Religion, Theology, and all that good stuff

[Nepenthe]

It isn't spurious really at all. The mafia are involved in a lot of politics, including our government politics. I worked for a group of them in Florida. Yep...same group there in Donnie Brasco Land. No biggy, just cleaned a resturaunt for them, got into some pretty cool discussions with the owner. Put it this way, he worked for both the American Government and the mafia, he had white house security clearance.

Not too mention I live with an Italian Catholic that has relatives from the old country.

[Nepenthe]

I have worked for some pretty interesting folk. I also did some work for a retired CIA and her husband who both worked in the white house for 25 years.

[kmc]

But there is no formal connection between the Catholic Church and the mafia, as there is between the Catholic Church and its pedophiliac priests. But I get what you're saying.

[Nepenthe]

Well no its done underground, like ya know not just out in the open. But the mafia was a definite strong factor during WWII. The Catholicism is the religion of the land...so..

Put it this way, I worked for a family that were the founding fathers of a city in Sicily that really far back and was the main town where the mafia rose. Mafia Clan name, after their family and the town, which is how it usually works. Needless to say I wasn't very comfortable with the situation. I didn't realize who they were when the guy first called me. The kicker is that it really isn't hidden, it was a well known presence, many famous people came to that restaurant.

[Rit]

yeesh. way to totally trash my "Catholics are cute" comment with that well-placed post, kMc.

but it's true. the Catholic insitution is a tottering mighty tower imploding under the weight of its own constipated dogmas. They don't even know common sense when they see it anymore, and a celibate priesthood (while supposedly awe-inspiring in theory) is a human disaster just waiting to happen.

however, when i called them cute, i was referring to the average Catholic Joe (Giuseppe?) on the street. Catholics, it seems to me, live with their faith like one lives with one's asthma condition. This is written into the popular (and imaginary) Constiution for Catholicism.

Protestants, by their own similar constitution, are required to be theoligians, every one of them. Too much pressure, imo, be cool daddy-O's, is what i say.

am i wrong or am i wrong?

[Nepenthe]

Well I could go into some really deep stuff about the whole "condition" but here is not the place. Way way too politically incorrect. You can trace the "mafia" type and others...... A mixed bunch indeed, they are. Many of them are "Converts" from long ago. And I am not talking about general population I am referring to a certain group that can be traced way back over many many years.

Hell you can even trace them with their favorite murder tactics.........the infamous piano wire.........


Oh and you can also trace many Dominicans and Bishops....again.....converts from long ago.....

[Vader]

Catholicism rules. Where else can you shoot a person, rape a few kids, and come sunday wipe the slate clean. LOL

[JACkory]

kmc said:

But there is no formal connection between the Catholic Church and the mafia, as there is between the Catholic Church and its pedophiliac priests. But I get what you're saying.

A "formal connection" between the Catholic church and pedophile priests?
That's a bit harsh, don't you think?
It's not as if the actions of a few twisted pervs are sanctioned by the Papacy...
If there were a "formal connection" between the church and these molesters I daresay there would be a falling out and turning away from the church by it's members the likes of which we have never seen before (easily trumping the schism that was the Protestant Reformation).

You asked about my view on Jesus' teaching being "humanist", as I had stated earlier that I did not view it as such.
I checked in the dictionary and came up with this definition of "humanism":
Any system of thought based on the interests and ideals of man.
Though it is true that Jesus' teachings were intended to enrich the lives of those who put them into practice and therefore were definately in the interest of man, they were NOT based on the IDEALS of man, but on Scripture and the word of God as it was being spoken through Him. Jesus even pointed out that every word from His mouth was "from the Father", and the Bible is very clear about how His ways are not our ways.
I was always under the impression that the humanist placed human intellect at the very apex of virtue, and denied the existance of a God or anything else that might stand above it. In that respect it is absurd to consider Christ's teachings "humanist".

[kmc]

But that is, unfortunately, a gross mischaracterization of humanism. After all, there are religious humanists whose system of belief could be often times classified as "Christian"; they are simply non denominational. But I assume you mean secular humanism, which Kurt Vonnegut takes a brief moment to explain in his new book "A Man Without A Country". In it, he posits that secular humanists are people who have devoted themselves to the condition and betterment of their fellow humans; no need to prescribe any kind of power to any mystical being. To quote the secular humanist website:

The academy's goals include furthering respect for human rights, freedom, and the dignity of the individual; tolerance of various viewpoints and willingness to compromise; commitment to social justice; a universalistic perspective that transcends national, ethnic, religious, sexual, and racial barriers; and belief in a free and open pluralistic and democratic society.

More importantly:

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

I mean, the fact remains that secular humanism is simply not concerned with the existence of God. What they are concerned with is the betterment of the human condition. Secular humanists, I will admit, tend to be either agnostic or atheistic, but it would be a mischaracterization to portray them all as God haters or any such thing. They aren't busy tackling the idea of God's existence. And their concern for humanity is very much in keeping with the Christian call to charity, the Beatitudes, et al.

[kmc]

By formal connection, I meant that the priests are appointed members of the Church. The Mafia enjoy no special position in the Church. They are lay people.

[JACkory]

I understand that priests are appointed members of the Church, but I think it's a little misleading how you singled out "pedophile priests" to make a connection, when the vast majority of priests are NOT pedophiles.

I don't see how a "dictionary definition" can be a "mischaracterization". Even you admitted that secular humanism is NOT CONCERNED WITH GOD. For that reason alone I would think it would be a serious stretch of credibility to present Jesus as a "humanist".
But then, I'm not interested in arguing semantics. If you'd like to discuss the teachings of Christ and how they apply to human beings, okay...but if the only issue that divides us is whether of not the word "humanist" describes those teachings, I'd just as soon pass. Several of the tenants of "humanism" that you've listed are things that I certainly believe, but then again, I don't think they are confined to a "humanistic" POV.

[kmc]

I admitted that secular humanists are not concerned with God. It says nothing of Christian humanists. That Jesus was a humanist is almost undeniable, but obviously he was not a secular one.

What separates the humanists from run of the mill religious folks is the lack of focus on the afterlife and lack of concern with the existence of God. It is not that a humanist must deny the existence of either, it's just that neither should, according their credo, serve as sole reason for the moral treatment of your fellow human beings. Christian humanists, for example, spend less time trying to prove that God exists, or that heaven and hell exist, and instead focus on how to live out the message of the gospels as they see fit.

Humanists, in general live for this world and the betterment of this world without focus on salvation. A lot of good can come from such thinking.

[kmc]

If I am not mistaken, it was Dee who made the connection between the Church, the Mafia, and pedophiliac priests back in post 74. As I pointed out, one of those is not connected to the other two, at least not in as meaningful a way. Pedophiliac priests, by virtue of being priests, enjoy a position within the Church that the Mafia cannot approach. But this is meaningless, really.

[JACkory]

If such is the case, then count me in as a "Christian humanist". I'm not out trying to prove that God exists or that heaven and hell are real. These are all matters of faith. I have faith that God exists and I believe Jesus when He says that heaven and hell are real. It's not my job to convince others of their reality.

Christian humanists, for example, spend less time trying to prove that God exists, or that heaven and hell exist, and instead focus on how to live out the message of the gospels as they see fit.

If such is the case then I have never known a Christian who was NOT a "Christian humanist".

But you need to understand where I'm coming from.
To me, the term "Christian humanist" is an oxymoron. My exposure to humanism comes primarilly in the form of a periodical I once read with a great degree of regularity, entitled The Humanist. I'm sure you're aware of it.
The Humanist position was that Christianity was one big guilt trip that free thinkers should "rise above" by virtue of superior intellect.
I have never heard of a "Christian humanist" nor have I heard of a "religious humanist".

[JACkory]

From ChristianHumanism.org:

There are many usages of the word humanism, and similarly there have been throughout the centuries several applications of the phrase Christian Humanism, and these labels have sometimes been applied to groups and viewpoints which are mutually exclusive. Therefore, we shall say for now that any form of Christian faith and practice which puts the practical needs of the people and which advocates for best interests of society above adherence to tradition and authority for their own sake, or the self-interests of a church organization, might validly claim the label humanistic.

Okay...I can hang with that.
I was (and still am) a bit hung up on the use of the word "humanism", which has always carried a prideful secular meaning to me.

In this sense, then I would acknowledge that Christ's teachings were humanistic (aarrgh, there's that word again...you have to understand how difficult it is for me to divorce the meaning I've come to accept of the word with this new twist).


++++++++++
Modification:

Then again, investigating that site a little more thoroughly and I find a few unsettling statements.
Sorry, but I am not really wanting to go into detail, other than to say that I believe that God is much more than a "symbol". I cannot identify with what is described here as ahe "post-theistic" belief system.

So maybe I'm not a Christian humanist after all.

Oh, well.
Just being a Christian has worked wonders for me. I suppose I can live with the uncertainty of whether or not my ideals fall in line with "Christian humanism"...