Poor people’s religion

7 08 2019

There is a difference especially in the First World between religion as concern for the poor and religion of the poor. In my experience, especially in Mexican-American barrios in the United States, when people get religion or return to religion, they often never stray back into Catholicism but instead go to evangelical churches in storefronts or megachurches. These churches often lack a “social conscience”. Though most of the people who attend them are poor or working class, that’s not the focus of their identity or mission. While they are often built on social aide or prison outreach, the focus isn’t on the societal causes of their condition (think Archbishop Camara’s idea of helping the poor vs. asking why there are poor people), but rather on how Jesus can help people out of their condition, how their condition was caused by bad or sinful decisions, and so forth. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements




On Pascal

13 07 2019

Again, the problem is not simply things as they are but, unlike the body/matter-loving Christians of the 20th/21st century, things are bad. For God had created this age to be an imperfect one of growth and transfiguration. There’s a typological parallel between Eve birthed from sleeping Adam’s side and the dead Christ’s pierced side pouring out blood and water, the elements of His bride, the Church. The difference in types truly shows how horrifying sin truly is, and what the curse had contained through a brutal regime of hard-work, suffering in life-giving, and mortality cut off from immortality. But more importantly, God had chosen to hide Himself in a peculiar form. Why not simply make things perfect? And once fallen, why not just fix it? Christ created rational creatures that He draws into the most peculiar relationship. All of heaven and earth sing of their Creator, but the Creator shrouds Himself in darkness. He speaks, but in riddles. The creation bears this mark, the sign of wisdom, but wisdom now crucified. There is a difference between programming and self-discovery. The latter does not mean, or require, a human autonomy in contrast or in differentiation from divine providence. Man plans in his heart, but God directs his footsteps. Advocates of free-will like to contrast God’s creation of humans, as rational and willful creatures, not robots. So far, that’s basically true, but that is totally irrelevant if God is accountable for the salvation of these creatures. Those who use these arguments to argue for a powerless God who can’t stop or intervene in affairs know nothing of the Bible. In Scripture, humans are simultaneously open and free, while never outside God’s will. Luther’s deterministic pessimism, bordering on the manichean, is as equally delusional as the Jesuit’s Molinistic optimism in Human rationality and the integrity of creation.

The rest here.





Arguments Against Universalism: A Personal Encounter — The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

20 06 2019

Back here I discussed two forms of argument against universalism, both of which I considered to be red herrings–that is, arguments that don’t actually address the issue at hand. The first argument boiled down to saying, “Don’t worry about the fate of others–worry about yourself. Your main goal is to keep yourself from going to […]

via Arguments Against Universalism: A Personal Encounter — The Chequer-board of Nights and Days





On Kołakowski and the Neoplatonic Pre-History of Marxism — Daniel Tutt

12 06 2019

With increasing interest in new forms of Marxism, the philosophical origins of Marx’s thought have been a topic of important debate with many studies locating Marx’s early thought in Christian theology. The early Marx often reads like a quasi-theologian when he discusses ideas of universality and the emancipation of the proletariat. But does Marx’s early […]

via On Kołakowski and the Neoplatonic Pre-History of Marxism — Daniel Tutt





Hellish thoughts – Part II

4 06 2019

https://theharekrishnamovement.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/lord-krishna-and-bhismadeva.jpg

The Srimad Bhagavatam is the 18,000 verse story of Krishna, or rather, the story of all reality in relation to Krishna. The fifth of the twelve cantos is noted for its mathematical outline of the material universe, and the last part of that canto describes the lower planets, or what would be considered Hell in the Western monotheistic religions. Here is an example of the punishments described in this canto:

By the arrangement of the Supreme Lord, low-grade living beings like bugs and mosquitoes suck the blood of human beings and other animals. Such insignificant creatures are unaware that their bites are painful to the human being. However, first-class human beings — brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas — are developed in consciousness, and therefore they know how painful it is to be killed. A human being endowed with knowledge certainly commits sin if he kills or torments insignificant creatures, who have no discrimination. The Supreme Lord punishes such a man by putting him into the hell known as Andhakūpa, where he is attacked by all the birds and beasts, reptiles, mosquitoes, lice, worms, flies, and any other creatures he tormented during his life. They attack him from all sides, robbing him of the pleasure of sleep. Unable to rest, he constantly wanders about in the darkness. Thus in Andhakūpa his suffering is just like that of a creature in the lower species. Read the rest of this entry »





Līlā; or, It’s Just a Ride

29 05 2019

The Chequer-board of Nights and Days

One of the perennial questions of religion is raised by the existence of evil.  The world, as anyone with eyes to see, is a rough-and-tumble place, a place where huge amounts of extremely nasty things occur.  In and of itself, this obvious fact is, while unpleasant, also unremarkable.  For a non-believer, the evil in the cosmos just is.  There’s  no particular reason for it, any more than there is for any other observed phenomenon.  The universe is a quirk of random chance, and it is as it is, a mixture of good and bad.  Much of the badness, in fact, is a function not of any cosmic principle, but of our perspective as humans.  Disease, suffering, and death are very much meaningful–and unpleasant–to us, since they affect us in ways we don’t at all like.  For the disease-causing pathogens that live on us, though, we’re a veritable smorgasbord…

View original post 2,278 more words





More from the Mailbox

22 05 2019

I was re-reading this the other day and thought I would share it again.

Reditus

A continuation of a previous conversation:

Of course the liturgy of the Byzantine Church is infinitely better than the Latin Church. Why do you think I had anything to do with it? Just because I “liked it” or that it made me “feel closer to God!” There are many reasons for why it is better.

The Latin Church has always been rather primitive. It tends far more towards the “mystical” and direct “feeling” approach because it is so far behind the eight ball when it comes to brains. They (Latins) never really got into the big theological debates of the first 7 councils. They have always promoted a Jesus-centric, (not even Christo-centric) spirituality. They have never really come to terms with the role of the Mother of God. All the major liturgical feasts of the BVM were imported from the East and the Reformation never had a clue what it…

View original post 663 more words





Hellish thoughts – Part 1

20 05 2019

The above video is of yet another intelligent Catholic thinker fumbling through the idea of the eternity of Hell for condemned souls. Admittedly, she is very honest in stating that she doesn’t really know how a soul can condemn itself to the worst pain and loss imaginable for all eternity, and how a merciful God can allow this. She does give the standard answers of how hell is a necessary implication of love and free will. If we are to come to love the supreme good definitively, it must be of our own accord, which means we can choose not to love. That this failure to love is accompanied by unspeakable loss and suffering remains a mystery in this line of thinking. Read the rest of this entry »





On Catholic authors

16 05 2019

A perhaps unpopular take that I had recently is that, in the English-speaking world, erudite Catholics used literature to replace an actual Catholic culture. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that they use literature to make up for the fact that English does not have a Catholic culture in which to speak. While certain convert authors seem to be popular elsewhere (for example, I know Tolkien and Chesterton have a following in the Catholic right in Latin America, mainly for their fiction), in general the concerns of the Catholic mind elsewhere have little to do with authors who originally wrote in English. I don’t really think that people in Catholic countries consider certain authors to be “Catholic authors,” but mainly just authors, or the role of literature is somewhat muted viz. their Faith. Read the rest of this entry »





On Venus and Neptune in Pisces — Gray Crawford

15 05 2019

“The lover carves into his soul the model of the beloved. In that way, the soul of the lover becomes the mirror in which the image of the loved one is reflected” — Marsilio Ficino from De amore Neptune was not known to Marsilio Ficino during the Renaissance in which he was translating ancient texts […]

via On Venus and Neptune in Pisces — Gray Crawford

Couliano plus Ficino so I had to re-post