Thoughts on Mormons

What do you think about Mormons?

Love em. They were probably the stepping stone to me being religious in the first place. I was young, so I mostly remember how kind they were to me. I didn't really go too deep into their doctrines, but I had a basic grasp of it. Looking back at it, it's a simplified form of Chrisitianity; taking most of the "mystery" out of it. Have a problem with the Trinity? Not a problem. Have a problem with Hell? Not a problem. If you read real close into men like Josepth Smith, Martin Luther, etc. you will find a profound struggle within them that lead to their shift from Orthodoxy. It's much easier to come up with your own conclusion then to call it a mystery or work to understand it over time. But as far as my personal experiences with them, I have nothing but good things to say. I'd even go so far as to say that they treated me better then Catholics do......=] If it were only about how I was treated, I probably would have remained Mormon.

Peaceful Coexistance - Theology and Science

I do hope for it and do think it is possible but people need to understand that the discussion has taken shape into something else. It’s not being fought in the scientific or religious realm, but rather, somewhere in the middle.

This particular topic is of great interest to me. Over the last two decades there has been a great push to unite the epistemological world with that of the scientific one. Men like Sam Harris are on the forefront of this push and its gaining ground. You’ll find particle physicist Victor Stenger making such bold claims as:

-The God worshipped by the billion of followers of the monotheistic religions either exists or he does not. And his existence is a legitimate scientific issue.

-The universe and life look exactly as they can be expected to look if there is no God.

Colorado.edu - Philosophy Division

Follow the scientific method to disprove something doesn't exist?

A legitimate scientific issue?

I will however say that some atheist scientists such as David Sloan Wilson are critical of his colleagues who promote such thinking.

I think it's crude and naive when people expect God to show up through physical evidence. I think by now we can all pretty much say that whatever it is we do have, isn’t cutting it.

Evidence for God that would probably convince some skeptics (of the Spinoza brand perhaps) isn't going to be in the form of a footprint……nope……It’s going to come in the form of metaphysical evidence -- ontological, epistemic, teleological, or whatever evidence that demonstrates the necessity or even probable existence of such a being.

Other than that kind of stuff deities aren't in the empirical arena. Science is limited to that, so it's never going to say squat about the supernatural -- that is, unless of course said supernatural events are tied to empirical events such as…causing a worldwide flood…and even those events are subject to interpretation in the Holy Scriptures. At best, it would cast doubt into a minority of protestant Christians.

So yeah, I do hold some hope…but it’s fairly small as I feel like a conspiracy theorist with foil on my head at times. Often hearing “well the religious folks are pushing just as hard”. True, but they aren’t remotely in the same place as those scientists who push from within it's walls.

Changing for the better

Those within proximity of having met me long enough to spark up a conversation can see how much of an open book I can be. I can talk about myself (flaws and everything) without angst or discomfort. It just comes so easy and naturally to me that I do it without much thought. I’ve never had a reason to bring this attribute of mine into question and probably would never imagine anything that would lead me to question it. Nevertheless, you never know how your life is going to unfold and in all things I intend to move toward good and anything that will help others move toward it as well.

In short, my openness and goofy attributes will be downsized and replaced with a more serious and businesslike approach. Everyone likes the goofy down to earth guy, right? But does anyone take them serious? Is he the one you go to when you need help? Most people don’t. I’m at a point in my life where people are more apt to looking at me for guidance and comfort; I’ve never been there before (or at least I’ve never felt it this strong). I don’t know what the end product will look like, but I hope I can still remain myself and still have people take me serious.

Eastern Orthodoxy - Our differences

There was a time when I did quite a bit of research into the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. It was a very informative and enriching experience to dialogue with EO’s (Eastern Orthodox) whom at least spoke a very similar theological lingo. Never did I have to dig so deep for answers. The East is so rich in liturgy, icons, and over all aesthetics that it is an experience I’d recommend for all Catholics. Mysticism is also another dimension to EO that intrigued me. It brought to surface just how legalistic we tend to be in the west. Hopefully I can reignite my neurons and cover the underlying difference between us in as short of post that I can. This will be the beginning of perhaps a serious of posts on EO and our differences.

A small but perhaps important note is that some (dare I say many?) in Eastern Orthodoxy are quick to correct you if you use the term - “Catholic Church”; to them, it is more proper to identify it as the “Roman Catholic Church”. It might not seem like a big deal to most of us within the walls of the Church but to them it makes a world of difference. Adding “Roman” gives it more of an autonomous feel to it. Since this is precisely how the Fifteen autonomous Orthodox churches operate; it is of great comfort to them that they see us in the same manner and most importantly they see the early Church operating this way as well. There was no central authority like what you see now in Rome; no Pope with authority as you see it now. It was just a bunch of mega-churches who gathered together and held councils.

The consensus is that the Pope is the primary difference; however you could point to something even broader then the pope that would nail down why we differ. Off I go…

I think the difficulties that some Eastern Orthodox have with Catholic doctrine on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Papal Infallibility, purgatory, the two Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, and in fact, even some other teachings, stem from a profound incomprehension of the development of dogma that has taken place in the history of the Church. In the numerous dialogues I've had and reading on this matter, Eastern Orthodox have a habit of interpreting the immutability of Christian dogma in the sense that every defined dogma or traditional doctrine of the Church must have been explicitly believed as such by the faithful from the beginning of its history.

It is true that every dogma proclaimed by the Church for belief is true, always has been true, and its meaning can not be altered or changed so that it bears a different meaning than that held by the Church in previous times. But it is not true that every dogma or doctrine contained in the “deposit of faith” confided to the Apostles has been the object of explicit belief in every age, and only subject to new technical language in the definitions of Ecumenical Councils.

Those who deny doctrinal evolution in the life of the Church only manifest once again their adherence to a non-historical orthodoxy. For an authentic development of doctrine has taken place in the life of the Church (almost no scholars denies this), and it involves not only new philosophical/theological expression for the revealed truths that were always explicitly believed (say, the divinity of Christ) but also the folding aspects of our doctrines (e.g., the canon of Scripture, the number of the sacraments, the hypostatic union, the immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, the particular judgement, et.) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit leading the faithful to a greater understanding of the supernatural mysteries revealed in Jesus Christ.

This is the crux of our differences and it all stems from this misunderstanding.

Further reflection on souls...

My previous encounter with a certain individual inspired me to expand on the Catholic view on souls.

It is catholic belief that all living things have souls (plants, animals, and us), by definition, in the proper sense of the word.

See:
New Advent on Souls

An animal does not have a spiritual soul though. That is, its soul cannot exist without it's body. So when a cat, say, dies, not only does the cat cease to be, but so too its soul ceases to be. (Let's just say a soul is "the form of a naturally organised body having life potentially", or more or less, that in virtue of which this substance is what it is as a living substance).

When a man dies, the man also ceases to be. St. Thomas goes so far as to say that when he dies he will not be. The man is not his soul, nor his body, but the composite of both, the soul being the form of his body. But what distinguishes him from a dog, is that man's soul will continue to exist without a body.

So whereas for man, as such, to have eternal life he needs his soul to be reunited with his body, (bet you didn't know that... ) and therefore for himself to become a man again, a dog would have to be re-created, both matter and form. Could God, in the end, re-create certain animals? He's God, He can do whatever He wants that isn't against His nature.

But even if He did, they would not be in heaven, not essentially anyhow. They would not share, nor could they share, in the heavenly society. If they were re-created it would have to be only to have another secondary object for the blessed to reflect God's glory in.

Animals are my friends

I got into a dialogue with a Native American (only relevant for context purposes) about the value of animals. He was annoyed that I didn't see animal morality (if you want to call it that) on par with human morality. As if anyone that doesn't see animals on par with humans is an anti-PETA right wing nut that goes hunting for fun. That animals were scum and indespensible. It just about floored me how zealous his feelings were toward people that didn't see animals on par with humans. It makes me think what this guy would do if I lived in his apartment complex and a fire broke out. He'd get his cat, the neighbors mouse, and snails before he even thought of me.

Something is wrong with that picture.

I told him: "I believe animals have spirits. I believe they should be treated with the upmost respect. I believe these things and I am a person of faith. However, believing these things does not necessitate humans and animals being equal."

It didn't matter.

Removal of Christian Flag

Here we go again:

Removal of Christian Flag

Nothing new.

I don't care anymore if religious symbols of any kind are taken down (although I don't hear of many Buddhist, Asatru, etc. being taken down...I've seen them and have never once thought "take it down"). I still have a place to worship and I'm happy with that. It just really irks and concerns me that some live in fantastic dread that somewhere, somehow, no matter how small or benign, a public display of the religious faith will be made; and who, upon being exposed to it, reflexively attaches, without thought, the most evil and vile intentions to those making the display.

Now, I will say that I wouldn't at all be surprised that the very same people angry about the flag coming down; were perhaps of like mind to those wanting no mosque at ground zero. What if it was just an Islamic flag? Probably same reaction. This is probably good reason for some to justify to get rid of them all together; and like I've said, I don't care either way. In fact, I'm even getting to the point where people's reflexive responses toward religious symbols (in a negative connotation) is less weighing on me.

What I can't however let go is that originally "seperation of church and state" had a anti-clerical connotation to it. That soon evolved to an anti-religious (dare I say anti-Christian and anti-Muslim?) connotaion to it. This in essense gave rise (or perhaps the begining) to a more extreme interpretation which tries to rid any religiousity out of any public display or any hints of it in law. This is almost always accompanied by a deep seated anti-religious expressions. Such a phenomenon is very real in our society IMO.

Call me crazy.

Sounds of the Mouth

This is simply cool! He uses mostly his God-given talent to produce the sounds you hear.

Burqa's as a threat

I don't recall a spree of burqa wearing female hoodlums posing any threat anywhere. Is this a problem in the UK?......Is this really out of concern for the public? They must be robbing banks. We give into this, what's next? Most disturbing is the extent to which Islamophobia is glamorized as a campaign for freedom and equality for all women. Some may actually believe this, but dig down deep enough and one discovers that the real issue is a perceived security threat.

Most Brits back face veil ban

What is Freedom?

Pope John Paul did an amazing job in his encyclical at articulating what freedom is. Here is a glimpse of it:

Fides et Ratio
In that act, the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature, enabling the subject to act in a way which realizes personal freedom to the full.(15) It is not just that freedom is part of the act of faith: it is absolutely required. Indeed, it is faith that allows individuals to give consummate expression to their own freedom. Put differently, freedom is not realized in decisions made against God. For how could it be an exercise of true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which enables our self-realization? Men and women can accomplish no more important act in their lives than the act of faith; it is here that freedom reaches the certainty of truth and chooses to live in that truth.