged their religion-mates to be childlike about their faith. What do you think "childlike faith" is?

Children are born with Urvertrauen, a wonderful German word with means "implicit trust" in everything, implicit trust that the whole universe (at least so far they perceive it) exists solely to cater to their needs and will in fact take care of them. As children grow up, they lose this as they come to realize, a) that the universe is very much bigger than Mommie, and b) that the universe doesn't actually care about one person's ego.

I think Jesus's admonition that people become like children was an appeal to that lost feeling of implicit trust, and suggested to them that God would care for his 'children'.

@moonbus said
Children are born with Urvertrauen, a wonderful German word with means "implicit trust" in everything, implicit trust that the whole universe (at least so far they perceive it) exists solely to cater to their needs and will in fact take care of them. As children grow up, they lose this as they come to realize, a) that the universe is very much bigger than Mommie, and b ...[text shortened]... o that lost feeling of implicit trust, and suggested to them that God would care for his 'children'.

I wonder if this "childlike" approach that adults should take to doctrines surrounding supernatural causality and notions of human immortality etc. etc. - according to some Christians - is supposed to be adopted too as the favoured approach to everything that crops up in one's adult life?

@fmf said
I wonder if this "childlike" approach that adults should take to doctrines surrounding supernatural causality and notions of human immortality etc. etc. - according to some Christians - is supposed to be adopted too as the favoured approach to everything that crops up in one's adult life?

Jesus didn't espouse doctrines. Doctrine was what happened when Origen read Plato. Doctrine was invented by and for theologians. Jesus came to the "poor in spirit", the rustic, the uneducated, the shunned, the disenfranchised, prostitutes and outcasts etc.; they did not need any doctrines and Jesus didn't give them any either. They needed to feel that although society had rejected them, God did not; they needed consolations. Jesus told them: "The first shall be last and the last shall be first." That was his consolation to the poor in spirit.

The doctrinal stuff about transubstantiation and hypostatic union etc. was invented later.

@moonbus said
Jesus didn't espouse doctrines. Doctrine was what happened when Origen read Plato. Doctrine was invented by and for theologians.
The doctrinal stuff about transubstantiation and hypostatic union etc. was invented later.

I think "Jesus" was "invented later by and for theologians" although your attempt to speculate about what he might have actually meant by what he said [assuming he said it] is edifying.