Human Morals vs Divine Morals

Philosophy and God

Once upon a time, I was a philosophy major. Every once in a while, one of the professors would give a talk about some philosophical issue of import. And, when that happened, I and several other philosophy students, plus a bunch of philosophy professors, would gather together to hear the talk and engage in a rousing philosophical conversation. It was a blast.

I remember one time, one of our philosophy professors was giving a talk about God, whether or not He could exist, and whether such a fact, if true, led to a contradiction in light of the philosophical problem of evil. Or something like that. My memory of the talk is pretty hazy. But there are a few morsels I still recall.

The Suprarational God 

I remember the speaker making a few important distinctions. The first was the distinction between a rational justification and an irrational justification. The question being explored was whether or not the belief in God was rational or irrational – or something like that. Like I said, my memory is a bit vague here. I do remember, though, that the philosophy professor made an unsuspecting move.

The concept of God may not be either one. That is, perhaps God is not rational, nor is He irrational, but rather suprarational. That is, understanding of God is beyond human comprehension or even rational comprehension. He is above and beyond mortal thought.

I remember one of the other professors saying something like, “Okay, but that means nothing to me. God is ‘that which cannot be thought?’ How does that help anyone understand God or religion or what-have-you?”

I can’t blame him. That’s a valid point. But, at the same time, it does give one wiggle-room if you want to believe in God and you are constantly bombarded with all these “rational” arguments against His existence.

Supramoral

Of course, I didn’t really want to raise the question of whether or not God exists (I happen to think He does). Rather, I wanted to apply a similar philosophical distinction in morality (as opposed to ontology).  If the rational and the irrational allow for the suprarational, is it possible that the moral and the immoral allow for the supramoral (not amoral, but supramoral). That is, God has an understanding of morality far in excess of our own.

There is a problem with that, though. The whole point of morality is that it is supposed to guide your actions. If you are acting according to supramoral dictates, by definition, you don’t understand what the moral reasoning behind what you are doing. You may be ‘following orders’ perhaps, but is that really what God wants of us? Blind faith?

I also want to say that if there is such a thing as supramorality or Divine morality, I don’t think it contradicts simple human morality. If something is immoral by human standards, I don’t think using supramoral standards will alter that fact. Why? Well, that’s kind of a contradiction, I think – although only philosophers really worry about contradictions.

Basically, that puts me in the camp that there is something wrong with the story of Abraham and his attempted sacrifice of his son to God. Granted, God did not let him go through with it, but I really don’t understand how a Deity – a real Deity – could ask a mortal to sacrifice his son. I think it was Sartre who said, “If God asked me to sacrifice my son, I think I’d ask him for identification” – or something like that. And, I’m kind of like, yeah … I would, too.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that I can accept that the one true God would have supramoral knowledge, but I just can’t accept that that knowledge will contradict what little moral knowledge I might have acquired in my life. I got that he can know more, it’s just – I don’t see God coming up and saying, “Yeah, 2+2 = 3 million. And here’s My proof!”

Because if God can do that, there is no such thing as moral knowledge for humans or any other mortal being. I mean, it’s 2024. We’re all good with the notion that “Racism is bad,” right? We don’t have to learn that lesson again, do we?

Conclusion

Anyway, those were just a few of my thoughts on God and morality. To sum up, I think there is an analogous relationship between the rationality and the morality of the concept of God. God is, likely, both suprarational and supramoral. But neither one of those imply that He is irrational or immoral. At least, that’s where I am right now. That m ay change at some future point, but for the moment, that’s where I am.

Mid-May Book Promotion

Another FYI – the promo for my philosophical dialogue, A Thinker’s Guide to Truth, starts Monday, May 13^th and goes to Friday, May 17^th. It is available for free during that time. And it is available almost everywhere … except (ironically) Amazon. Additionally, the Smashwords promotion for my three discounted fantasy books on the Smashwords site (only) is also still going, until Friday, May 17^th. The coupons are listed on each Smashwords book page.

Drasmyr: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/131156  (Free)

The Children of Lubrochius: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/415779 ($0.99) 

Prism: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/693400 (Free)

Hope you enjoy the reads.

A Few Brief Thoughts on Reincarnation

Introduction

Lots of people wonder about life after death. To me, I see four major possibilities: a spiritual afterlife, nonexistence, reincarnation, and the Catholic Church’s spiritual and bodily resurrection. In this post, I’m going to look at reincarnation.

I’ve never been a big fan of reincarnation. Well, that’s not entirely accurate. I’m not a fan of karma in the context of reincarnation. To me, it makes absolutely no sense to punish or reward an individual based on deeds they committed in a former life, particularly, if they don’t remember anything about the deeds in question. That just seems fundamentally unfair.

Anyway, back to reincarnation by itself.

Christianity and Reincarnation

It is my understanding that most Christians and Christian sects do not believe in reincarnation. The Catholic Church, for example, points out how it is incompatible with the notion of the final resurrection which is a resurrection (and perfection/glorification) of the physical body as well as the soul. Most other Christian sects agree or have some other Biblically-based reason to deny reincarnation.

There are a few outliers, though. Outliers that, supposedly, rely on certain Biblical passages to support the notion of reincarnation. For example, the notion that John the Baptist was, in some way or form, by Jesus’ own words, Elijah the Prophet. This seems to suggest he was the reincarnation of such, or, at least, something similar.

Then there’s that whole concept of being “born again”- which some people may point to. That one, though, I think is a weak connection. Taken in context, to me, it doesn’t seem like Jesus was talking about a second physical life when he said one must be born again, but, rather, some kind of spiritual rebirth.

Other Religions and Reincarnation

There are several other religions, though, who believe in reincarnation. Hinduism, for example, which, I think is the origin of the concept of karma that I mentioned above, is one. Buddhism is another. And I’m sure there are at least several others. But the ones I know the most about are Buddhism and Hinduism.

Which isn’t saying much, because in all honestly, I don’t know a heck of a lot about either one of those religions – beyond the notion that the “top” gods of Hinduism are Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu (?). And the ultimate goal of the Buddhist faith is to purify yourself through many lifetimes until you ultimately achieve a state of Nirvana. Or something like that.

Both incorporate reincarnation. The Buddhist reason for such is obvious. The Hindu reason has slipped my mind. I know they have the “transmigration of souls” going, but I don’t know if there is an ultimate end state or not. Or is it simply reexperiencing life over and over again? I don’t know.

Actually, I just did my due diligence and looked it up on-line.

Apparently, the end state for the Hindu is achieving moksha. When they do so, they rejoin Brahma. So, it’s similar to Buddhism in that way: they each have a specific end state. Of course, I’m sure there are significant differences overall, but I won’t delve into it any further.

Science and Reincarnation

I used to be really fascinated with the “science” of parapsychology – or study of the paranormal, if you will. This was back in the early and late 1990’s – before I developed my “issues.” I read several books on the subject – I still have them, though I have not read them in years. I do remember one book putting forth the evidence for reincarnation.

Basically, there are recorded people in history who just seem to know far more about certain other people who lived before them than they really should. I mean we’re talking about 3- and 4-year-olds who know all about the life of some Buddhist monk who lived thirty or forty years before the child was even born.

How is that possible?

The most common explanation is that the child in question is really the reincarnation of the remembered person (the Buddhist monk or whomever). But that’s not the only possibility. And I think the parapsychologists writing about this—in whatever book I’m remembering—pointed this out. You really can’t rule out something like ESP.

Is the child really the reincarnation of the Buddhist monk? Or is the child a gifted psychic who is simply reaching back in time and reading the monk’s mind or reading the memories of the monk’s spirit wherever that may be. All three options are possible. And I don’t see a way to rule out one or the other.

Actually, that’s not true. I also remember there was one case where the individual who was supposedly reincarnated was still alive after the child was born. How could the child be the reincarnation, if the soul that was supposed to be in his body was still in use in another body? Well, maybe it’s a kind of bilocation thing – a number of religions speak of that, including the Catholics – or its the ESP thing, or something else.

The least likely one is reincarnation – although, thanks to my “issues”, I think I could make it work. But we’re going to avoid that one for now.

Anyway, the problem, as the parapsychologist pointed out in the book was that there doesn’t seem to be a way to experimentally differentiate between some kind of ESP and reincarnation in these cases.

So, that’s the science of the matter: inconclusive.

Conclusion

Anyway, those are a few of my rambling thoughts on reincarnation. Is it real? I don’t know. The Christians say “no.” The Buddhists and Hindus say “yes”, and science doesn’t really seem to have a clear cut answer. Actually, many scientists probably wouldn’t even touch the issue. Parapsychology is still kind of a dark horse type of thing. But … I’ll let you make your own determination. Ta-ta.

Jesus as Doorway to Heaven

Generally speaking, I like most of the teachings of the Christian religions. They tend to emphasize love, forgiveness, kindness, and virtue. However, there are some points with them that I do have difficulty with. Specifically, there’s that whole notion that only people who believe in Jesus will get to heaven. As for all others, most Christian teachings argue they are condemned to hell.

That last – I find difficult to accept. I was raised Catholic and apparently there is a doctrine known as “Baptism by Desire” – in which individuals who are not Christian, who have never heard the Gospel or even Jesus’ name, will get to heaven by simply leading a good and virtuous life. At least there, that seems like the Catholic Church itself has had issues with this doctrine, too.

Regardless, to me, even with that step taken, I still can’t buy it. I know Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” And, elsewhere He said things like only those who believe in Him will have Eternal Life. And there may be a few other similar statements – coming from His mouth, no less. All together, they seem to condemn those who don’t believe Jesus to be the Messiah/Son of God/The Word or what-have-you. And, for the life of me, I don’t see how not believing the words of a man who lived 2000 years ago, words recorded in a book that is but one of dozens claiming to be the ultimate authority on religion, could possibly justify eternal damnation. I just can’t. It doesn’t make sense to me.

This is the best I can make of the claim. Take Jesus as the Gateway to Heaven. I can accept that it is Jesus who makes the call, that is, the decision as to who will and who will not make it into heaven. I can accept that He judges us based on our works and deeds and our inner thoughts and hearts.  If He wants us in heaven, He can send us there. If He wants us to be reincarnated to live again, He can do that, too. Or, off into Purgatory, or even hell, should He so decide. Although, I do not think hell to be an eternal punishment, but a temporary one, perhaps – still terrible beyond comprehension, but temporary.

Of course, I do know that most Christian sects don’t agree with any of that. They state that it is simply the “belief in Jesus” in and of itself that determines our destination after this Life. Reincarnation is not supported by the Bible. Neither is the idea that someone can be saved without Faith (there’s always an ongoing debate about Faith vs. Works – I lean more on the Works side of that argument) except in the Catholic “Baptism by Desire.”

Anyway, to sum up my position, I think we are saved by works, but it is Jesus who makes the call. He measures our works and our hearts to make that call. And “saving” consists simply in guiding us out of this universe to return to our heavenly home.

But then again, I could be wrong.

To Save an Adulteress

(I wrote this some time ago. It’s worth reading, but I think it may have a few flawed notions within)

A poor woman surrounded by an outraged crowd armed with rocks and prepared to exact Biblical justice. Her crime: adultery. Her sentence: death by stoning. Justice? Or excessive cruelty? Challenged by the Pharisees and confronting the mob, Jesus spoke words destined to be remembered until the end of time. “Let he who has no sin cast the first stone …” he said.

The result … one by one the crowd walked away starting first with the elders. In the end, only Jesus and the woman remained.

Did Jesus throw his stone? No. He let her go with the simple exhortation to “Go and sin no more.” Jesus saved her life showing mercy where Biblical Law had insisted on bloodshed.

The Crime of Adultery (Mercy vs. Justice)

With 2000 years of history to look back on, from today’s perspective, it is starkly obvious that Jesus was in the right. The woman may have committed adultery, but that hardly warrants death as a punishment. Did Jesus let her go without punishment? I’m not sure about that. It might be more accurate to say that Jesus let her go without further punishment. She was punished to a certain extent. She was humiliated and terrified by the crowd. Does that constitute punishment?

If it was, Jesus appears to have regarded it as sufficient. He let her go and told her to sin no more. Perhaps, Jesus thought that her sin really warranted no punishment but, short of turning back time, there was no way to erase the punishment she had already endured.

So, He demonstrated mercy and cut her punishment short. Where Biblical Law demanded death, Jesus let her off with a simple exhortation to sin no more.

This leads me to an important question. To what extent does mercy annul justice, if at all?

Consequence

Here in the U.S. this is not an insignificant question. In fact, it seems to be one way of distinguishing between the Right and the Left in politics. This may be something of a generalization, but the Right seems to support justice whereas the Left seems to side with mercy.

Justice demands a consequence for criminal acts. But the Left, perhaps with Jesus’ example in mind (or perhaps not) wants to pardon and forgive crimes. Who is correct?

I think some clarification is in order.

Crime and The Broken Windows Theory

I hear about this on conservative talk radio on a regular basis. In the 1990’s (I think), New York City was a haven for criminality. Then Rudy Giuliani became mayor and started enforcing what he called “The Broken Windows Theory.” The idea was … well, hardcore justice. No mercy. No exceptions. Any crime – even something as simple as breaking a window or jumping a turn style – was punished according to the dictates of the Law.

The result: New York City cleaned up its act and once again began to prosper with far lower levels of crime. Rudy Giuliani’s plan worked. At least, that’s the way the conservative podcasts present it.

In contrast, the conservative podcasts claim, everywhere that the Lefties are in control chaos and crime become more prevalent. A case in point: San Francisco. San Francisco was once a beautiful city, now, thanks to the Lefties (or so the Right says) the city is overrun with crime, homeless people, and human feces – Yuck!

Basically, the crux of the issue can be summed up in one word: consequences. The Right believes there should be consequences for crimes. The Left, I think, believe that in the name of compassion or understanding, crimes should bring little or even no real consequences (unless the criminal is a Republican – or so the Right says).

I kind of think that the Left’s thinking, in a way, can be traced back to Jesus. Jesus forgave sinners. Shouldn’t we try to emulate Jesus and do likewise? Should we, as good Christians, forgive the criminals?

And What Is the Virtue in That!

I think it was the “Sermon on the Mount” where Jesus summed up a moral framework that was almost obsessive with its treatment of love, mercy, and forgiveness. He says something along the lines of “If you love those who love you, what is the virtue in that?” I’ve always understood this as being, basically, an exhortation to be loving, forgiving, and merciful to the nth degree. You may love your friends and family, but, wow, so what? Love this guy who did this horrible thing. That’s a challenge. That’s where virtue lies.

And I think it may be that kind of thinking that the Left believes it is embracing. And I guess, in a certain sense, they really are.

But should we? The concepts of mercy and forgiveness combined with the exhortation: “What is the virtue in that!” – seem to imply that there should be no punishments for crimes. Did Jesus believe that? He did talk about hell on occasion, and hell seems to be the ultimate punishment/s. I (and many other people) think there is an issue with the existence of hell when God is described as being ultimately a loving Father (although I have a unique solution to that problem). But do Jesus (and, consequently, God the Father) think that one should be so prepared to forgive others that no punishment should ever be meted out?

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged Yourself

Similarly, nearly everyone has heard Jesus’ maxim, “Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.” That, too, can be taken to be an exhortation against punishing people for their wrongs. At least, superficially – I mean, you can’t punish somebody without first determining that they are guilty of some wrongdoing. Does not that determination of wrongdoing necessarily imply some type of judgment?

And, so, if we aren’t supposed to judge, then, it seems at least plausibly arguable that we aren’t supposed to punish either. Is that what Jesus wanted?

Let’s examine the notion of non-punishment a little more closely.

In the case above of the adulteress, Jesus prevented an admittedly excessive punishment from being meted out. But, as I asked above, does that mean, he didn’t think she should be punished at all? (I used to think so) Or, did he think that the punishment she had already endured (humiliation and fear of death) was sufficient (or simply done and over and not undoable)?

How about the next famous case: the repentant thief on the cross. The thief was being crucified for his crimes next to Jesus who, in turn, was being crucified. The thief sincerely asked to be remembered in heaven and Jesus promised that the thief would be with him in heaven. The other man mocked Jesus. Presumably, the other man went to hell after death – although that’s probably not a certainty. Anyway, the repentant thief was punished for his crime. He was crucified. Again, from a modern viewpoint, that is probably excessive for the crime of theft, but Jesus did not reverse it (assuming He could – if He was truly God, which is a whole other argument).

So, we have an adulteress who was punished less than the Law demanded and a thief who was given consolation and comfort (and possibly a ticket to heaven) at the time of his death. So, the question remains: Did Jesus support any kind of punishment or was he against all forms of punishment?

Looking at these examples in conjunction with the notion of hell seems to imply that He was okay with some level punishment.

For a long time, I was kind of in the liberal camp on this issue. Because of that single phrase, “And what is the virtue of that!” If forgiving someone for insulting you is good, how much better is it to forgive someone for murdering you! Of course, Jesus did, pretty much, do that last.

How about … is a Christian obligated to forgive someone who murders his/her spouse? Turn the other cheek? Someone is trying to murder your spouse … as a Christian, are you forbidden from using violence to stop them?

As I am not Jesus, I don’t know what He says to these questions. But here’s my 2 cents.

Good and evil are not simply binary qualities. The best analogy for the nature of good and evil is, unfortunately (for race reasons), a color scale where total blackness is the ultimate evil and total whiteness is the ultimate good (again, I’m not trying to say ANYTHING about race). As Socrates said, a few hundred years before Christ, we all fall somewhere in between these two extremes. Basically, all of us can be described as being certain shades of grey.

With that in mind …. Often (though not always) saying a certain action is good/evil in a binary sense is misleading or incomplete. Point yourself to the pure good (pure white – again, this is NOT about race) and strive in that direction.

If you happen to be crucified for a crime you either didn’t commit or which doesn’t warrant crucifixion (which, I think, is every crime in the book) and you forgive your executioners … I would say that your act of forgiving your executioners is very bright on the color scale.

Adultery is somewhere in the darker grey. Forgiving adultery is a few shades whiter. Theft … pretty much the same. Murder … yeah, that’s really kind of black. And so on.

Absolute Forgiveness

So … should a murderer be forgiven? Should he have his slate wiped utterly clean? If a murderer is “forgiven” and he suffers no consequences for his actions, will not he (and others) be less deterred from committing murder again?

Can murder be forgiven? According to most Christians, the answer is yes. I agree. Yes, murder can be forgiven. However, I think the point of contention is who has the Right to forgive a wrongdoer. And I think it is precisely here where the Left goes astray.

If my friend Sam is robbed by Paul, it isn’t up to me to forgive Paul. The person with the Right to forgive Paul is Sam. Not me. Not you. How about God? Clearly, I think God can forgive Paul, but I don’t think even God has the Right to forgive Paul on Sam’s behalf. When God forgives, He forgives on behalf of Himself. But God can’t/won’t override Sam’s choice of whether or not to forgive Paul. Is it morally better for Sam to forgive Paul? Once upon a time, I would have just said yes. Now, I’m not so sure.

The degree of evil in the sin committed here should be considered. It’s one thing to forgive someone for a minor offense to you, it’s quite another to forgive someone of something truly awful like murder or rape. In the latter cases, if the perpetrator is guilty and refuses to repent, just forgiving them and letting them go about their way, is actually dangerous. The perpetrator will learn there are no consequences and be even less deterred from repeating the crime. So, if you are brutally assaulted and you forgive the unrepentant criminal, that may just lead to a string of similar crimes that could have been prevented.

But … what is the virtue in that? The unrepentant man is the most difficult to forgive. But it is precisely that reason why we should strive to forgive them. But perhaps, forgiveness does not mean there is no punishment.

Hmmm. Not sure.

War and a Thinker’s Guide to Truth

I was having a conversation with my brother a week or so ago about my recently published book, “A Thinker’s Guide To Truth” – that I have mentioned on this blog elsewhere. Anyway, part of that conversation kind of triggered the thought in my head that I’m not sure I was clear about the distinction between killing and murder.

For those that don’t know, murder refers to ending someone’s life to serve your own ends, whereas killing refers to ending someone’s life in the service of your country – at least I read that somewhere along the way (I think it was in a Dennis Prager book, actually).

Anyway, I just want to say that I’m pretty sure that murder is always wrong and I think I made that point in the dialogue. As for killing… I’m honestly not sure. If given the choice, I would always try to not choose war, and thereby eliminate the need for killing. But this is an imperfect world. War sometimes happens – we even have two (involving allies of ours) going on as we speak. In light of that, I might characterize killing as a dark grey act as opposed to an act of pure unadulterated evil. Not as bad as murder, but still not desirable. Of course, there are a plethora of factors that can influence such.

Of course, this in turn impacts the “absoluteness” of the Right to Life and could lead to a long, complex discussion – a discussion I did not have in my Dialogue, or at least, this Dialogue. I touched on it only briefly in order to say that I think murder is always wrong/evil/whatever – so that there is a certain “absolute” character to murder, but, possibly not killing. And, if not killing, then not the Right to Life either.

Anyway, I will probably address the issue in more detail in some future dialogue on war, perhaps. Maybe. We’ll see how these first few dialogues on truth work out. And go from there. Oh, yeah, one more thing, once again my post about the adulteress is being postponed a week or so.

Promotion for “A Thinker’s Guide to Truth”

I was going to post something about the adulteress Jesus saved from stoning in the Bible, but it’s a post I wrote a few years back and I feel I have to re-edit it a bit, and I don’t have time today. So, I’m just going to post this notice that I am running a promotion for my first philosophical dialogue, “A Thinker’s Guide to Truth.” From now until Easter (March 31st, 2024) the book will be available at no charge. If you are interested in the concept of truth, it may be worth a read. It’s 18k-ish words and takes about 2 hours to read. You can find it here: Universal Book Link: https://books2read.com/athinkersguidetotruth . Happy Lent everyone!

In the Antechamber of Catholicism (part III)

Well, well, well … I’ve made it to the third post on this topic. I’ve discussed Confession/Reconciliation … now, I think I’ll discuss Communion … a.k.a. the Eucharist.

For those that don’t know, Communion is the name of the ritual in which Catholic churchgoers receive the Host. Basically, it happens at the end of the Mass. Everyone, who, up to this point, had been sitting, kneeling, and occasionally standing in their pews (a kind of bench on which the faithful sit), stand once again.

They form a line (or two … or four, for that matter) and proceed one by one from their pew to the front of the church where the priest waits. When they reach the priest (or deacon), the priest/deacon holds out a piece of unleavened bread called “The Host” and says, “The body of Christ.” The parishioner replies, “Amen,” and then receives the Host on either their tongue or in their hand.

If placed in their hand, they take it and put it in their own mouth. For many people, that’s the end of it. Some, however, approach a second individual (priest, deacon, or …. I’ve forgotten the name given to individuals permitted to hand out Communion) who holds a small chalice filled with wine.

As the parishioner approaches, the … we’ll say priest … says “The blood of Christ,” to which the parishioner again replies, “Amen.” The priest holds up the chalice, the parishioner takes it in their hands and then takes a small sip, then returns it to the priest (the priests wipes the rim of the chalice between every recipient).

Anyway, the unleavened bread – a.k.a. the Host – and the wine are supposed to be representative of the body and blood of Christ, respectively (hence, the words spoken). Ok, to be fair, there is dispute about what the Host and the Wine are.

In fact, this is a sticking point between the Catholic Faith and some of the Protestant Sects. The Catholics claim the Host and the Wine are the true body and blood of Christ. They become such in the Mass through a process called Transubstantiation (I think). Whereas, the Protestants (at least the ones I’m thinking of) claim that the Host and the Wine are merely symbols of Christ’s actual body and blood.

My First Heretical Understanding

Back when I first started this quasi-Catholic journey, I kind of looked at the whole Communion thing as, at the very least, a clever subterfuge to de-religify (yeah, I know that’s not a word) violence. Basically, of course, I wasn’t alive at the time, so I can’t know for sure, but I believe that 2000 years ago, human sacrifice (or even animal sacrifice) was a fairly common practice throughout the religions of the ancient world.

Where implemented, they were pretty much the high point of whatever religious service they occurred in. I think both the Aztecs and the Mayans (although they, and pretty much everyone else, deny it now) performed ritual human sacrifice on a regular basis.

I have no idea if they actually did so – or if that is just a perversion of true history by their respective conquerors (Europeans), but I kind of think, someone … probably a lot of someones performed human sacrifice in the past.

Anyway, with that in mind, consider Jesus. He comes on the scene and starts a religion in which the apex of the rituals involved consists in eating bread and drinking wine. No humans killed. Not even animals killed. I call that a plus. Of course, that’s not the justification any Christian anywhere would present (like I said, it’s kind of heretical). But, regardless, it is a plus. And, in the beginning of my journey, I at least noted it, although I didn’t run around exclaiming that or anything.

I had read enough at this point to know that the Catholic Faith adopted the doctrine of Transubstantiation. And the Protestants did not. To be clear, the Catholics did not believe that the Host was the physical body and the wine the physical blood of Jesus, but rather, the spiritual body and spiritual blood of Jesus – if you can make sense of that.

And Protestants just think they are Symbols. The Catholic interpretation is more mystical/spiritual/magical (pick a word), and the Protestant more pragmatic. In any event, I understood enough about the different viewpoints that I knew the Catholics were not practicing physical cannibalism. They were consuming the “spiritual” body and blood. Anyway ….

My Second Heretical Understanding

After a while, through my ruminations, I started wondering if I should stop taking Communion, in light of the fact that I knew what it was supposed to be and mean, at least intellectually, and I could honestly say, I wasn’t convinced it was true (either the Catholic view or the Protestant).

I mean, a non-believer taking Communion is, to some degree, disrespectful, I suppose, but I was somewhat apathetic. Plus, 1) I like the taste of the Host, and, for that matter, the Eucharistic Wine as well. And 2) it was, physically speaking, harmless. But I went back and forth on it, for some time.

Then, I decided that, basically, if God was omnipotent, and if He wanted to make a little piece of bread and a little drop of wine special in some way that was either a) difficult to observe or b) impossible to observe … He had the power to do that.

When I figured that out, I decided to keep taking Communion with that understanding. Again, that’s not quite the Catholic understanding – at least, not in the particular. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is basically the idea that the “substance” of the Host and the “substance” of the wine are changed in the ceremony.

Having studied Aristotle in college, I had a semi-decent idea of what that’s supposed to mean, but, again, not enough to say that I really believed that. I pretty much stayed at the point – “An omnipotent God could change the bread and wine into something special” and I’d worry about the details of that “specialness” later.

My Current Understanding

I’m still not quite there at the Transubstantiation bit, yet, but my understanding has developed some. Maybe it was obvious to everyone else, but there is a key component here and that is love. Communion is inextricably linked to Christ’s Crucifixion.

When I recently returned to posting on this blog again, I had decided that I was going to move on from all the Satan stuff. Unfortunately, I have to return to it here, because it plays a role.

The Braveheart Theory of the Crucifixion.

Basically, my understanding of the Crucifixion is significantly different from the official teachings of the Catholic Church. Basically, I kind of see it somewhat like the final scenes in the movie Braveheart (directed by Mel Gibson).

Towards the end, William Wallace is imprisoned by Edward the Long Shanks. The princess offers him some drug so he doesn’t need to feel the full pain of his imminent brutal death and he spits it out. The drug doesn’t fit in, but his words do to me. Something along the lines of “For if I wail or if I cry out, then Edward the Long Shanks will have broken me…”

Basically, substitute Jesus into William Wallace’s place and Satan into Edward the Long Shanks. Jesus went toe to toe with “The Ruler of this World” enduring his ultimate power – not just death, but a cruel and hideous death.

Of course, typical Christianity says He was offering Himself over as a sacrifice to God. It may change, but currently, that is not my position. Anyway, the thing that gave Jesus the strength to willingly walk into probably the worst death any human being has ever experienced (beating, scourging, and crucifixion – not to mention the emotional side – abandonment, betrayal, and whatever) – was love.

Love for his circle – i.e. his 12 Apostles/Best Friends and his Mother – all of whom were kind of representative of the rest of the human race. So, with the primacy of Christ’s Love in mind, I look at Communion as follows:

1) if you are consuming the Host and Wine, you are acknowledging and accepting Christ’s love. It was Christ’s love that gave Him the strength to offer over his flesh and spill his blood for us.

For us?

Yeah, because if He hadn’t, if Satan had won, we’d all be stuck in an Eternity with the monster that tried to break Him with the beating, scourging, etc… A monster that would gladly do the same to us, for its own amusement.

Okay, now that I’m surely on the path to ex-Communication, I think I’ll call it a night.

In the Antechamber of Catholicism (part II)

Okay, a week got away from me because I had to advertise my new book and I forgot all about posting last Sunday. But I’ll return to my discussion of being “in the antechamber of Catholicism” tonight. I previously mentioned two of the Sacraments in the Catholic Faith. Specifically, I mentioned Confession and Communion.

I’ll discuss Confession tonight and leave Communion to next week.

Confession a.k.a. Reconciliation a.k.a. Penance

Okay, for those who don’t know, in Catholicism Confession consists of, basically, sitting down or kneeling in a small cubicle (called the Confessional) with a priest and confessing your sins to the priest. Well, it’s a little more involved than that. There’s a bit of ritual to it. You begin by making the sign of the cross and saying, “Bless me Father for I have signed. It’s been “X” weeks/months/whatever since my last confession” etc… Then you list your sins. The priest says a few words and absolves you of your sin and gives you a penance (something to do to “make up” for your sin – it’s usually just a couple prayers or so). Then, you leave with your sins forgiven, or so it is believed.

I don’t want to waste too much time on whether or not your sins are actually forgiven or not. I mean, how could I as a human really know God had forgiven me? I assume so. That’s the understanding that comes from the whole ritual of the thing. But … for all I know, God doesn’t exist or, maybe He’s particularly grumpy or something and He doesn’t want to forgive you.

So … why go?

Cathartic Conversation

First, I want to point out that even if God doesn’t exist, going to Confession is worthwhile simply because of the cathartic nature of the whole experience. It’s really kind of like the religious version of therapy … although it’s been around much longer, I suspect (going on 2000 years, now, I think?). As such, you get to unload a lot of emotional guck tied to your personal failings.

Next, I want to point out that there is some debate between different Christian sects about whether or not a priest is necessary for Confession. I would say, that if God exists, He doesn’t need the priest. He can forgive anyone He wants in any way or manner He desires. Yet, I think, for me the mortal sinner, confessing my sins audibly to another human being instead of the (usually) silent thought of God in my head would be more cathartic.

It takes more courage and more humility to confess your sins out loud to another living human being than it does to just run over your sins in your mind. In either case, you will walk away believing you have been forgiven, but having a conversation with someone is more substantial and meaningful than imagining to have a conversation with someone. Still, I think either method is as likely to “work” as the other. The important thing is that you are acknowledging your sins to God. Regardless of which one you use, it’s up to God whether or not He’ll forgive you or not.

I think the only way to improve upon the Catholic Confessional (in my view) would be to maybe throw a few more people into the mix. That is, confess your sins to a half-dozen people at the same time. That would probably be much more difficult, requiring more courage and more humility. Of course, the people are not the ones that truly forgive your sin (unless, maybe, if the sin committed was against them in particular) – no, that aspect of the whole thing still belongs to God.

And that comes to the point of the whole thing. Forgiveness. Can we really know that God has forgiven us? I think you actually have to take that on faith. Perhaps others feel some sense of connection with God during Confession, but I never have. I’ve heard God’s voice in my head a couple times in other situations, and Jesus’s voice in my heart a couple times or so (of course, I’m on psychiatric meds – so take that for what it is), but hardly regularly enough that I can be sure that I’m being forgiven every time I go to Confession.

I will say this much, though, I don’t think an insincere confession would be very efficacious. God knows what’s in your heart. I don’t know why someone would confess a sin they were not feeling guilty about, but if they did, they might be able to fool the priest, but not God.

Regardless, I can see the benefit of Confession whether God exists or not. If He doesn’t, you walk away having expunged your horrible sins and feeling forgiven and free. It may not be true, but it is a happy fiction. But, if true … all the better.

Conclusion

Anyway, that’s what I got on Confession. I’ll cover Communion in my next post. For the record, I do believe in God. I find it far more likely that God is a kind and forgiving Deity than not. And I think going to Confession is an excellent habit to take up and practice – whichever form you select.

A Thinker’s Guide to Truth

Hey all! I published a new book. It’s a short dialogue (40ish pages) on the topic of truth. I kind of think it fits with the ambience of this website (as opposed to my Fantasy web site) so I’m going to leave a link here: https://books2read.com/booksbymatthewdryan . At the current time, it costs about 3 bucks to purchase. But I think it is relevant to the current state of politics and culture here in the U.S. Truth seems to be a popular topic these days. And since I have a degree (although NOT a P.h.D.) in philosophy, I figured I would put my own 2 cents in on the topic. The book is called: A Thinker’s Guide to Truth: A Conversation On Truth (part I). Enjoy!