White Coke posted:

I'm not Catholic, but as I understand it being a Catholic who is opposed to many of the actions of the Church is something with a long historical precedent.

HopperUK posted:

It's basically traditional at this point.

My cat is 19 years old and if she doesn't stop sneaking downstairs, eating dog food and then hurling it all over my bed, she isn't going to be 20. Little poo poo is 100% healthy and made out of screams.

She soft though.

Fritz the Horse posted:

Thirteen Orphans posted:

That’s one crazy looking cat.

White Coke posted:

I struggle with my faith, but faith isn't just what you believe, it's what you do and who you do it with. One of my biggest realizations was that while I thought of myself as an antisocial loner, I was really missing human company, being part of a faith community. Growing up my family wasn't super religious but we did go to church every Sunday and we had a lot of friends through that.

HopperUK posted:

Josef bugman posted:

I suppose so but I feel like you need to believe in a divinity or that the universe makes a kind of sense in order to have "faith" I guess.

BattyKiara posted:

That would be me, and you are still welcome to join any meeting. That goes for everyone here of course.

As for why Christianity? Well, as I see it, it is impossible for a human mind to fully comprehend God. We can only try to find our own path, and respectfully remember that your neighbour's path may be very different from your own path. God hears all prayers, if said in earnest. If you call your practice Hinduism, Christianity, or Purple Kitten living on an unknown planet in the Andromeda galaxy, is just details, that matter very little in the eyes of God. If your prayers or rituals are done in earnest belief, God accepts your faith, unconditionally.

Fritz the Horse posted:

Does anyone have recommendations for places to purchase Catholic religious items? Like Etsy stores or something? I'd rather patronize artists than big stores.

Specifically I'm looking for a St. Francis of Assisi medallion for my brother and his girlfriend who recently got a big golden retriever (gf is very Catholic).

Josef bugman posted:

I think it would be fairer to simply understand that you don't believe and to reconcile yourself to it, instead of to aim at it continually when you are, in effect, lying about it.

If you don't believe in God, but act in a moral way and make it plain that you do not believe in God whilst doing so, is that more of a blasphemy than to do all the correct actions whilst also committing crimes?

Nessus posted:

Josef bugman posted:

I think it would be fairer to simply understand that you don't believe and to reconcile yourself to it, instead of to aim at it continually when you are, in effect, lying about it.

If you don't believe in God, but act in a moral way and make it plain that you do not believe in God whilst doing so, is that more of a blasphemy than to do all the correct actions whilst also committing crimes?

The reason you would continue the practice of belief that you may not hold completely or reliably would be to reinforce that belief. When you repeat a practice and train and discipline yourself in a certain way, you will tend to build particular habits, whatever they are. I would say that these habits, these trainings, these conditionings are what you could actually call "belief" in a more objective way than your own interior perspectives, which as we both know, can often be badly skewed. You will remember the four or five intervals, non longer than a weekend, where you questioned your faith, and will overlook the twenty, thirty, sixty, ninety years of dedication.

Nessus posted:

The latter probably depends on your particular sect, although to quote Shinran Shonin who was dealing with the question of 'if we say Amida's name and go to the pure land for sure, why not do crimes and engage in lusts and defilements right now since we're going there anyway?' of 'Do not develop a taste for poison, just because there is an antidote.'

quote:

quote:

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
-Wayne Gretzky

-Michael Scott

Fritz the Horse posted:

Does anyone have recommendations for places to purchase Catholic religious items? Like Etsy stores or something? I'd rather patronize artists than big stores.

Specifically I'm looking for a St. Francis of Assisi medallion for my brother and his girlfriend who recently got a big golden retriever (gf is very Catholic).

edit: I'd also welcome other suggestions for Catholic gifts related to Big Friendly Dogs.

Nessus posted:

The reason you would continue the practice of belief that you may not hold completely or reliably would be to reinforce that belief. When you repeat a practice and train and discipline yourself in a certain way, you will tend to build particular habits, whatever they are. I would say that these habits, these trainings, these conditionings are what you could actually call "belief" in a more objective way than your own interior perspectives, which as we both know, can often be badly skewed. You will remember the four or five intervals, non longer than a weekend, where you questioned your faith, and will overlook the twenty, thirty, sixty, ninety years of dedication.

Nessus posted:

The latter probably depends on your particular sect, although to quote Shinran Shonin who was dealing with the question of 'if we say Amida's name and go to the pure land for sure, why not do crimes and engage in lusts and defilements right now since we're going there anyway?' of 'Do not develop a taste for poison, just because there is an antidote.'

Josef bugman posted:

If you don't hold that belief to start with though it seems... not "unreasonable" but also not exactly "fair" to pray. It seems more like "I know that this is right action so I am doing this in expectation that this will stand me in good stead" as opposed to "I am doing this based on what I know to be true".

Sure our interior view can be badly skewed, but there is no way of telling that even if it comes into contact with the real world.


But there is an antidote. The belief that "God will forgive me, it's his job" effectively means that there is no punishment for any crime, no matter how foul and that "justice" in such a universe is rendered comic and tragic.

It's one of the big things I am trying to find out about is if one should forgive oneself. I keep trying to find readable discussions on the subject ,as opposed to self-help guff about "how" to forgive yourself, and it's a real bloody problem.

Nessus posted:

On the first topic, you are right that it is impossible to Know in the absolute sense, with our fallible human minds. It is possible that a buddha or God truly Knows, in the absolute sense; but they may simply be completely aware of the limits of knowledge. The entire cosmos you inhabit could be a cruel simulation on a disembodied vat-grown brain.

On the second topic, it seems as if you are seeking for a philosophy that states: No, there is no forgiveness; if you have done wrong, you are wrong forever, and there are no amends to be made. Is this accurate? I have a hard time thinking of any particular religion that makes this assertion, at least about the standard-issue crimes and misdemeanors most people are likely to encounter or perform vs. big ticket things like murdering your parents.

On the sub-topic of crime, violations: what is the purpose of justice? Why must there be punishment at all? In my view, in the very long and absolute run everyone is going to experience the fruit of what they have created, both good and bad, one way or another. So the divine or supernatural has very little to do with it. But I do not think justice is created through punishment, although it is in the toolbox, so to speak.

I would say the reason you keep encountering self-help literature is probably that this is a road well trod by people who are suffering very badly in particular ways associated with outcomes people do not want to have happen.

Josef bugman posted:

Things shouldn't be able to make up for other things...The purpose of justice is restitution and the creation of something better. If there is no justice or no punishment then there is no consequence for wrong action. If you allow for people to do wrong action and then be happy, thrive and grow stronger then there is no such thing as wrong action...Sure, I understand that, but the operative thing I am looking for is an argument as to why we should forgive ourselves. How is something to work on in the future.

Josef bugman posted:

The purpose of justice is restitution and the creation of something better. If there is no justice or no punishment then there is no consequence for wrong action. If you allow for people to do wrong action and then be happy, thrive and grow stronger then there is no such thing as wrong action.

Sure, I understand that, but the operative thing I am looking for is an argument as to why we should forgive ourselves. How is something to work on in the future.

HopperUK posted:

It's possible to grow and learn and undergo consequences, and also to forgive yourself. You're very caught up in ideas of what people 'deserve' and a specific form of justice. You've heard the saying 'an eye for an eye makes all the world blind'? Retribution and justice aren't the same thing.

We should forgive ourselves because otherwise we will spend our whole lives unhappy, tearing ourselves apart over perceived 'sins' which may or may not actually be as bad as we imagine, obsessing over whether we are 'good people' or 'bad people' as if those are real concrete ideas and not fluctuating states of being we all inhabit sometimes. You can learn from your mistakes, even your terrible mistakes, and move forward with your life to make it worth something. But I think you've mentioned that you believe people *should* remain unhappy forever under some circumstances and I guess that's just a difference in worldview.

Nessus posted:

I disagree with your sentiment that the fact that you can do bad things, and then appear to benefit from them and not suffer those downsides in the immediate perceptible time horizons, means that there is no such thing as a wrong action. However, I can reconcile this through the concept of rebirths, and if you are looking solely at an individual's current incarnated form you will get situations like this. However, I think this is arbitrary - it would be equally arbitrary to say "if they aren't convicted within a week of the crime, there ain't no justice." It's just a question of the time horizon.

Nessus posted:

As for why to forgive yourself, my argument is: Doing something wrong, and suffering from it, are two separate things.

Nessus posted:

So in this example (and I'm sure you can think of many others in that general vein), seeking forgiveness or its experience would be eminently valuable. I think it is also valuable if your own forgiveness is sought and you are able to grant it.

Josef bugman posted:

Again in response of the second bolded bit,. Yes. That is what I am going for and that is fine. It isn't really fine and that is why I am continually discussing it on the internet, but still.

Josef bugman posted:

Yes. That is what I am going for and that is fine. It isn't really fine and that is why I am continually discussing it on the internet, but still. And yeah, it is a difference but I would like to ask, in absolute honesty why we should forgive ourselves. I think it's okay to forgive other people but I can't fully wrap my head round the idea of forgiving oneself.

Nessus posted:

The critique of the universe as somehow being wrong or unsatisfactory here is hypothetically interesting if one allows for a Designer or Creator who somehow did something "wrong." (Personally I don't think that is the case.) However, it also seems irrelevant to the specific point of suffering.

HopperUK posted:

It isn't fine. Suffering is not fine. You being unhappy and hating yourself is not fine. Your ideas are hurting you. I'm about to head out to work so please don't take this as my being flippant or brusque or anything but I think we're friends, and I think you deserve to be happy, and not tearing yourself in half all the time, and we should talk about this properly sometime. You know how to get hold of me. ...though not right now clearly cause I do have to go to work.

Nessus posted:

Dude, it is not fine. There is, quite literally, no crime or offense that you are possibly capable of performing that would somehow make it OK for you to suffer forever, or which would somehow make it good for you to suffer while other people do not. (At least in my perception, but even doctrines of Hell tend to be somewhat less adamant here.) Many of these posts seem to kind of sidewise carve out a situation where you, forums poster Josef Bugman, are uniquely depraved and deserving of eternal or indefinite suffering, and I just do not think that this is true. It is against my morality.

To me, suffering in the strict sense of "what my religion addresses" is far more "interior negative feelings" than, for instance, "ow, that pan sure was hot, I won't do that again." I do not think it would be possible for you to have done anything in this life or any other to be deserving of some kind of indefinite punishment, interior or otherwise, and I do not think it would be somehow therapeutic, either for you personally, or as a general rule ("in theory, everyone shouldn't suffer, but in practice it is good if everyone is constantly tormented to make sure they keep their noses clean.") And at least on the level of the interior landscape, that is much of the purpose of forgiveness. As in my example: At a certain point, beating yourself up is accomplishing absolutely zero possible beneficial effects, even the tiny slim rope of "I won't do THAT again!," and is only increasing the amount of suffering in the world.

White Coke posted:

That reminds me of a joke my grandfather told me: If God created man what kind of a designer was he? A civil engineer, since he ran a sewage line through the entertainment district.

Josef bugman posted:

It's more wanting a defined end point for it and knowing that, through being human, there is going to be an urge to judge myself by the softest possible criteria it therefore behoves the person doing it to assume the harshest possible criteria. We all tend to forgive ourselves too easily for our faults and the pain we cause others, to attempt to explain away our actions through ignorance as opposed to malice.

Interior negative feelings are still deserved in some instances though. To try and do away with them because they add to the pool of suffering overall seems impossible. Heck the best place to keep them may well be internal. That way there is no suffering forced outwards on to other people.

Nessus posted:

I disagree and find your case unpersuasive. Your viewpoint would seem to be that everyone ought to be suffering constantly, but it being OK - even good - because this is teaching them not to misbehave.

This seems to create immense suffering for people who are reflective and sensitive while casting them as needing to provide care and support to others - and people who are not as reflective, or as sensitive, for whatever reason, will thus receive comfort and consideration, while not suffering the interiorized penalties.

Is this justice? You have just recreated the current state of affairs that you deplore, but on an emotional level, where the good (to a general broad affinity proximation) experience guilt and suffering forever, and the bad (also to a general approximation) suffer no penalty other than their own conscience, which presumably they lack, while being able to benefit from other people's support and care.

HopperUK posted:

Forgetting and forgiving are not at ALL the same thing though. I think you're right in that if we hurt someone, it's not a bad thing that we feel bad about it. But we shouldn't torment ourselves forever. That sucks and does no good.

HopperUK posted:

But we shouldn't torment ourselves forever. That sucks and does no good.

Nessus posted:

Suffering is not somehow good just because you have decided that you're the worst and deserve it.

Josef bugman posted:

If it's a personal choice that person has made, isn't it? The alternative of forgiving oneself seems wrong in a way that I have difficulty articulating. It feels, trying to describe the word here, unjustifiable maybe?

Nessus posted:

I would say that carrying all this stuff around does have bad consequences, even though I know you mean it as a joke. It takes away joy in life. It has quantifiable health effects from stress and so on. It can burden and confine your ability to engage in right action, because the right action today may have some resemblance to what was wrong action in another context. This is independent of my general point of, "actually, suffering is bad."

Josef bugman posted:

It has consequences for you. It has no consequence for others.

Could you elaborate more as to why? Inflicting suffering on others is obviously bad, but I don't think that can apply when recrimination is aimed inward.

Nessus posted:

Yes it does. It has a wide range of consequences for others! More than I can easily sum up. Would you find hypothetical interior reactions of individuals, or larger-scale social effects taken en masse, more interesting or convincing?

Josef bugman posted:

Both if possible! But social if it's one or the other.

Josef bugman posted:

It has consequences for you. It has no consequence for others.

Could you elaborate more as to why? Inflicting suffering on others is obviously bad, but I don't think that can apply when recrimination is aimed inward.

Tias posted:

The medallion is of course, for the fine dogge, yes?

The woman is very catholic, she'll have her own. But think of the dashing figure DevoutDogge will cut zooming around the place with Poor Francis on his collar!

Nessus posted:

You could train people to not pay attention to the interior states of others. This already happens to some extent. I don't think it needs to be encouraged or facilitated any further. Those suffering great interior distress already move heaven and earth to conceal it, in many or most cases, because they do not want to be a bother. This is exhausting, and therefore their other actions are weaker and less focused, and they are more likely to succumb to various temptations and negative outcomes because they have expended their effort on attempting to conceal their interior suffering from others.

In terms of social effects, it is mostly the small things writ large, as well as this tending to cultivate a poor outlook and probably causing compassion to wither rather than bloom.

White Coke posted:

I'd also like to know where you draw the line on forgiving yourself. Should one torment themselves every time they snap at a coworker, or forget a birthday? Or are you talking about more serious things like murder?

Liquid Communism posted:

Could also go with St. Christopher, in his dog-headed depiction:

Josef bugman posted:

Who is the best boy, Christopher or Guinefort?