 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Ampersand
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 2 |
| First Name: | Andrew | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Born into United Methodist family; converted to the Catholic Church ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 06:25 pm |
|
Hi. This is my first time here. I converted to the Catholic Church on Pentacost of 2003. I have never regretted that decision.
Ever since then, my prayer and meditation part of my life has increased, although it's not as steady or as frequent as I would like. I'm trying to work on making it more of a daily routine more than anything else. It has been a struggle, like just about every facet of my life, which seems to bother the rest of my family, and I think it bothers them that I don't seem more bothered by it than they think I should be. The way I figure it, if I'm not struggling in something, then I'm not growing in Christ more. The day when everything absolutely falls into place is probably the day I meet God face to face.
My mother recently made a comment about my growing faith that has me wondering about what kind of proper response I should make to that kind of statement. I said nothing because I did not know what to say. Before anyone here should jump on my mother, I should tell you that she came from Thailand, and was Buddhist, even though she never really practiced that faith, and eventually converted to Christianity in 2000. She considers herself a "realists." (As in you have to face the reality of the situation.) This is what she said to me:
"You know, I can see that you're very devoted to your church and your religion. I don't understand why you can't be as devoted to your weight and body. If it wasn't for us, there wouldn't be any religion, right? If there was no people, there wouldn't be any religion, any idea of god or anything like that. So, really you should be more devoted to yourself first before you are devoted to your religion."
I'm not sure how to answer to that in a way that maybe she can understand. I've thought about the idea I heard that in medieval ages, they looked at the order of life like one of those rose windows you see in European cathedrals where Christ is the center of that window, everything else fits into place or finds its apppropriate place. Well, anyway, it's something I'm trying to strive for, but as usual, it's quite the struggle. But it's the only answer I've been able to come up with. I would be really interested to hear what others might suggest I should do? Thank you.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10th, 2007 06:44 pm |
|
Ampersand wrote: Hi. This is my first time here. I converted to the Catholic Church on Pentacost of 2003. I have never regretted that decision.
We're happy to have you here with us. Welcome to CHN.
Before anyone here should jump on my mother,
Just for the record, no one here us allowed to "jump on" anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and rule number one here is we accept everyone's sincerety until proven otherwise. Everyone is treated with respect.
"You know, I can see that you're very devoted to your church and your religion. I don't understand why you can't be as devoted to your weight and body. If it wasn't for us, there wouldn't be any religion, right? If there was no people, there wouldn't be any religion, any idea of god or anything like that. So, really you should be more devoted to yourself first before you are devoted to your religion."
In a way, that's true. Religion is the way we express our faith, and the way we relate to God. If we (humans) did not exist, there would be no need for religion.
I don't think I like the statement that there would be no idea of God. Our existence is dependent on God; God's existence is not dependent on us. Of course, if we (humans) did not exist, there would be no human idea of God, but that would not change God in any way.
I am overweight, but I have lost quite a bit recently. I am also being challenged by unemployment right now, but so far my faith is not shaken. I can't say that it won't be, but I don't think so. The issues are separate. I must love God and I must love my neighbor as myself. How am I supposed to love my neighbor if I don't love myself?
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2277 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 11th, 2007 12:40 am |
|
Hello, Andrew. You ask a very interesting question.
You say your mother describes herself as a realist. However, from her statement I detect that she is not a realist at all. The reason is that her explanation as to why you should take care of yourself physically is very anthropocentric. That is, she takes the human view of things, not the divine view; the subjective view, not the objective view.
God is the true realist. He made everything that exists. He knows all things from the perspective of his infinite, eternal and omnipresent being. He cannot be wrong.
Man, on the other hand, is a creature like the rest of the universe. He is not infinite, not eternal and not omnipresent. So he does not have a purely objective viewpoint, and he will not know all things. Therefore, he can be wrong.
When your mother says, “If there were no people, there wouldn't be any religion, any idea of god or anything like that,” this is incorrect according to Christianity (although I do accept that Buddhists could find the thought quite satisfactory). God himself is the necessary being; he cannot “not be.” And his view of things is the definitive one, the true realism because he made all reality to begin with. Therefore, the human perspective doesn’t matter. Whether there are people or not, there will be God, and God has an idea of himself (that is, in Christian language, the Father engenders the Son).
What your mother says reminds me of a Zen koan. (Your mother probably had contact with other forms of Buddhism than Zen, which is not a Thai approach, but the koan illustrates a point of Buddhism in general.) The master asks, “If a tree falls in the forest and there is no ear to hear it, does it make a sound?”
The answer is not a simple “yes” or “no.” We have to penetrate beyond appearances and superficial concepts. But if we have only our human perspective (your mother’s position), the answer will always be “no.” Why? Because the person will say, in effect, “If I was not there to hear it, there was no sound.” You can see how superficial and subjective this is.
The Christian, however, would prefer a “yes, but not to my experience.” How is this possible? Because regardless of whether I or anyone else is there to hear it, God, who made the tree and allowed it to fall, knows the sound it makes because he is there eternally. Does it matter that God does not have ears? No, because he “hears” without ears. Besides, God is incarnate in the person of the man Jesus Christ, and therefore does have ears. Since these ears are glorified in heaven, they hear everything.
Your mother’s position is then not realist but subjectivist, because she requires that she be there to hear the tree fall for it to have really made a sound. The Christian position, on the other hand, is realist, because no creature is required. God, who is omnipresent, hears the tree fall from all eternity. In fact, it may even be said that, because he made the tree in the first place, he caused it to fall and make a sound which is “his” sound and none other. And again, as the incarnate Christ, he hears whatever he wants to hear from the objective vantage point of eternal glory.
I think what you have learned from the rose window is an important lesson for her to consider if she is going to assume a Christian perspective. God (especially God incarnate) is the center, the Truth and Reality at the center of all being, and everything else fits into the place God assigns it because he is the one who made it.
But now we must ask ourselves whether, in the end, your mother is not right when she says that you should take care of your “weight and body.” We return to the fact that God made us. If we are told to take care of our souls, we must also see that he made our bodies as well. Should we not, then, be good stewards of our bodies, just as we are of our souls?
A Christian is not a dualist, believing that evil is equal to good or that there are two equal gods, one good and the other evil. A Christian therefore does not believe that the soul is good and the body is evil, for God made both. Whatever God makes is good, never evil. We can pervert what God has made and turn it to evil. We can do this with the soul, and when we do, our end is hell. We can do this with the body, as well, and our end is death. So you see where God’s will lies: we are to be stewards of both soul and body, not just the one or the other. Good health for the body is just as important, in its own way, as virtue and sanity are for the soul. You are both body and soul, so it behooves you to tend God’s creation as he commands (cf. Genesis 2:15).
Finally, you say, “My prayer and meditation part of my life has increased, although it's not as steady or as frequent as I would like.” Is this not the human condition? Are we not all imperfect? Yes, perfection is required of us: “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Yes, we need to be diligent. Yes, we need to persevere. But we must rely on God to make us less imperfect, so that we will, for example, love even our enemies (ibid., v. 44). For this we are given divine grace.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 02:39 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
