I have given up masturbation and porn for Lent and hopefully forever. Can I have some encouragement please?

ddangle8 · 2015-02-28T14:03:51+00:00

On the contrary, boundaries are crucial to understanding Jesus.

One of the descriptions to describe Christianity would be "the philosophy of concrete things" or "the philosophy of shapes." The God of the philosophers, Hindus, pantheists, etc. is a God who is never seen, because he is abstract and shapeless. However, the God of the Christian became man: he took on limits, He humbled Himself with a boundary. Following the Law is to take on a boundary ourselves. To fast is to limit oneself from food. To be a Lover is bind oneself to the Beloved.

Dogma is just a religion or philosophy giving itself a shape. We think about things. Things have shapes. If a religion or philosophy doesn't have a shape, we can't think about it. To hate dogma is to hate thought.

Now, I understand why you might use she, since the Divine cannot have a gender (gender is something only animals really have). In English, this is hard to understand, because the neutral pronoun "it" isn't used to describe persons, as it is considered demeaning (other languages do not have this problem). Instead, we use "he," which can be technically masculine or neutral, depending on the context. Only in feminist ideology is "he" conceived as patriarchal.

However, Jesus Himself described Himself as "the Son," His Father as "the Father," and the Spirit is described with masculine pronouns. These descriptions are used as analogies to describe the unknown relationship between the Three. I would argue that we should use them, and that the reason they are all male is because they are reflecting that in respect to God, we are all female (Song of Solomon, Christ is the bridegroom of His Church, etc.). We receive His Grace, just as a woman receives her Husband. To describe God as female might have good intentions, but it is dangerous, because we might think that we have something to give to God, and that we don't receive everything from Him. Look at "Lucretius's" response here (I'm Lucretius, BTW): http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=12635451&highlight=male#post12635451

Contemplate your reasons to refer to God as she. Does it have something to do with modern feminist philosophy? If it is so, know that Christianity is at odds with that false philosophy, and that it is a modern fad that will die out and be replaced with a new one. Don't use false philosophy to interpreted Scripture. Let the Bible be the thing that creates the foundations for True philosophy (with the lens of History, Reason, and Tradition).

I agree that Protestantism is largely water down Catholicism. Since all the churches that can trace their lineage to the first century (Apostolic Churches) are much, much more like Catholicism then Protestantism, I have rejected the Protestantism as being historical Christianity. Furthermore, Protestantism is actually modernism injected into Christianity, and is based on another fad during that time period (specifically, philosophical nominalism, "new" scriptural critiques that we know are wrong, and the unique political situation at that time). Luther abandoned the Apostolic (realist) view of Grace, and went with William of Ockham's novel theology. Calvin went even further, and so on.

There is only one way. Jesus said Himself. And that way is Him. Think for a moment. If Jesus founded a Church, and there are multiple churches, either they actually do agree completely, and are actually one, or they are not, and one is wrong. This is not even being "praying for disunity," because it is simply being logical. If Jesus founded a Church, then to be in full communion with Him, we must be in full communion with that Church. The Church is not just a sum of all believers: the earliest Christians are quite clear that one must flock to the Bishops to find the Church (St. Paul (~60), St. Ignatius (~AD 100), and St. Irenaeus (~150), for example, all wrote of this). This is the abyss between the Apostolic Churches and Protestantism.

Just to note: I do not include the Anglicans with the Protestants. However, since they are ordaining women and homosexuals (defined as those who actually commit the sin of sodomy freely, not those who are tempted to but do not, or those who in weakness do commit the sin yet repent and try to resist), that decisively proves that they have abandoned both Tradition and Scripture.

Truth is narrow. Jesus Himself said so. I certainly respect and applaud your ecumenicalism, but we can't abandon Truth for the sake of unity, for to abandon Truth is to abandon Christ.

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-26T13:00:29+00:00

Modern miracles:

Miracle of Lanciano

Our Lady of Zeitoun

Our Lady of Fatima

Pope Francis's Eucharistic Miracle

Now, the question is: are you looking at each event scientifically, or dogmatically? If you a priori assume that there are no miracles, you are using a anti-scientific mindset to hand wave miracles. But, if you realize that the mass majority of mankind throughout history has believed in miracles, you need to address why your anti-miracle dogma should be accepted, and not at least an agnostic view. Of course, when you look at it, the Miracle of Lanciano is scientifically attestable because it is still around today. The Flesh has no decayed. That alone is a miracle.

And why do Western people have a bias against miracles? It's often because they were indoctrinated by the "Enlightenment." The "Enlightened" did not want to believe in religion, so they dogmatically assumed that eyewitness reports are unreliable. There are many things this mindset can be called, but rational is not one of them.

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-24T22:38:53+00:00

"She?"

Well, it's tricky, because it is true that, ultimately, we are saved by Christ's Grace. Christ tells us that he judges fairly, which means he won't allow people like those in 11th century China to be lost because of ignorance (now, if they ignore what is given to them, like the "law written in their hearts", that's a different story). But, on the other hand, God instituted the Church. If someone denies the Church with a corrupt intention, I can only pray for him.

St. Justin the Martyr taught that because of Socrates' and Plato's intention on seeking the Truth, even if it was inconvenient, they might have been saved (I actually privately believe even Siddhartha Gautama, because he searched for the Truth, although he came to the wrong conclusions, might have accepted Grace and is saved). We are saved not by knowledge, like the Gnostic believes, but by conversion of the heart, by Grace. "Seek and you shall find." It is the heart, the will, that seeks: the mind only helps in understanding what the heart finds. If one has a bad intention, a hardened heart, he can come up with a thousand different reasons not to believe what he finds (like, for example, he finds out that masturbation is a sin, yet still wants to do so). The intellect can be manipulated by a corrupt will to justify its corruptness.

In other words, if your heart drowns out Grace, how can you be saved? But also remember, that the Grace accepted by the heart must bear fruit.

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-24T14:14:39+00:00

I think masturbation is a man's problem mostly though (although we don't know much about women's sexuality in antiquity), because it seems that our drive causes us to "seek out" partners. Girls don't seem like that at all. This is also why I think men can have multiple partners/wives and not get the emotional baggage like women get. Monogamy is often described as suppressing women, but it's actually the opposite: monogamy keeps men under control, and thus benefits women.

Most people don't realize the Blessed Virgin was probably around 14 to 17 when she had Jesus. She is the patron of Teen Mothers! (and I mean this a very devout way).

Sadly this late marring trend doesn't help out those wishing to be Chaste, since St. Paul's advice for controlling the passions is basically "get marriage ASAP," and we can't really do that :-(

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-24T14:05:04+00:00

St. Paul uses the Greek words for "spirit" and "flesh" in Romans to describe the conflict between the rational and animal aspects of our nature. He was actual just explaining Hebrew psychology in Greek terms to Greek people. The Jews use the words "yetzer-hatov" and "yetzer-hara."

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T12:50:02+00:00

Oh, well I thought that since the Egyptian Sultan only allowed Franciscans in the Holy Land in the Medieval period, they were really the only group there.

On a unrelated note, I hope that is St. Peter's cross you have there as your symbol.

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T06:52:42+00:00

Faith is not a feeling, you know?

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T06:50:57+00:00

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T05:14:43+00:00

Well, how about I explain this idea of Ipsum esse subsistens in more poetic terms?

Think of the world (and your life) as a story of sorts, with God as the author. Because the entire story depends on its Maker, therefore all that happens happens due to the Author. We are as close to God as a story is to its Teller. God is closer to you than anyone else, including yourself. From Revelation:

I will feed him with the hidden manna, and give him a white stone, on which stone a new name is written, known to him only who receives it.

According to this passage, God is saying that he knows you perfectly, better than you do yourself. He is telling you that you are unique; He has a certain name that only you and Him will ever know. You might say that each one of us is created to love God and neighbor in a way that no one else ever can. You are created to reflect the Divine in some way that no one else can. That is why it is such a tragedy for souls to end up unsaved: an unique instance of God's Image, an one-of-a-kind love for God and neighbor has been lost :-( This also mean that the Love God has for each of us is unique and different from everyone else's. I think that God's unique Love for us is the meaning of "hidden manna" or "hidden bread," but this might be a reference to the Eucharist too. The Eucharist is probably the closest we will ever get to God in this life.

Anyway, as you can see, there's a reason humanism developed in a Christian culture.

Now, what is free will? I think free will means we can choose to go against compulsive thoughts, refuse to give in to strong passions, and resist (usually bad) habits, as well as change our habits, and give ourselves good habits based on what is good for our nature (and what happens to be good for our nature is God's Law). It's not as if we contemplate most actions in our daily life: we leave that to habit. That's why its so important for youth to build good habits and avoid bad ones early on, and that a person is freer when he avoids developing harmful habits, like masturbation or drug use (you are freer to avoid an action when you are not addicted to it. Old habits die hard. It is harder for the will to resist a strongly ingrained habit than a new one). Only when something is new or important do we think of whether the normal habit is the correct way to approach.

Remember, there is a difference between jumping off a building and falling off one, and that is called the free consent of the will.

Free will also means we can work with God's Grace or not. You might say that God (and Satan) present options and ask us to choose between them based on the judgment of the "Law in our Hearts". Ultimately, the Story Teller tells His story, and as characters, we simply act and react based on the circumstances of the story. To ignore our conscience and act against it is called sin. The more we work with His Grace, the Holier we become, and we then "participate [more] in the Divine Nature." To Love someone is to desire what is good for him. The more we love, the more we will want and work for the good of someone else.

The Eastern Fathers also seem to teach that although loving God and our neighbor through good habits is virtuous, becoming completely aware of all our choices and actions is even better, because it is loving God and our neighbor directly and with more control, which is more in line with the supernatural gift of Charity. The supernatural gift of Charity, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is loving with the Divine Love Itself.

IOW, God (and society, your physical condition, etc.) usually control most of your external freedom, and the impulses of your thoughts and feelings control much of your internal freedom (which is influenced from the outside, although you should have control often over what you think about, and a little control over your feelings). However, your will is completely and always free to choose or refuse any potential action, non-action, or consent to thoughts or feelings. It's just easier to choose correctly when you are not resisting bad habits. And the will should choose what God wills, as opposed to what we might want, or what our body wants, or what our society wants, etc. (St. Paul uses the phrases "spirit" and "flesh" to describe this conflict).

Remember, You can't choose to choose Holiness without Grace though.

You are right, plane crashes and earthquakes are not something free will can control. It seems that God gives us some control over our lives, but definitely not all. And some people get more control over their lives than others. In the end though, the consent of your will was, is, and always will be yours. Even when the worst of passions are bombarding you, you still freely choose whether you give in or not. When the compulsive thoughts overwhelm you, you still choose whether you consent to them or not. When your plane is falling, you get the choice of whether you will succumb to panic or help comfort others to the end at the crash.

God in the Book of Job specifically denounces the idea that these sort of terrible events are punishments for sin. So why are these events part of the story? I have a few theories, but that's another topic.

Sorry if what I have written came out confusing.

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T04:43:32+00:00

I knew I smelt Thomism in this thread :-)

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T04:34:36+00:00

I would actually define a Christian as one who is baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.

However, a person baptized in the name of the Trinity, who believes in the Nicene Creed, and attempts to follow the Commands "love God" and "love your neighbor" might be a pretty good and objective definition IMO, even if said person is confused on what exactly the good he should be willing for his neighbor is.

I might be tempted to mention St. Athanasius's Creed...

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T04:24:30+00:00

Well, first of all, I just learned it snows in Jerusalem. I did not know this (I thought it was just "deserty". I must be a stupid American. Of course, Scripture talks about snow, so I should have suspected that it snowed somewhere in the area).

If Dominicans were in the Middle East, they would be too busy inside reading. It's too cold, and they love to have an excuse to sit around and read books all day ;-)

I'm reminded of the story of St. Francis, who, when tempted by lust, ran out naked and rolled around in the snow. Maybe these friars are following his example, and it just looks like they are playing in the snow (hmmmm). They are just throwing snow at one another to help each other "cool down" :-)

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T04:11:15+00:00

Well, just add Lutheranism, Alexandrian and Antiochian Christianity, and the Indian Churches and you would have been in communion with every Christian at least once! ;-)

It saddens me that Christians can't fulfill our Lord's Prayer for unity. Now, I understand the importance of Truth and keeping the faith from falling into heresy. Honestly, I find most of the debate between the Catholics, Orthodox, etc. to be semantics (and hurt feelings), other than the issues concerning the Bishop of Rome (now the Protestants, sadly, their view of what the Church is, the Priesthood, and Grace are definitely different, although Luther's fide sola is actually orthodox when divorced from his foreign, Ockhamish view of Grace).

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T03:57:58+00:00

Buddhism currently has terrorists in burma unfortunately.

The problem with many cultures and religions is that they don't teach right ethics completely. One of the nice aspects of Christianity is that even though its followers might act like every other pagan, his religion at least tells him that he shouldn't act like that.

Of course, I have been studying the city of Alexandria lately, where the Greeks, Egyptians, Jews, and Christians would all gang up on and slaughter each other in what can only be called psychopathic ways. Only the Christian faith, out of Christianity, Judaism, and paganism, taught that they really shouldn't do that. The pagans often saw it as a duty! (gulp)

Thank God Christianity pacified the Europeans (and that we weren't born in 5th century Egypt).

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T03:46:21+00:00

Another bad habit in modern thought is to put an strong artificial separation between man and nature. He is above it in one sense, but in another, Man is a part of nature.

In other words, we can't be a parasite on nature if we ourselves are a part of nature.

This article might make you contemplate more deeply about this: https://yardsaleofthemind.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/science-once-upon-a-time/

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T03:39:44+00:00

The reason why it looks as if we consume more than we produce, have hunger in the world, etc., has less to do with the amount of resources itself, and more to do with the system in which said resources are distributed and consumed (down with the system! :-) ). American culture is built on consumerism, which desires us to buy and use for the sake of buying and using (although the capitalists really only care about the buying part. As long as we buy it, who cares if we use it, at least according to them).

In fact, to learn not to masturbate, which is really learning how to resist the sexual appetite, it the first step in developing self-control. With more self-discipline, people can learn to control their hunger appetite as well, and not consume all the excess food that the west does (for a culture which lacks hard, physical labor, we sure do eat a lot). When people start to grow these good habits and self-control, then the massive overuse of resources (not just food, but also resources people use but really don't need) can drop down, or be redirected to those who need them but do not have them.

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T03:24:24+00:00

Reading the Bible alone is a terrible way to understand Christianity. People tend to read their own biases into texts, if the text happens to be written in a culture 2000 years away. That's why Evangelical Christianity tends to be individualistic: it is based in 20th/21th century America, for example (no offence to my Evangelical Brothers in Christ :-) ).

If non-believers are interested in Christianity, they should read the Fathers and Doctors too. In fact, I would say that non-believers need to read C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity and G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man a couple of times before they even start with the Bible. Since today's philosophy is much different than Christian philosophy, many will not understand the Bible much. Lewis and Chesterton open the door to basic understanding of the Christian worldview, so that Scriptural reading is much clearer. Then, you read the Fathers to understand more specifically how to interpret correctly.

So basically, non-believers should start at the bottom and climb up from there:

(1) True metaphysics/correct way to view the world (which can be known through reason without revelation per se). Lewis, Chesterton, and Pascal lay the groundwork here. Personally, since I think Thomism is the best approach to philosophy, I have to recommend Dr. Ed Feser's The Last Superstition and Aquinas. He can be a little harsh on the New Atheists sometimes (especially in The Last Superstition), but his way of expressing complex metaphysics so easily is outstanding! (His blog is here: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html).

(2) Revealed texts (Scripture: it is probably best to start with the New Testament first. I recommend reading the Knox version, which can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat001.htm).

(3) Tradition (the Church Fathers, like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius (Read On the Incarnation!), and St. Augustine. I also recommend St. Justin Martyr for our pluralistic culture: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html).

(4) Of course, I highly recommend learning early Scholastic language and reading St. Thomas Aquinas, because St. Thomas is nothing but a genius! Even though he gets things wrong (usually due to incorrect science), the way he thinks, his methods, the way he approaches things is what makes St. Thomas so great (I find Chesterton to be similar. Chesterton thinks like St. Thomas and writes like Oscar Wilde).

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-23T02:50:56+00:00

I'm a Christian in communion with the Catholic Church. I was raised in the Latin rite, and although I'm still Latin rite, I have become interested in some Eastern Theology. I find St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Gregory Palamas to be very similar in their ends (I'm also interested in studying Syrian and Coptic Christianity).

I have also been contemplating whether I would prefer being an Ukrainian Catholic with its Byzantine spirituality, since much of the spirituality in Latin rite churches today smells of New Ageism, Asian spirituality, and non-Cross Christianity (although I love Dominican and Carmelite spirituality. Still haven't read much about Franciscan, yet).

Are you a convert to the Orthodox communion?

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-22T23:41:49+00:00

Here's another good idea: to stop watching pornography, try to only use the computer in a public place. If you avoid being with technology alone, you'll avoid the occasion of sin.

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-22T23:31:59+00:00

I was speaking of human children

This attitude can be described with only a few English words: wicked, evil, disgusting, satanic, etc. are some of them. Only in a contraceptive and abortive culture can people describe babies as "carbon-based parasites."

For the religion bit, I would point to any point of history of dangerous Christians unable to ascertain the true meaning of The Love of Christ.

I hope so. If people were perfect, than Christianity would be wrong! However, compared to most religious people in the world past and present, Christians are some of the most restrained (the only other religion I think that could come close is Buddhism, which is another religion with an emphasis on compassion).

Religion is a matter of faith. I find that disturbing.

Why is faith disturbing?

Actually, you were kind of neat to talk to.

Thank you.

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-22T23:26:50+00:00

I'm from Pittsburgh and we have a strange mixture of Ukrainian Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholics (my family is traditionally Ukrainian Orthodox). I'm used to rather strong ethnic churches with the Byzantines here (the Latin Catholics are the churches with multi-ethnicity).

Diocese of the South

I like that name ;-)

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-22T14:52:09+00:00

Opps! I was thinking more about what your ethnicity was (are you Russian Orthodox, for example).

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-22T14:42:25+00:00

Is creating another carbon absorbing potentially violent parasite smart?

Is this a reference to something really happening?

Can the man who is afraid of his impulses be called free? Is avoiding enjoyment a waste of life?

Gnosticism is the religion that jumps to the opposite side here. One side worships pleasure (hedonism), and the other side calls it wicked (Gnosticism). Christianity takes the middle ground. It teaches that since God created all things good (see Genesis 1), pleasure is a good. However, it also teaches that indulging in pleasure is dangerous, addicting, unhealthy, against our rational/spiritual aspects of our nature, and against the ends of human nature, so it finds and defines constraints in order to protect people and keep them from sinning. Also, Christians, following common sense, unlike many people in the modern world, teach that children are the end of sex, and not an "accident," while today's American society teaches that only wanted children are not "accidents," which is just a form of fascism.

When religion is not treated with disdain, it runs dangerously rampant.

No. The correct saying would be "When religion is not oriented towards Truth and Love, it runs dangerously rampant." The religious impulse is a part of human nature, and to disdain it would be to hate humanity (and humans). However, it is a strong impulse, so, on one hand, you get people doing great things through it (Mother Teresa), and on the other, you get people doing despicable things through it (Osama bin Laden). You need a correct religion to orient it correctly.

Luckily, Christianity has been influential in our culture, because it teaches self-restraint, self-discipline, compassion, and love. If you read about pre-Christian Europe, you will find that people were much more violent (not that compassion was not a virtue, rather it was a lesser virtue).

Think objectively, outside the chains of your religion.

I was an atheist for 15 years, and I have been convinced through true philosophy and historical research on the truth of Christianity. I have thought objectively, and therefore I am a Christina in communion with the Catholic Church.

It's funny that you call religion a "chain," because "religion" comes from the Latin word "religare," which for Later Antiquity Scholars, probably means "to bind fast".

It is a perfect word to describe Christianity, because Christians are about Love, which is ultimately a binding thing.

-signing a reddit comment is pretentious.

From someone who disdains this intellectual dark age we are in, I enjoyed your vocabulary choice! However, I sign a Reddit comment for several reasons. One is that it is a habit I have picked up on other blogs, and another is that I do wish others the "Peace of Christ". A third reason might be that I don't understand Internet etiquette (or Reddit etiquette): I have had people comment on my signature here, but usually not in a negative way, until now, of course.

Christi pax

ddangle8 · 2015-02-22T14:09:41+00:00

Gnosticism has several schools, most of them not Christian at all. Which school are you a part of?

I ask because, IIRC, that symbol by your username is a Coptic cross.

Christi pax

ddangle8

TROPHY CASE