TRTL

Your world view is indeed rosy. Sin and lack of morality is as natural to man as drinking a glass of water. The end result of sin is obviously hidden from your sight.

You write 'When I look at the world, I see a world that is mostly populated by good people, a majority of whom don't spend every Sunday in a church.'

Maybe you don't see the results of selfishness as I do. Maybe you don't see fatherless children, abandoned people in old peoples homes, deserted wives and husbands. Maybe you don't feel the pain of families who have lost sons and daughters to drugs. Or maybe you do and just accept that is part of living.

You seem to share the view of many (ie eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die). Personally I believe people who live that way are spiritually blind.

You write

'So when you tell me everything's wrong and ugly because of man, I call your bluff and say that's crap.'

Well if man is the not cause who is? I take it that seen you don't believe in God you also don't believe in the devil? If man is not the cause of what is ugly who is?

Like any species runner, man isn't perfect, nor did I say the world is.

Funnily enough however, I seem to recall Jesus had more of an approach to focus on the good, instead of seeing the 'ugly' in everything.

As for 'spiritually blind' I think that's a fantastic description for those who don't acknowledge the beauty and goodness of humanity, as well as the darker side.

I guess one of us just has a little more faith in man than the other.

God has nothing to do with it. I know myself and other agnostics who are kind, hardworking people who wouldn't hurt anyone.

As yourself, how is this possible runner? If we don't follow your god and embrace secularism - taking responsibility for our own actions and views - does that really make us bad people?

But if you are determined to find the bad in everything, then I guess I can't stop you, just express my sympathy. It must be a very unpleasant way to live life.

TurnRightThenLeft

'As yourself, how is this possible runner? If we don't follow your god and embrace secularism - taking responsibility for our own actions and views - does that really make us bad people?'

To some degree it boils down to terminology of what you consider bad. Basically without Christ people are spiritually dead. You may be a very 'good' person as far as I know or you may not be. Some who claim to be Christians certainly are not all good. Some think Bill Clinton is very good while others think he is bad. Moral relativism leaves it totally open to one;s views. In some cultures old men taking young girls is not bad.

Being responsible for your own actions makes no sense if at the end of the day you are not held to account. Many men and women will happily cheat on their spouses when they know they can get away with it.

I don't think their is any doubt that people who know they are accountable to God are far more likely to take responsibility for their actions than those who don't.

You write 'But if you are determined to find the bad in everything, then I guess I can't stop you, just express my sympathy. It must be a very unpleasant way to live life.'

You are wrong again. I will call bad what God calls bad and good what God calls good. My life to date has been extremely pleasant with many blessing that I am thankful for daily. I wish the same for all people.

Runner:

"I don't think their (sic) is any doubt that people who know they are accountable to God are far more likely to take responsibility for their actions than those who don't."

You are arrogant and ignorant, and an anachronism. Well done!

relda,
Yes, I agree in principle with what you wrote, especially with that quote from Fr. McBrien as it is so universal that probably not only most Christians (including Catholics) but also e.g. agnostics or atheists will agree. It is compatible with the teachings of the Church (actually any Church) but it does not express the specificity of the Church teachings since it misses the spiritual dimension of human life (a concept that, of course, does not make sense to e.g. an agnostic). Nevertheless, it is a good formulation of what the Church can/should offer to the rest of the world, never mind the details.

Only in this sense is it possible that “the language of ‘liberals’ will turn supposedly to universal human experience“ (c.f. Hans Kung’s Weltethos). There is something universal in the official position of the Catholic Church (sometimes hard to understand therefore prone to ‘liberal‘ and ‘conservative‘ simplifications), and there is something specific about it, like in any comprehensive and systematic world view or “teaching”. The Church’s position is complicated by the fact that it has to (wants to) appeal to people with a wide range of cultural (ethnic) and intellectual backgrounds, and has to (wants to) be consistent as much as possible with its two millennia old tradition.

Also, I agree that there are hypocrites among the clergy as there are in any group of people wielding teaching authority. However, the chain smoking fat doctor who tells me about the dangers of smoking and being overweight is not necessarily a hypocrite, he is just a person with a weak will.

>>the “postmodern" philosophers help us realise that the system of our beliefs is more like an interconnected web<<
The emphasis here must be on “system of beliefs“ not “truths”, that would be (epistemological) “relativism“ that e.g. the Pope so adamantly warns against. I think the situation is not unlike models of physical reality (theories), that some also see as a network of ‘beliefs’ (Thomas Kuhn‘s paradigms). (ctd)

(ctd) However, the theoretical physicist still has to assume THE truth about (physical) reality of which scientific theories are just an approximation, some better some worse, some more some less universal. One of the best arguments against the postmodern ‘social construction‘ of scientific truth(s) I read came from Steven Weinberg, a physicist and avowed atheist, during the above mentioned “science wars”. I think much of his argument is applicable also to something deeper, that one refers to as Ultimate Reality, and which the Pope apparently has in mind without having to spell out his own belief about this Reality.

I just finished reading a very interesting and easy to understand essay “Variety in Mysticism and Parallels with Science” (Theology and Science, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2008) by V.V. Raman, a Hindu physicist, that is related to this and, I think, throws an original light at the problem of scientific vs religious truth(s). For me it is easier to understand religion or theology explained by a scientist with a degree in theology (e.g. the ‘trinity‘ Barbour, Polkinghorne, Peacocke or the Catholic priest-astronomer George Coyne) than by a theologian with or without any degree in science, especially mathematical physics.

I cannot completely agree that the Church is an anachronistic institution; it is just a very old institution, and like old people, it moves very slowly. However, the interaction between its 81 years old head and the 400 thousand young enthusiasts, that we witnessed recently, did not sound to me as something anachronistic that is about to die away (only its ‘centre of gravity‘ is moving out of the West). This is so in spite of - or perhaps rather because of - the fact that these young people did not come to celebrate Humanae Vitae (as some ‘protesters’ seemed to think) but their faith (incomprehensible to the ‘protesters’) symbolised by the authority of one old man that in their mind represented a bridge between the past and the future. At least that is how I saw the WYD in Sydney (and also in Cologne in 2005).