Good Catholic Boy wrote:As Fyodor D. once said, 'when man stops believing in God he'll believe in anything.'
Are you kidding me? Give up God for empiricism and you'll 'believe anything'? Don't people give up God because they want proof for their belief, they want a reason to believe, a foundation? Doesn't that mean that there's a massively stricter criterion for truth than before? Isn't that precisely the opposite of 'believing anything'?
[quote]Organized religion not for me wrote:
What criteria does someone use to rate themselves on a scale of Christianity? Most people I know who claim to be "good Christians" turn out to be better at talking about it than actually being one. If being a good Christian means you hate people with different beliefs, you couldn't care less about anyone else, and your main interests are getting whatever you can at the expense of someone else, then most of my neighbors/co-workers are good Christians.
Wow where did you get your info from, not from my quote. I get my scale from the bible. But I guess that's what you get from someone who would rather have be part of a disorganized religion.
kudos - people doing this could actually make a difference in the world
These atheist Vs. christian arguments get so annoying. The subject of the post is "what you are giving up for lent." If you have something to say about what your giving up, say it; if not, don't clutter the thread with your rants.
12 year old choir boys.
to quote Imo Philips: "I gave up picking my belly button for Lent"
Good Catholic Boy wrote:
Already been there done that, many years ago. Thought I knew everything. I was very arrogant. But after a few years I realized I was less happy. Then I read 'Crime and Punishment' and it changed my life. As Fyodor D. once said, 'when man stops believing in God he'll believe in anything.'
There's irony for you. Reading Dostoyevsky was what gave perfect voice to all the reasons I had for never buying the bullshit story of Catholicism ever again.
But even if someone doesn't, we know from historical records that Jesus was a real person who rebelled against 'the man' and paid the ultimate price for it.
Speaking of "rebellion" go read the chapter of the same name in Brothers Karamzov
I gave up girls. But still give God's Grace to my boys every day.
Gave up whacking it with my right hand. Time for the non-dominant side to catch up.
Intelligent Poster wrote:
Good Catholic Boy wrote:As Fyodor D. once said, 'when man stops believing in God he'll believe in anything.'Are you kidding me? Give up God for empiricism and you'll 'believe anything'? Don't people give up God because they want proof for their belief, they want a reason to believe, a foundation? Doesn't that mean that there's a massively stricter criterion for truth than before? Isn't that precisely the opposite of 'believing anything'?
You don't understand the context of the quote. Dostoyevsky wasn't against science or empiricism. But he was having a running feud with Chernyshevsky and other prominent Russian 'materialists' of his day. Dostoyevsky had real problems with people who believed science could replace God, or, if one doesn't believe in God, that science had any sort of moral dimension at all. In Dostoyevsky's view, only man is a moral creature and science can be indulged to serve immoral intentions just as much as moral ones. In the twentieth century we have certainly seen science enlisted in the service of immoral and evil human action.
Dostoyevsky was very complicated but also very spiritual and very much a skeptic that humanity could simply 'reason' its way to a more just and moral condition. When he was in a labor camp in Omsk in the 1850s, and later serving his stint in the Army in Siberia (a sentence for his ostensible membership in the Petrashevsky circle in the 1840s back when Dostoyevsky was in his 20s and more of a socialist/materialists himself and before the religious epiphany that would change him dramatically), he wrote many letters back to his brother Mikhail that were recovered years later by scholars. In these letters he gradually reveals much of his new thinking on man's condition, and that new thinking is captured quite well in 'Notes From Underground', published in 1859 shortly after he returned. No one can completely understand his major works without understanding the points he is making in 'Notes'.
Anyway, in one of his letters to Mikhail, he wrote: "Man is a creature that is capable of anything. And that is about the best definition of him."
PCP wrote:
Good Catholic Boy wrote:Already been there done that, many years ago. Thought I knew everything. I was very arrogant. But after a few years I realized I was less happy. Then I read 'Crime and Punishment' and it changed my life. As Fyodor D. once said, 'when man stops believing in God he'll believe in anything.'
There's irony for you. Reading Dostoyevsky was what gave perfect voice to all the reasons I had for never buying the bullshit story of Catholicism ever again.
But even if someone doesn't, we know from historical records that Jesus was a real person who rebelled against 'the man' and paid the ultimate price for it.
Speaking of "rebellion" go read the chapter of the same name in Brothers Karamzov
I've read Brothers, and everything else he published. I've also read the biographies by Joseph Frank and Constantin Michulsky. Michulksky's is the definitive Russian biography.
Dostoyevsky was no fan of the Catholic Church, that is certainly true. He believed the Russian Orthodox church was the true church (he was a Slavophile) and that the Catholic Church was corrupt and had strayed from the true meaning of Christ. Given the Catholic Church's history, I can't fault him for having this view.
And this view is, of course, brilliantly dramatized in Brothers itself in the form of Ivan's dream, the parable of the Grand Inquisitor. The parable was a lot more than a critique of the Catholic Church, however. It raised profound questions about human freedom that Dostoyevsky did not or could not answer.
epogen
What is Lent ? Some sort of hate cult ? Join the 22C and stop hating please.
So instead you gave up reading lets run threads before you post.
Inertia Policeman wrote:
i gave up posting on letsrun
crap.
PCP wrote:
Speaking of "rebellion" go read the chapter of the same name in Brothers Karamzov
Good Catholic Boy wrote:
I've read Brothers, and everything else he published. I've also read the biographies by Joseph Frank and Constantin Michulsky. Michulksky's is the definitive Russian biography.
Dostoyevsky was no fan of the Catholic Church, that is certainly true.
He was also in part contemptuous of a number of their beliefs. Anyone who can read that chapter and remain Catholic just plain isn't thinking hard enough.
cccman wrote:
Good idea and definitely better than giving up something that will have no impact on you. Lent is supposed to be a time of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Those three components are supposed to go together. For some reason we only focus on the act of giving something up. Giving up something like candy, pop etc. is fine, but if that's all you do, you're missing the point. Lent is about conversion and preparation for Easter. If you give up something but don't do anything to help the needy, or try to improve your relationship with God, you're missing the intent of the Lenten season.
While I've rather enjoyed the back and forth about the great Russian literary figure (my favorite class in college) Dostoyevsky, this response above is the best one. The Lenten season is not about just giving up something mundane. It is about personal sacrifice, about taking on something significant, perhaps another person's plight or cause, about cleansing the body spiritually and physically, and about prayer, contemplation, and self-reflection. While I have not been able to "give up" coffee from my diet, I am eating almost a strictly raw diet, devoid of alcohol, sugar, processed foods, and replete with vegetables and fruits, as well as seeds and nuts.
I'm also praying and meditating, reading several books about Jesus for the first time in my life from several different points of view (one of them Deepak Chopra's), and attempting to repair relationships with many of the women in my life, all of who have been instrumental in shaping who I am. But prayer is not always asking for things; it's about quieting your mind and letting God get in a word or two for a change. It takes work.
As to whether God exists or not, I believe the language of math is the language of God, understood only because of the God-given ability of consciousness and perception, as well as the conscience, which innately understands morality. I suppose if you're a frog, you have no idea the laws of physics exist independently of you, but, as a human, you'll never be able to prove either way as they are an appendage of the human mind. Whatever you believe, Jesus was a pretty good dude and a fine example by which to live your life. But there are many.
PCP wrote:
He was also in part contemptuous of a number of their beliefs. Anyone who can read that chapter and remain Catholic just plain isn't thinking hard enough.
As I understand it, the Jesuit branch actually seeks God THROUGH science. Many of the professors at Jesuit colleges hold doctorates in both divinity and something like physics, mathematics, or biochemistry. God and science are not mutually incompatible.
PCP wrote:
PCP wrote:Speaking of "rebellion" go read the chapter of the same name in Brothers Karamzov
Good Catholic Boy wrote:
I've read Brothers, and everything else he published. I've also read the biographies by Joseph Frank and Constantin Michulsky. Michulksky's is the definitive Russian biography.
Dostoyevsky was no fan of the Catholic Church, that is certainly true.
He was also in part contemptuous of a number of their beliefs. Anyone who can read that chapter and remain Catholic just plain isn't thinking hard enough.
I don't worship Dostoyevsky. I mentioned that 'Crime and Punishment' inspired me to look at things differently. I won't go into exactly why. Dostoyevsky was a tremendous artist and philosophical thinker, but human nonetheless. It's quite possible he was wrong about some things.
I choose to be Catholic for my own reasons. I don't need to justify that to anyone but myself. I appreciate and respect other viewpoints, provided those viewpoints are well informed. What I have found, however, is that most criticism of Catholic theology is not very well-informed. It is done in the mainstream by people in popular media who have never read the Catechism or studied Catholic teaching, but instead base their attacks on their very thin, 'bumper sticker' level of knowledge of Catholic teaching on only the most controversial issues, like abortion.
I give props to anyone on here who gave up running for lent... anyone?
Spartickis wrote:
I give props to anyone on here who gave up running for lent... anyone?
Running or running their mouth? I no longer do the former and I could stand to implement the latter. And I'm trying. Amen.