Who might need therapy???

Suppose you are a psychologist and two 15 year olds come to you for advice.

Joe says God has personally called him to live the rest of his life serving God and told Joe he must never have any sexual thoughts whatsoever, never be physically attracted to any male or female, never fall in love, believe women are a temptation to rightiousness, never desire to have children as that would be to slight God.

Jim says he is physically attracted to another boy and desires to have sexual contact with him and has thought of his friend while engaged in personal sexual activity.

Which of the two boys--Joe or Jim--would you think was in danger of developing a "personality disorder?"

Vocations and Callings

Football has distracted me from blogdom for a time, but I want to return to some thoughts about religion.

It is interesting to see that 'religious' persons are almost constantly involved in condeming those who do not agree with them to zillions of years of punishment. The reason religious people spend almost all their time wishing the worst for others, not of their faith, can be found with a little reflextion. The precepts of religion deal with things not subject to rational analysis. This does not mean that a person should not have religious beliefs(we all do), but it does mean that religious beliefs are just beliefs---they cannot be proven. Therefore every absurdity has been held important by some believers. After all, I can believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, BUT in no way can I prove it to be true.

As a Catholic(sorry "Mr. Mole" you's just have to put up with me), I really don't get very bent out of shape by the doctrine of infallibility. Our church was challenged by science and modern thought in the 19th century, so thy propounded the doctrine that the Pope could not be in error on matter of faith and morals----in other words religion. And the fundamentalist protestants assure us that everyword in the Bible was correct, no matter how ridiculous.Both Catholics and many protestants were telling us there was NO way their beliefs could possibly be in error. So the hard line catholics believe some freakish little Italian (Pius 12) and a former Nazi soldier HAVE to be right on all serious matters of religion. And, Oh, those Bible believeing Christians!! They find a few lines in an ancient book and say it MUST be true because God dictated it. So some of us Catholics (like "The Mole") assure us that any one who defies the Guy in Rome with the red shoes is facing eternal damnation, and possibly may have a very hot future for eternity. And the Bible believeing group says we WILL face the same future, possibly,if we don't believe every page, every word in some old texts. BTW most other world religions have the same fights.

And since we really don't KNOW about the "other" world, most religions feel quite free to make something up to help their cause.

So I want to say a word about "vocations". Almost all preachers, priests, ministers like to inflate their own image by claiming that some being ("GOD") has picked them out as his fovorites and set them above all other people. Protestants use the word "called" and Catholics use the term "vocation." No one I have ever heard of can define these words. Here's the logic: A young man decides to become a priest;ergo that proves he has a "vocaton."A protestant chooses do be a minister,ergo that proves he was called. Somehow this seems backward to me. I prove I was "called" or God gave me a "vocation" just because I choose a certain occupation. After all did God, defined as omnisient, not in time, calls priests and ministers who have a strong proclivity to, for example, sexually molest young kids.

Now this is a special problem for us Catholics. To serve God in the highest. I must never "fall" into love with a member of the opposite sex, even have sexual thoughts. and , of course, not be bothered with those pesky children. B16 even praises those who LEAVE their families to be more favored by God. And this from your "family life" self appointed protectors.

Now, I'm not putting down priest , pastors, preachers whatever. Probably most of them are helpful. (I should note that a disproportionate number of homosexuals are 'tapped' by God to be Catholic priests. But since "vocations" come from a world we really can't know--just believe--I won't argue God's judgement here. )

We've all known priest, pastors, preachers , ministers. I think their professions are arrived at quite normally. They become interested in religion, they usually like to help people, they want to make a better world. Great. But to end on a sour note some of these guys and gals have other interest---like the body parts of the young. But nothing we can know is this world is perfect.

s

Assumptions. We just say they are true. So they are?

Football season is here, so I've been away for a few days. But I have three topics I want to introduce here hoping I would get some kind of rational answer.

One. We use the word "God" in our vocabularies almost every day, but ,to be honest, I, and we, I suspect, have no idea what we are are talking about. Supreme being. What does that mean? It's just another way to say "God." The "creator." Means what? The ground of all being???And we could go on and on. I challenge anyone to define "God" without just making the definition more complex. And what is our relationship to God? Does he talk to me? Does he tell me what to do? Does he occupy space? Does he think? Does he have a brain? Etc.

Two. The "creationists" have pretty left any intellectual ground they stood on. So scientist and rational people agree. So I think we've cleared up biology. And almost no biologists or educated people even argue with the creationists anymore. Is the same situation prevailing in philosophy/science. Do the "new theists"seeing the triumph of science and its approach, find the field empty--- do these "new theists" have the field to themselves. So we get Keith Ward being considered seriously. After all, Ward and his group, like the "creationists" try to find something unexplained by science and then say that proves God. Ward, for example, fools a great many by finding something in Kant that can be twisted a bit, and alleluia, that almost proves theism.

Three. What in hell do we Catholics mean by "vocation."? The argument apparently means that God calls each of us to do something. In other words God tells me to be married(the bottom), single-celibate(one step up) or a priest(the highest "vocation."

The three things I've mentioned above have become such common assumptions that we don't even discuss them. I think I'll touch on each in the next few days. Be fun for me.

From Lorry Driver to 'Prophet.'

There's this curate in England who is finding saving souls a bit of a drag. He wants more money. I can tell him how to hit it big, but he won't let me on his blog. I know the curate and his gang(losers mostly, but not all) come here at times. so out of my Christian charity I'm going to tell him how to make it big.

Let's start with the problem. The curate gives pretty good sermons, but they don't really "hit" you. They're a bit dry, but the gang loves them. As far as I can tell, no one has been struck by the "spirit" because of his sermons. So first he needs to "jazz up" these sermons.

You say how? All the really successful preachers, from Donne to Wesley to Billy Sunday to today's TV evangelistic preachers have their story. AND YES, this poor curate has a story. Sure does!! He was once a lorry driver just for starters. The lorry driving priest. Okay, just a starter. But it gets your attention. Then he had some kind of mental breakdown and was in an asylum(or hospital) for months or years or something. Hey, getting interesting, don't you think!! From the straight jacket to the altar. Now he is really going. And get this: his runs the foulest mouth blog to be found!!Well, a little titallation(get it) always helps. Now on top of this, he hates the Church he works for!!

Okay, he gets his gang to set up a TV talk show with his gang members as guests. The gang members have enough crazy stories to put Ophra to shame!! And he's on his way. Flooded by requests for speaking engagements.

Now you think this won't work. Look at a guy named Father J... He is literally worshipped by many because he has a STORY. He stole cars, was into drugs, apparently homeless for a while. So what did it get for Father J... Well, many Anglicans seem to think he has almost divine wisdom. Hundreds(okay, maybe 50--but that's a big number in Angliland) are looking to him to find the way out of the desert.

So mr. curate, get off your duff and hit the airwaves. Ask your members to send you "faith gifts" for your mission. Just make up a mission; tithe to the "missions" and keep 90 percent for yourself. Hell, you've beged for money before to support yourself.

Listen father, you've got everything going your way. Don't blow it.

From the Asylum

It is popular today among some to make fun of the "logical positivists" and people like A.J. Ayer. But their ideas are still needed.

So a multiple choice question:

The following quote was written by whom?

"Without eternal life (for all sentient beings) whether anything exists or not is irrelevant. Things only exist because they do. There is no reason for existence."

Anselm
Aquinas
Wittgenstein
Hume
Hagger

Extra credit for anyone able to explain what the quote means.

Four Anglican Blogs.

I basically follow 4 Anglican blogs. Two are okay---one very good---and the other a bit grouchy.

Two, however, I get a feeling , at least to a degree, of a desire for self promotion. One, run by an English curate seems to be nothing but a "say I'm the greatest, most brilliant, most clever person" the reader has ever run across. A long history of mental illness, and a complete flop in his career may give him some latitude. He allows no discussion, bans any who see though him and contents himself with what he thinks are "snappy" remarks. He can get boring becuase he repeats many of his snappy remarks. He also hates the United States probably because his general failure in life makes him want to blame anyone, besides himself.

The second self-promoter is a guy known as Father J... He tried real hard to peddle a book he was going to write about his somewhat sleezy youth. But you can't make it selling, say, 100 copies. His latest ploy is to analyze the Anglican dispute. Father J...and his coterie think he would have some real insight on this matter because he once was a car thief and a druggie. Now what that has to do to make you an expert in ecclestical history is something known only, apparently, by his cult.

But we can learn from Father J... In the future we should look only for supreme court justices in the U.S. who have commited felonies and spent at least some time in the "big house."

Chesterton, Lewis, Ward--The blogs' trinity.

A cursory 'tour' of Christian leaning blogs reveals a trinity of Christian apologists on which bloggers base the 'proof' of their leanings. G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and Keith Ward are the authoritative cornerstones of modern Christian apologetics.

Chesterton is the inventor of 'cute' apologetics. He was a clever writer, but his effort to justify Christianity by clever, cute plays on words is entertaining but really of no theological worth.

C.S. Lewis presents two basic arguments. Jesus said he was God so if you deny he was God, then you have to say Jesus was a liar. And he thinks he seals the deal by saying all societies have "rights" and "wrongs" so that proves there is a God. Both arguments complete non-sequiturs.

Now here comes Keith Ward. He throws around quotes from Hume, Kant and a myriad of other philosophers to claim his bona fides; pretends to examine the conflicts between science and religion, and, amazingly enough, as a priest, always comes down on the side of religion! What a surprise!!!

All three--Chesterton, Lewis, and Ward, really use only one argument: We say there is a God; now prove us wrong; oh, you can't; that proves there is a God. Really bad logic.

But let me concentrate for a few lines on Ward. Let me sidetrack for a moment for an analogy. Let's assume, just for fun, that a man claims he had direct contact with aliens from Saturn. Then the man sets out to prove there are little purple men from Saturn. But, and this is important, in his writings he does not use as an argument that he met the Saturn aliens. Certainly the omission he had met the aliens would raise questions. So we would be very cautious in accepting his 'proofs.'

Now Ward claims he has 'met' God personally. "I can remember the precise day when Christ came to me..." Would that not be his principal, overwhelming, evidence there was a God. So what is all this Ward obfuscation about Hume, Kant, Ayer, etc. wrapped in the thick fog of philosophical jargon? Why not just say: I met God. Hell Oral Roberts, Benny Henn(sp?) and scores of 'T.V. evangelists' just out and say it. "There is a God; he talks to me everyday." What better proof do you want!