Raised Catholic then seperated away

[Lark]

??????

Atheism describes (roughly) how I think. It's a description, not a set of rules and guidelines.

I'm referring to the broad areas of christianity/catholicism, judaism and islam.

I'm very aware that not all the individual sects of organized religion practice being oppressive/demeaning to women, but the original texts ARE. At least to me, although I'm aware that many religious women are just fine with following hubby's orders, since god made him the leader of he house.

Oh alright, the question about organised athiesm or not was because I know people who oppose each equally.

Not all where sexist but neither was Christianity in its beginnings, the original Church had prominant female followers in its hierarchy, the only two witnesses to the resurrection where female, the gospel is supposed to have been spread by Mary Magdelene, the matriarchal leadership of the church made it popular with gentiles who where converts from matriarchal paganism.

It took a serious effort to undo and undermine all that, including the invention of the myth that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute.

 

[proximo]

It took a serious effort to undo and undermine all that, including the invention of the myth that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute.

As if that would actually invalidate her anyway, even if she were.

Can I ask what the books are? I've had similar experiences you know, its what prevents me joining any of the orders that I'm interested in, like The Jesuits.

Jesuits?? My grandfather was raised by his uncle after his father died. That uncle was a Jesuit priest. I'm wearing as I type, a gold wedding band style ring that belonged to that uncle (my great, great uncle), with the words AD MAIOREM DEI GLORIAM engraved on it. It has scratches still visible on it from where it was cut open to be removed when my dad broke his hand, then mended again by me after he died, so I could wear it. I don't know why... St Francis is far more on my wavelength and he's about as far from a Jesuit as you can get!

Suffice it to say, as I said... I'm content for now to lone ranger it... I have a background in Islam (Averroes being my greatest influence there), as well as a big dose of Taoism, so that complicates things when it comes to explaining things to the outsider... to me though, it's the opposite! I guess I'm an Islamic-Franciscan-Taoist... if I MUST label myself... though I don't see any point in doing so when I'm quite pointedly NOT a member of any group!

Of course I know that there are always going to be people who, when you say that, will make faces of contempt and dismiss me with a haughty hand gesture, saying "Ha! Pick N Mix religion eh? Sounds like you don't really know what you believe, or you just make it up as it suits you!" What can you say to such people? I don't think there is anything you can say. I know it's not like that, and so does God. That's all that matters to me.

Well that and I could no way in hell keep a vow of chastity.

Haha... that's the easy part! 8 years and... not really counting any more...

(wait, is it 9 now? I'm really not sure!)

Oh, you asked what "the books" were! I'm not sure which books you mean? The ones I read as a kid that instilled early medieval Catholicism into me? Too many to list, really... just anything and everything that I could get my hands on, that was written from Julius Caesar to about 1100 AD, and stuff written about that period later on, too. Mostly European, not all Christian, but in a way that sort of explains why I dug SF so much when I learned of him... he was a reactionary in many ways... he was born right at the end of that period, when a massive change of era was happening, move towards a money economy and lots of new papal edicts being passed... he was a rebel really... of the old school

 

[Lark]

Yeah, it was the church which didnt really exist anymore comment which interested me, I read The Cloud of Unknowing once and loved it, got Dark Night of the Soul and Interior Castle on order from Amazon at the moment and Tolstoys bible in brief and confession.

I generally have to have some information before I assess whether people are pick and mix or not, some people are, I generally find that a lot of the Wiccan or pop-paganism people are pick and mix and its a reflection of engrained liberalism or politics finding an expression in a choice of religion, I dont think religion should be something you simply choose. I should choose you. Its something which so strongly resonates with you that you have to integrate or interiorise it when you uncover it.

As a result, while I'm a practicing RC, I cant be dogmatic and if I where to list my influences there'd be taoism, shintoism, zen, some sorts of buddhism, aswell as christian mysticism, I think that Ignatious' spiritual crisis, dude cried for four days or something, and the spiritual exercises which he developed in recovery resonate most strongly with me, although I know the whole militarism and secrecy scare people.

I think reading Dune and its featuring the Zen Sunnis or Orange Catholic Bible (yeah, not many people get the anathema in the second, even if they see it in the first) and depicting the fate of religions over an insanely long time scale made me consider afresh how I viewed religion. It can also easily become an obsticle to reaching God or growing and developing.

 

[stringstheory]

Sometimes I think "raised Catholic" should be its own religious category

While I lost the belief in the dogma, and the fire and brimstone, I will say the one thing I took out of being raised in the Church was the sense of community it provided, a respect for all kinds of lifer, and the know-how to explore my beliefs and thoughts in order to achieve spiritual balance. Even though I identify primarily as an agnostic atheist, I find spirituality through science. The fact that mountains took billions of years to form, through slow natural processes with no assistance from man, or that stars are suns in other solar systems with other planets, is more inspirational to me that to say that any God decided and it was so, even though i recognize that even the scientific method can be flawed simply because it's a human concept I would certainly attribute this to my Catholic upbringing, as well as my desire to find other spiritual atheists^^

 

[Lark]

I think spiritually athiesm is impoverished, although I would say that.

I dont know how you can find scientific facts spiritually uplifting in anyway, I dont think that the idea that creation came about because God "said so" has much currency anymore, let alone within RC which never really where creationist in modern times the way that the protestant congregations where.

It was easier for RC believers to be reconciled to much of scientific discovery because they didnt get seduced by either solo scripture or scriptural literalism, they're both dead ends and athiestic science is probably the natural or logical response when confronted by them. There is another, alternative view though.

 

[stringstheory]

I think spiritually athiesm is impoverished, although I would say that.

come again?

I dont know how you can find scientific facts spiritually uplifting in anyway, I dont think that the idea that creation came about because God "said so" has much currency anymore, let alone within RC which never really where creationist in modern times the way that the protestant congregations where.

It's just awe inspiring; specifically i'm looking in the realm of physics, but astronomy, chemistry, and biology have their elements too. I don't know how else to describe it except a very deeply felt emotion when confronted with the awesome complexity of the universe, the world, the system in which we live. watching Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" makes me cry sometimes. Quantum physics and the theories surrounding are astoundingly complex and beautiful. There are billions and billions of stars and planets. life on Earth is extremely diverse, and yet we all come from a common ancestor, and to varying degrees all life makes the world turn. and we've only barely scratched the surface of discovery about how it all works. it's incredible.

Granted, i was exaggerating about the "God said so" thing, but my point is that i find the idea of a humanoid higher power dictating morality and otherwise involving his/her/its self in Earthy affairs rather empty.

 

[Take Five]

, I think that Ignatious' spiritual crisis, dude cried for four days or something, and the spiritual exercises which he developed in recovery resonate most strongly with me, although I know the whole militarism and secrecy scare people.

Ignatius is who I draw spirituality from. He is my favorite, although I am often frustrated with modern jesuits in the Americas. His sense of sorrow and compassion, along with his indifference and gift for order resonate with me. Have you had a chance to read the "autobiography" of him, The Pilgrim's Journey? It's fairly enlightening, although the personality of Ignatius is often too, shall I say, distant or intensely serious for people to identify with him. If I had to pick an order though, at this point it'd still be the jesuits.

 

[swordpath]

I'm just writing a quick post and I'll elaborate more later. My family, mother and father's side are all Catholic. I was raised in the Catholic church. However, as I went through my teen years, and I learned more about myself and the world, I realized how narrow minded I was being. Without the help of religion, I build my life around logic and practicality. I have a responsibility to myself to push my own thought process, challenge my viewpoints and learn about outside viewpoints.

As an ISTJ, using those principles, I just couldn't take in Catholicism anymore. I started to realize how much religion was debated and uncertain in the world and I couldn't allow myself to have "faith" in something that I could easy find reasons not to believe in. I held a higher respect for logically criticizing viewpoints rather than the church. I'm not bashing current believers, but as I learned more about myself and my own standards, I couldn't do it anymore.

I'm not sure what I believe. I tend to think of myself as Agnostic, but to me, it seems like there's still so much for us as a race to learn about our own minds and the universe that goes far beyond our current constructs of religion. Anyway, that's it. I'll add more later.

We're on the exact same page, except I was raised non-denominational Christian and not Catholic.

 

[Giggly]

I too was raised Catholic. I don't practice it as much today but I don't/didn't really have a problem with it.

 

[Coriolis]

I, too, was raised Roman Catholic, only to abandon it by the time I finished college. I eventually abandoned Christianity as a whole, bit by bit, like peeling away the layers of an onion until nothing more was left. Oddly, my first disappointment with the RC church came when I realized just how much of its own rich tradition it had turned its back on. As Andrew Greeley (priest and novelist) has commented, the RC church was for centuries the patron of some of the best music written, but in modern times, it has patronized junk. The old Latin mass, full of symbolism and ritual theater, was replaced by sloppy "folk masses" in many places. And most priests I've known can't preach their way out of a paper bag. When I got older, I could not accept the pervasive gender bias, and the clinging to archaic policies like priestly celibacy, and reproductive limitations.

Later I became involved in a progressive protestant church where many of these issues weren't present (it took my breath away the first time I saw girl acolytes). I came to realize that, even underneath the superficial trappings and organizatioal procedures, I just didn't believe the stuff. The idea of a virgin birth, physical resurrection, or the need for someone to die to save people from sin seemed nonsensical. When I discovered that these themes are present in the myths of many other faiths and civilizations, the tendency of Christians -- even intelligent, educated Christians -- to interpret them literally became especially perplexing.

My spiritual journey took many unpredictable twists and turns after that. While I have not now come full circle, I have come to understand what parts of Christianity and Catholicism in particular still do resonate, and enable me tap into that higher power, collective subconscious, God, whatever. I appreciate Christianity on the whole far more now that I no longer feel the need to try to be a Christian.

 

[Coriolis]

I have a hard time with written scripture (Bible, Koran, etc.) There's so many people that take it so literally, but the Bible was written by the hands of man, not God. Its been translated over and over through the ages, in times when only the clergy and royals could even read. Wouldn't be hard to fudge a few lines and twist things around. Fear of divine retribution is a good way to keep people subjugated. There's more in my beliefs beyond that but I doubt anyone wants to hear me ramble too long.

If you take a close look, most major religions have 2 things in common:
1.) Belief in a higher power. (God, Allah, Mother Earth, etc.)
2.) Some variation of The Golden Rule. (Do unto others, live in harmony, respect nature, etc)
I think we spend too much time focusing on how we're different than on how we're the same. I've got a theory on this that I spent a bit of time developing.

As for me, I try to find Balance. I'll respect beliefs of others as long as they don't bring harm to their fellow man and they are willing to respect the beliefs of myself and others as well (I'm a 'live and let live' type, I guess). I'll stay true to myself and try to do right by others. When my time comes, I'll leave it up to the Creator to decide what I deserve. I may be a cocky bastard sometimes, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe I know for certain what a divine being wants from me.

My sentiments exactly, and quite well-said. I have had occasion to visit a fair variety of Christian denominations, in different parts of the U.S. plus some abroad, and the more I do so, the more similar they seem. The issues that divide them seem trivial compared with the commonality of their basic beliefs. (They might disagree, but this is my impression as an outsider.) Beyond this, Christianity shares with other faiths not only the two elements you cite, but also some very basic archetypes, symbols, and themes.

Not all where sexist but neither was Christianity in its beginnings, the original Church had prominant female followers in its hierarchy, the only two witnesses to the resurrection where female, the gospel is supposed to have been spread by Mary Magdelene, the matriarchal leadership of the church made it popular with gentiles who where converts from matriarchal paganism.

It took a serious effort to undo and undermine all that, including the invention of the myth that Mary Magdelene was a prostitute.

Yes. Suppressing writings that showed the significance of Jesus' women followers was part of this, notwithstanding Jesus' own openness and consideration toward women. This campaign began already in the old testament, with stories like the Adam and Eve creation story that vilify the wisdom of women and the symbols of earlier faiths. (See Elaine Pagels' Adam and Eve and the Serpent.)

Even though I identify primarily as an agnostic atheist, I find spirituality through science. The fact that mountains took billions of years to form, through slow natural processes with no assistance from man, or that stars are suns in other solar systems with other planets, is more inspirational to me that to say that any God decided and it was so, even though i recognize that even the scientific method can be flawed simply because it's a human concept.

I could not agree more. As a scientist myself, my own spirituality is constantly fueled by the wonders I have the good fortune to witness personally in the physical world. This is not at all incompatible with the kind of detached analysis required for scientific inquiry; it simply occurs in parallel, showing me a whole other side to scientific phenomena. My own spiritual practice now is centered around the realities of the natural world, rather than the events in some holy book, or some (hu)man-made calendar. In a way, this is as close to any creator as I can get.

 

[stringstheory]

I actually just remembered a memory from a pretty young age that really started to plant the seed of my doubts about the Catholic Church that's pretty relevant.

My mother and i were walking through a fair for my cousins Catholic school, like the fundraiser kind that schools held. I was about 10. as we were walking we ran into someone my mom knew, but whom i had never seen before. they talked for a little bit, and when she left I asked who the lady was. My mom told me that it was her ex sister-in-law and i was like "what, you were married before daddy????? do i have half-brothers or sisters??" in standard 10 year old fashion.

she told me no, and explained the situation. When she was about 20, this rich slightly older man expressed interest in my mom and started dating her. My mom wasn't actually all that interested in this guy, but she received a lot of pressure all around (especially from my grandmother) to get with this guy because he was a good provider and he really liked her a lot so my mom kinda caved. Eventually they got married, and then divorced 4 years later.

When she showed me the pictures I was really confused; she had a big white wedding dress on, and it was in a gorgeous Catholic Church, but the wedding pictures I'd seen with her and my dad were much more...humble, i guess. She had on a pretty pink sundress and there were only a few people there.

I asked why she didn't get married in the Church with dad, and she told me she couldn't, because she got a divorce. I asked why that matters and she quoted Mark 10:9 "What, therefore God has joined together, let no man separate" and said that in the Church unless you get an annulment saying that you were never "actually married", you have broke a sacred bond and are not allowed to get married in the Church again, or allowed to take communion during mass if you do re-marry.

I don't remember actually saying it out loud, but i remember thinking: you're trying to tell me that somehow God thinks my mom's unsuccessful first marriage is somehow more sacred than her second happy marriage where she has 3 happy children after overcoming much adversity? is it really wrong that I think God is wrong?

Eventually as I got older I started to see the issue in terms of people and politics and history, but this is where my skepticism of the Church and it's dogma first started.

 

[raz]

The whole marriage thing is bullshit anyway that just stems from religion. Marriage only comes from a religious background, so if you don't get married but do very intimate things with someone, e.g. sex, moving in together, having children, you're only looked down upon from a religious point of view. If someone takes it further than that, than they have issues.

I mean, what is marriage anyway if you remove all of the religious stigma? It's a promise to stay committed forever. I don't need a religion, fancy dress, hundreds of guests or a bridal registry to do that.

 

[Coriolis]

Marriage has a legal aspect, and a religious aspect. A couple can have one without the other, both, or neither (personal commitment without religious or legal recognition).

 

[Lark]

The whole marriage thing is bullshit anyway that just stems from religion. Marriage only comes from a religious background, so if you don't get married but do very intimate things with someone, e.g. sex, moving in together, having children, you're only looked down upon from a religious point of view. If someone takes it further than that, than they have issues.

I mean, what is marriage anyway if you remove all of the religious stigma? It's a promise to stay committed forever. I don't need a religion, fancy dress, hundreds of guests or a bridal registry to do that.

Really? It's bullshit?

Someone tell all the gay campaigners already.

 

[Lark]

I actually just remembered a memory from a pretty young age that really started to plant the seed of my doubts about the Catholic Church that's pretty relevant.

My mother and i were walking through a fair for my cousins Catholic school, like the fundraiser kind that schools held. I was about 10. as we were walking we ran into someone my mom knew, but whom i had never seen before. they talked for a little bit, and when she left I asked who the lady was. My mom told me that it was her ex sister-in-law and i was like "what, you were married before daddy????? do i have half-brothers or sisters??" in standard 10 year old fashion.

she told me no, and explained the situation. When she was about 20, this rich slightly older man expressed interest in my mom and started dating her. My mom wasn't actually all that interested in this guy, but she received a lot of pressure all around (especially from my grandmother) to get with this guy because he was a good provider and he really liked her a lot so my mom kinda caved. Eventually they got married, and then divorced 4 years later.

When she showed me the pictures I was really confused; she had a big white wedding dress on, and it was in a gorgeous Catholic Church, but the wedding pictures I'd seen with her and my dad were much more...humble, i guess. She had on a pretty pink sundress and there were only a few people there.

I asked why she didn't get married in the Church with dad, and she told me she couldn't, because she got a divorce. I asked why that matters and she quoted Mark 10:9 "What, therefore God has joined together, let no man separate" and said that in the Church unless you get an annulment saying that you were never "actually married", you have broke a sacred bond and are not allowed to get married in the Church again, or allowed to take communion during mass if you do re-marry.

I don't remember actually saying it out loud, but i remember thinking: you're trying to tell me that somehow God thinks my mom's unsuccessful first marriage is somehow more sacred than her second happy marriage where she has 3 happy children after overcoming much adversity? is it really wrong that I think God is wrong?

Eventually as I got older I started to see the issue in terms of people and politics and history, but this is where my skepticism of the Church and it's dogma first started.

I think that the Church is fundamentally right about marriage and divorce, there are people who wont be able to realise it in practice like that but it makes it no less correct.

Its like the idea that abstaining from sex is a form of birh control, fundamentally that's right but I'm unsure that this expectation is one which everyone can conform to.

Religion has endorsed both monogamy and polygamy but I think that I'm unsure either truly reflects human nature, scientists say that love is a chemical, addictive reaction which should last roughly long enough for a child to be born and reach an age at which with assistance from others it will survive, folkishly called the "seven year itch", hence we are serial monogamists by nature.

The question is whether you're happy to conform to your nature or if you want to be something more than that.

 

[Coriolis]

The question is whether you're happy to conform to your nature or if you want to be something more than that.

This is quite a loaded question, and an important one. Should someone with great natural musical talent, for instance, develop that and share it with the world, or should he aspire to something "higher" like studying medicine to work on a cure for cancer? I consider it a waste and ultimately hurtful to suppress our nature. That said, developing it and allowing it to flourish need not become rigid conformity. That gifted musician can play basketball for fun, learn computer programming to pay the bills, and do any manner of thing when the situation calls for it. Better to understand and to develop our nature for our own fulfillment and the greater good, than to go through life trying to be something that we are not.

 

[Lark]

This is quite a loaded question, and an important one. Should someone with great natural musical talent, for instance, develop that and share it with the world, or should he aspire to something "higher" like studying medicine to work on a cure for cancer? I consider it a waste and ultimately hurtful to suppress our nature. That said, developing it and allowing it to flourish need not become rigid conformity. That gifted musician can play basketball for fun, learn computer programming to pay the bills, and do any manner of thing when the situation calls for it. Better to understand and to develop our nature for our own fulfillment and the greater good, than to go through life trying to be something that we are not.

Perhaps I should have said instinct instead of nature, I meant if you accept the theory that we are just human animals then a decision has to be made, be more human than animal or more animal than human.

 

[stringstheory]

Perhaps I should have said instinct instead of nature, I meant if you accept the theory that we are just human animals then a decision has to be made, be more human than animal or more animal than human.

i dunno, I see a little bit of a paradox in there...if we are to assume that humans are just animals, how is one supposed to be "more human than animal" or "more animal than human"?

 

[Mole]

The Language of God

i dunno, I see a little bit of a paradox in there...if we are to assume that humans are just animals, how is one supposed to be "more human than animal" or "more animal than human"?

We are part of the tree of life, the DNA tree. We all share the same DNA whether we are a banana, a bacteria or Stringstheory.

It is possible there is another DNA tree on Earth but so far we haven't discovered it.

So we are all one at the most intimate level - the level of the cell.

To divide us into humans and animals is the merest hubris.

Once in our infancy we thought we were the centre of the universe, but we find we are not.
And in our infancy we thought God created the world for us. In fact we thought God created the animals for us.
This is solipsism taken to the nth degree.

And as we have slowly grown up we find astronomy tells us that everywhere is the centre of the universe. In other words, no matter where you stand, in which galaxy, that is where the big bang began.

And as we grow up biology tells us we were not created specially by the hand of God, but rather by natural selection, exactly the same as every other living creature.

But of course we are fond of the toys of our childhood such as astrology and mbti. They make us feel special and important and that we belong. Who would want to give up that for astronomy and biology.

Anyway, we don't speak the language, for the language of astronomy and biology is mathematics. And we are illiterate.

Some say the mathematics is the language of God, but who could be bothered learning it? It's boring. And hardly anybody speaks it anyhow. So what use is mathematics? What has mathematics done for me lately?

So many worship God, but can't be bothered to learn His language.