I'm debating, confusing, and doubting myself... please help?
I've held the beliefs of liberty and individualism- that one owns one's own life- no one has a higher claim to your own life, thus you own your own property, etc. etc.
This ideas have been argued to be based on reason. That's partially why I've always agreed with these ideas. It's a morality based on reason.
However, I've been thinking, and asking myself some pretty hard questions. So far, I haven't been able to answer these questions, and they've left me doubting my core ideas/values, and utterly confused. Debating yourself and dueling philosophies usually does that to you....
Anyways, a lot of this started this evening when I was at Church (I'm Catholic). The priest was giving his homily, and it seemed deeply collectivist- he kept talking about how we must serve Christ and serve other people and sacrifice ourselves in order to serve Christ. Such an idea might sound alarming to someone who believes in living their life as an individual. I've never had anything against helping other people... I think you can live as an individual and reconcile in order to help others, but also, sometimes you best serve others by living as an individual. For instance, I'm an artist and I sort of assume that my talents are of more use/benefit to others (and my own happiness), than doing something else/serving others. It seems hypocritical and wrong to possess a talent and then either not use it, or totally sacrifice and destroy yourself/talent for others. For example, I doubt I could work/create good art if I was unhappy, which I likely would be if I was a slave to others/society. Therefore, my talents/art would be destroyed along with me (because unhappiness/the loss of will to live/create/produce/or the inability to do such things, leaving one in a static, unmoving state is the equivalent of destruction... in other words, destruction is the opposite of production, if you're not creating then you've been destroyed?). If my talents/me were destroyed, then I'd have nothing to offer.
It was ironic, because at the same time the priest was talking about service to Christ/others and self-sacrifice, he was asking for donations to a program which was to teach self reliance to the poor. (again, to me, self-sacrifice doesn't seem like a good idea/holy since, through my example above, it leads to destruction. I've always thought God was more about production, not destruction, so it doesn't make sense to sacrifice and destroy oneself to serve God. Furthermore, I thought that was sort of the point/significance of Christ being sacrificed- so we wouldn't have to sacrifice ourselves- that's why he's a savior, because he did it himself so others wouldn't have to?).
Anyways... it just sort of seems like the Catholic Church is hypocritical in that many of the professed beliefs, or at least the ones certain individuals/priests are pushing, are contradictory with other teachings, and with the original teachings of Christ. It's like the Church is just another forum for debate of different philosophies and it doesn't actually hold any one solid belief, philosophically. Of course, I could be wrong on all this, but if I'm right, then it's a serious problem- such philosophical issues should not be ignored.
However, then I started to wonder if my philosophy/political beliefs were some how wrong, which is hard to accept because they make so much sense. However, if it all comes down to being based on reason and morality, I have to ask the question, who gets to decide what is reason, and who's morality is it, and how is it correct or incorrect? There is no one dominant, or universally accepted morality that I'm aware of... if there was, there wouldn't be different philosophies/political debates. Therefore, there must be multiple moralities, which means morality is something that must be accepted and agreed on. Well, then who's to say who is right? How is that decided? It can't just be done by democracy/will of the majority, because of the possibility for the wrong morality to be chosen.
In other words, we hold that everyone has specific, natural rights. What determines that we really have these rights? Because if we don't, if we're not entitled/don't really have them, then they don't exist, and wouldn't that break down our entire philosophy? In some respects, this seems like the case, because we hold that the purpose of government is defend/protect our rights... Well, if these rights must be protected doesn't that mean we can loose them, thus we don't naturally have them/are not entitled to them.... they're more of a reward?
Basically, it all comes down to, how do we know freedom is right? What proves it? On who's authority? What makes them/the idea the authority?
This has left me with the confused conclusion, that it's impossible to know.
Please, someone help me and prove me wrong.
AVOR ...
You wrote a very personal OP and you never replied to anything ...
Why is that?
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
I apologize ...
I failed to browse page 2.
My apologies.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
In libertarian writings,
In libertarian writings, there is only one right which is mentioned and that is the right to property or ownership. I should start by saying that this right includes the right of 'self-ownership'(i.e. we all own ourselves to the exclusion of all others). Furthermore, in order to own something that has never been owned before(like some element of nature), an individual or group of individuals must mix their labour with nature. This is what constitutes "original appropriation"(OA) and is the only legitimate form of ownership. OA is also the principle behind the idea of self-ownership, seeing as how we are the first and only inhabitants of our bodies. From OA, 'legal' transfer of ownership can only occur with voluntary exchange by means of gift or through a barter exchange on the market. Anything else should constitute an illegal transaction because it violates the most basic of basic rights.
This is the only moral/right concept needed for a peaceful and free society. It becomes clearer after you think about it some more(e.g all goods which we consume come from nature and had to have our labour mixed with it, once the good is produced it is exchanged over and over again until it reaches the consumer --------> This applies to all goods: medicine, water, food, land, clothes etc...)
"My theories explain, but cannot slow the decline of a great civilization. I set out to be a reformer, but only became the historian of decline."
- Ludwig Von Mises
"My theories explain, but cannot slow the decline of a great civilization. I set out to be a reformer, but only became the historian of decline."
- Ludwig Von Mises
Now For The Convoluted Version...Deep Seeded...
...proposed for your further study.
"Step right up and see the man who told the truth"
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/74036#comment-790590
What is the Nature to which our movement aspires? What standards do we wish to Nurture?
that was deep...
and concise.
thank you.
" the important thing is to never stop questioning, curiousity, has it's own reason for existing..
Albert Einstien
Knowledge is power, action is love.
I found religion on the DP!
just kidding....sorta. through my studies of our form of government, I discovered deism. and yes, I have studied and adopted it as my religion.
take a look at what we have lost. these men were SO far ahead of us....
http://moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html
" the important thing is to never stop questioning, curiousity, has it's own reason for existing..
Albert Einstien
Knowledge is power, action is love.
From one Catholic to another
"This ideas have been argued to be based on reason. That's partially why I've always agreed with these ideas. It's a morality based on reason."
Reason based on Natural Law: see St. Thomas Aquinas.
"Anyways, a lot of this started this evening when I was at Church (I'm Catholic). The priest was giving his homily, and it seemed deeply collectivist- he kept talking about how we must serve Christ and serve other people and sacrifice ourselves in order to serve Christ."
Absolutely. The question is, is your participation in this an act of your free will, or is it coerced at the point of a gun. God wants you to give lovingly and freely. A gift given grudgingly is no gift.
"For example, I doubt I could work/create good art if I was unhappy, which I likely would be if I was a slave to others/society. Therefore, my talents/art would be destroyed along with me (because unhappiness/the loss of will to live/create/produce/or the inability to do such things, leaving one in a static, unmoving state is the equivalent of destruction... in other words, destruction is the opposite of production, if you're not creating then you've been destroyed?). If my talents/me were destroyed, then I'd have nothing to offer."
Holy Mother Church does not want you to destroy your talents. But to use your talents to serve God. Think back to basic catechism: Why are we created? To know Him. To love Him. To serve Him. You cannot serve God if you destroy your talents, or hide them (how many parables did Christ give us on this subject!). Using your talents in the defense of freedom for your fellow man serves God. Look up TFP: Tradition, Family, Property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_the_Defens...)
"I've always thought God was more about production, not destruction, so it doesn't make sense to sacrifice and destroy oneself to serve God."
Do not destroy yourself, but your ego. Your pride. Your life is a gift from God. Your talents are a gift from God, created by God and given to you. Be grateful to God for your talents. Live your life with an attitude of gratitude.
"Anyways... it just sort of seems like the Catholic Church is hypocritical in that many of the professed beliefs, or at least the ones certain individuals/priests are pushing, are contradictory with other teachings, and with the original teachings of Christ."
Not the Church. Certain priests and bishops, yes. Please do not give up on your faith because of one priest.
"Basically, it all comes down to, how do we know freedom is right? What proves it? On who's authority? What makes them/the idea the authority?"
The desire for freedom is written on your soul. Before you give up on the Church, seek out a traditionalist parish. I don't know where you live, but try finding an Institute of Christ the King or Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter parish in your area.
Deo Vindice.
There have been
There have been many times in the past that I have questioned my beliefs, I no longer find myself doing it. For me, I've let go of my spiritual links to human created organized religions which draw many parallels to other "committees". It may sound strange, but my study of monetary policy has helped me to understand the basic individual "human actions" of people and reinforced my belief that nearly all evil in this world is due to the manipulation of these actions between people by groups of other people looking to impose their interest. Group power will always override individual power. The highest form of society would be one which always protects the individual from the group maximizing the potential of both the individual and the group. Human are born with emotions and if we are not free to explore these emotions on a small scale, I fear these emotions will be explored on a large scale by groups with one emotion rising to the top. When this happens, empathy becomes slavery, fear becomes war, anger becomes torture hate and genocide. People must be free to develop themselves daily on a very small scale just as their trade between each other must be free to be done as individuals free from collectivist powers of central banking on the monetary unit and in turn hijacking the individual actions of each human being based on their individual "soul" (whatever that may mean to you) and it's progress. My religion these days does not consist of churches and statues, it consists of looking to the individual brought to his highest form by his own free will and each of his tiny actions. As we shift toward collectivism, individuals "souls" will shrivel and the emotions of government will become more powerful and warped. This structure works for emotionless ants but not for human beings because I believe our right to feel emotions and act on them daily is part of our reason to exist. Nature has given us freewill and emotion and we should never allow groups to take it from us, not under the banner of religion, "the greater good", or even the promise of peace or prosperity. To promise these things is a lie because they can only hope to exist when created daily by free people as individuals and as a fluid action. Peace under collectivism would mean that humans would have to give up everything that makes them human right down to basic emotions. I don't think that is how we are intended to live.
"It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
— Thomas Paine
"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com
You are being
influenced by others interpretations of the bible. Even the bible and the verses in it are different opinions from diffrent people. You are the only one who can decide your relationship with Jesus and how it pertains to this world. He will guide you. The rules are in your mind and heart. There is a verse I like that kinda tells you not to let the priest(IMO) tell you what to do. Man who follows man is a fool. I believe Jesus says somewhere to forget all of that (the rules) they are written in your mind and heart. keep an open mind and let Jesus into your heart. That is why you were given free will. It is obvious we were not created to be the same therefore your purpose is yours and there will always be times you will be confused as to what is his will and what is yours. But you were given free will for a reason.
aVoiceof Reason....you state..
"(again, to me, self-sacrifice doesn't seem like a good idea/holy since, through my example above, it leads to destruction. I've always thought God was more about production, not destruction, so it doesn't make sense to sacrifice and destroy oneself to serve God. Furthermore, I thought that was sort of the point/significance of Christ being sacrificed- so we wouldn't have to sacrifice ourselves- that's why he's a savior, because he did it himself so others wouldn't have to?)."
***********************************
Just the opposite ......
As believers in Christ we are called to PICK UP our cross and follow him.
We are called to DIE DAILY.
We are called to be crucified to self (to be dead to self) and to be dead to this world's SYSTEM... ( i.e.....the economic, religious, judicial, political...SYSTEMS OF MAN).
Yes, Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins and has given us eternal life but that doesn't mean that we don't have anything to do on our part after receiving salvation... for our part is to be conformed into the image of Jesus....and how do we do this...??.....by reading the Scriptures and storing the Word up in our hearts, by walking as Jesus walked (for he constantly gave and gave and gave...always walked in obedience....and always walked in love).
Bottom line....the CROSS is what will bring your SELF LIFE to naught. King Reason is the mastermind of the self life and will always reject any counsel to DIE TO SELF.....so instead of listening to reason listen instead to the mind of Christ ....and I can testify to the truth that His voice at times can be VERY UNREASONABLE....smile.
http://jacksonholechrist.blogspot.com/
Jesus is the saviour of the WHOLE WORLD, "As in Adam all die, so too in Christ ALL shall be made alive." (ICor.15:22) All means all. The pagan 'hell' of literal fire & eternal torment is a lie and is SPIRITUAL TERRORISM. http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/blog
sacrifice...penalty
Sacrifice and paying a penalty are terms used by people that don't really believe in God. Jesus stated that they cannot kill the son of man. Jesus knew who he was. To Jesus, eternal life was not some theory to be argued but indeed fact.
If you are a Christian and you believe Jesus to be the son of God and you believe Jesus sits on the throne in the kingdom, then....what sacrifice? What penalty?
Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio
The first penalty ever given
was DEATH....
This was given to Adam after disobeying the instructions of Yahweh.
Jesus Christ came as the second Adam and was the substitution for man's sin and paid the penalty so that ALL men might be saved from death and be given eternal life.
Just as in Adam ALL died, so too in Christ ALL shall be made alive.. (I cor15:22)
Jesus himself said that anyone that wanted to follow Him must ALSO pick up their crosses....meaning they must die to the old adamic nature.
Most in Christendom very rarely hear a message anymore about THE CROSS...about dying daily.....for it is a progressive unfolding of Christ's resurrected life that comes forth as we die daily until we are conformed into His image....FULL REDEMPTION....body, soul, and spirit.
Jesus is the saviour of the WHOLE WORLD, "As in Adam all die, so too in Christ ALL shall be made alive." (ICor.15:22) All means all. The pagan 'hell' of literal fire & eternal torment is a lie and is SPIRITUAL TERRORISM. http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/blog
Personally, I hate religion.
Personally, I hate religion. It gets things wrong, then rams them down your throat. Please know one thing. People have an INDIVIDUAL relationship to God. IF they love God, then He will NOT allow them to be "taken over" by any form of "devil". If something does not "feel right" to you, then it is NOT. There is a greater Truth than dogma and concepts. Each of us is filled with The Life Force. It is within us and part of us. It is part of your own experience, and you know it, as you have felt it. It does not come from a church. It comes from inside iof you. That is what you truly must have faith in.
You need to read some Anne Rand ...
I, too, am a devout Catholic ...
I have chosen this on faith ...
The key is that you need to separate ethics and faith ...
Ethics are innate and are based on self preservation ...
The supernatural cannot be proven and precedes ethics and humanity ...
It comes down to two separate choices ...
You can choose to have faith or not.
This is completely separate from choosing to exist, to have a conscience, to seek knowledge, to self preserve, and to benefit humanity by making choices based on self preservation. Afterall, you cannot help others if you are not in a position to help. (If you help others at the detrement to you and your family, you will reduce your ability to help in the future and you are causing your family to suffer, not a smart choice, and I would argue, not a choice that God wants you to make. Of course you must consider the pay it forward concept and the potential for a net gain for everyone sometime in the future.)
Also ...
You as an individual have chosen to be Catholic or at least chosen to continue to be Catholic.
You as an individual can choose your collective or choose no collective.
Worry about yourself and let others do the same. In the end you will end up helping others if your first action is to seek knowledge.
As for me ...
I need the Sacraments and the rituals to help me accumulate as much knowledge as possible and as quickly as possible.
It brings me a balance in life ...
A wonderful family life ...
A wonderful wife ...
A perspective that attracts friends ...
It allows me to focus very directly on gaining knowledge ...
Of course there is the spiritual aspect that I also consider profound, but I will reserve that for those that want to listen to that.
Salvation is completely faithbased and cannot be proven.
Being "Good" may or may not lead to salvation (Of course I have "faith" that it does), but I do know ...
that being "Good" (acting out of self preservation after being comfortable that you have gained sufficient knowledge about a choice) will make you human and as a result will further the cause of humanity.
I will try to clarify if something is unclear. Let me know.
Here is some irony:
An agnostic such as Anne Rand has furthered my faith in the church.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
"You can choose to have
"You can choose to have faith or not."
I object.
LOL ...
On what grounds?
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Faith or belief is a state
Faith or belief is a state of mind.
You cannot choose to believe in leprechauns for example, you either do or don't.
If you do in fact choose it isn't faith anymore, it's adopting a lifestyle/worldview you feel comfortable with and project faith on it and label it falsely as such.
A similar choice-based faith is adopted by those who go with Pascal's wager. Which is the illusion that choosing to believe in god is a better bet than not too, since there is nothing to lose in believing etc etc. It's nothing but covering one's ass for the possibility of an eternal heaven/hell after death and not faith at all.
Things like that.
Respectfully and without any intent of attack ...
I disagree ...
Try reading my post again ...
I am not covering my ass ...
I have found faith, initially, provides me the mechanism to maximize growth in knowledge which is the sole foundation for acting ethically.
I do have seredipitous, spiritual benefits from my Catholic faith, but these benefits are not a requirement for my continued faith.
Another thing ...
Faith and belief are somewhat different. I believe that 2 + 2 = 4 but there is no faith required in that. Conversely, I have faith in the trinity, but I also believe that there is a possibility that such a spiritual thought my in fact be false. In fact, the stronger the doubts in my belief system requires stonger faith.
Another ironic twist to the dicotomy between the provable and the unprovable.
I will say ...
I enjoyed your comments, they stimulated my thoughts.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Just to be clear, I wasn't
Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that you personally don't have faith or only minimal faith and that you are covering your ass. It's more or attempt at creating awareness of either your terminology or view on choice vs faith.
"Faith and belief are somewhat different. I believe that 2 + 2 = 4 but there is no faith required in that."
Using believe in a context like that isn't very accurate to start with though. Rather you accept that 2 + 2 = 4 instead of believe, it's a bit semantic but nonetheless important in such things.
"In fact, the stronger the doubts in my belief system requires stonger faith."
Well yes, but you make it sound like that's a good thing. That is to say, when the doubt grows stronger you just close your eyes more to it and all is well again. While in every other aspect of life the less good reasons to 'believe' something the less likely you should believe it and the sillier you are to do believe it.
I suppose I have a hard time compartmentalize my mind into building a wall around something that doesn't require the same scrutiny and evidence as all other things do. A response like "that's why it's called faith" is obviously hardly satisfactory.
Well ...
You made yourself very much understood. And don't get me wrong ...
Faith is a struggle that requires prayer, meditation, patience, and further knowledge.
Having said that ...
I do not and did not build a wall around my faith, and I question it on a daily basis. Of course there is irony in this.
I invite scrutiny and grow accordingly. In fact sometimes I grow away from my faith and at other times my faith grows stronger.
Of course this venue is more suitable to discuss truth and freedom as opposed to faith so that is why I probably will not discuss it here, but there is an enormous amount of truth to be found by giving areas of your life to faith.
Let me just say that my faith is limited to the unprovable. Everything else, for me, is scrutinized quite vigorously and in fact, sometimes, I pray for uncertainty.
Also ...
Maybe somewhat quite uniquely, I prefer to read and listen to the opposition. I enjoy the uniqueness of the input. Something I may never have been exposed to before. I rarely research and listen to proponents of my view. I figure, if I personally can not figure out my view, then I deserve no help.
In conclusion ...
Religion does not give me answers. It provides a means for me to seek answers. It gives me a foundation. It gives me moderation. It gives me comfort. It gives me soundness. All these things that it gives me, allow me to concentrate more accutely on questions, answers, and information, so that I can become aware of things that I may not become aware of otherwise. It is not an ends, but a means to an ends. That ends being ...
An existing human. One that acts purely and selfishly and acts correctly and as a result such an action benefits society and humanity and allows me to make exponentially more decisions in the future that will do the same. The same being an action that not only maximizes benefits for me long term and short term, but one that maximizes benefits for my family, friends, and society at large. Ironically, they are one in the same.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
I can only support your
I can only support your questioning as well as your reading and listen to the opposition, I do the same myself.
I can also have relatively little issue with someone who limits their faith to the unprovable and just gets comfort from it, though I think we agree on that this is rather rare and that the majority of people with faith are hardly as "innocent" or intellectually objective.
I will agree with you on all of that ...
And with that I will pray for you tonight even if you think it will do you no good. At least we agree that it will do you no harm.
Having said that ...
I do not "just" receive "comfort" from my faith, but grace as well.
But, of course, that will not be discussed here and is quite unimportant with respect to freedom and objectivism.
As I have stated above ...
Ethics are innate and a choice ... Faith is a choice only. While, if it exists, the supernatural precedes ethics, faith is not required as a foundation to act ethically.
God Bless and good luck on your journey.
Set some goals and go out and achieve those goals. Do not take that as a command, but a request.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
"And with that I will pray
"And with that I will pray for you tonight even if you think it will do you no good. At least we agree that it will do you no harm."
I'd like to do a bit more of the consciousness raising in respect to this.
Let me start by saying that I'm not offended or trying to offend you.
However, some people will be offended when you tell them you will pray for them for a number of reasons.
You are basically saying you have a connection to god, that this god will listen to you and act on it.
You also assume that this same god needs to be informed of something by you.
And lastly you also assume that the person you tell this to somehow needs prayer or help and you will act on this persons behalf which can be seen as condescending.
"Set some goals and go out and achieve those goals. Do not take that as a command, but a request."
I'm afraid the majority of my goals are those continuous ones with no real end, but appreciate it anyway.
No offense taken ...
I will say this ....
I cannot control what people think. I generallly try to not say anything at all if I have nothing nice to add. I generally tend to choose words that bring clarity or comfort. But I never just not say something that may cause pain or offense. People can choose to be offended and then they can choose to walk away from me and never speak to me again. They can also choose to tell me that they are offended and request that I do not say it any more.
I have a choice as well. I could not notify someone that I will pray for them. Of course I pray... and I pray about everything... and sometimes nothing. Sometimes it is simply a daily brainstorm of events. Some may call it meditation and others may call it other things. Of course mine is offered to God. Prayer is similar to a sacrement. Prayer is not necessary for God to become aware of something. It is an outward sign of his inward grace. Just like Baptism, Of course a man does not need to be physically baptized for God to consider him baptized, but again, as humans we tend to be able to better recognize things in these terms. Through these rituals, as I stated above, I am able to focus more on earthly matters. Things that are provable. Some meditate .... Some do matial arts... I do church. Of course, there are spiritual benefits, but, again, this is not the place for that.
By the way ...
I haven't had anyone yet, in my lifetime, tell me they were offended by that statement. Doesn't mean they weren't, but if they were they did not share it with me.
I forgot to add ...
We all need prayer. Afterall we are all human or at least have the ability to choose to be human.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
can you be comfortable in the "unknown?"
I have found a VERY simple concept that helps me deal with this type of internal dilemma. (I keep finding my Native American teachers gave me much more useful in formation than my Christian ones.)
All of it, the Bible, Christ, Liberty, your rights / responsibilities... sort everything into the appropriate category:
Known
Unknown
Uknowable
Known items are easy enough to identify, I KNOW I am sitting on a couch with a computer on my lap, wearing blue jammies.
Unknown items are things you can guess at, infer, and later confirm or refute, but in the present you can not. What I will be wearing after my shower is an unknown. (I PLAN to put on a sweatshirt and jeans. But what if I get in there and discover my sweatshirt is dirty...)
Unknowable is where people get really screwed up... If I drop dead sitting here, what I would have worn after my shower is forever unknowable. The possibilities can be narrowed down - people can go through my clothes and say "That is a summer shirt, that no longer fit her," etc. But there is no way to KNOW, ever.
So, a quick run down of your issues: Did Christ exist? That belongs in the "unknowable" pile. Did religion fall into the wrong hands? There is a question you can research and move from the "unknown" to the "known" pile, although you must be content to answer this question only for yourself. You cannot move items from one pile to another for other people...
The biggie: What comes after death? Unknowable. The churches have played on this unknowable for centuries, and use the most vile fear-mongering I have ever witnessed to keep people obedient to their rather random laws. (Eternal damnation from your "loving" Father-god...)
May I suggest you BELIEVE Jesus lived because you have been carefully taught to believe that? Do your own research, and use an open mind. Do NOT go out to "prove" one way or the other, go out seeking answers.
One last tidbit: Rejoice in whatever answers you may find. Truth WILL set you free; "free" means "no shackles" but "no safety net" too.
Best to you on this remarkable journey. Those who ask questions are the wise ones!
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
.
.
Nihilistic...
Christianity/Catholicism are nihilistic belief systems. The practices that they require during life are self destructive and detrimental to society, and it boils down to a death worship. (Look up the word sacrifice. Sacrifice=damage/destruction/forfeit and start thinking of these words when the term sacrifice is used. They have given the word sacrifice a "holy" sound, but it doesn't change it's meaning.).
That which hurts me, hurts those around me, which in turn hurts society.
If you take the teaching of self-sacrifice to it's natural conclusion, you would simply have exchanged your good place in life with the bad place of the person you are helping with no guarantee that they will do more with it than you.
Helping others, as an individual or as a community is noble act and a good thing, but not if it takes away from you (e.g. self-sacrifice) in the process.
If I know that I can turn $100 into $1000. Would I not be better off growing the $100 into $1000 so that I may give $200 to those in need? But the teachings of self-sacrifice, require you to give up the $100 without regard to it's use or outcome.
If you want to help settle some of these questions, it may be beneficial to read Nietzsche, especially, "The Antichrist" It has a provocative title, but the title is referring to his argument with Christianity and the dangers of it.
Here is a Lew Rockwell podcast discussing Catholicism with someone who had analyzed the economic policies of the Church. (Btw, for those who don't know, Lew is Christian, FWIW.)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-1...
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
God Given rights
This is why I can't call myself a capital L libertarian. I come to a lot of the same conclusions, but i believe we start at two different places. I start with God, then he bestows on us inalienable rights. To me, if you start there the libertarian starts, you can't prove rights.
I do disagree with the Catholic Church however because the economics of the RC church is socialistic. The Pope has gone so far as to say that countries are obligated to tax the rich and give to the poor. (In not so many words.)
Good Questions
The essence of your question is free will vs. force. The priest was only speaking "collectively" if he was using the statist term, "must." That implies an outside authority that is compelling you to act contrary to your own self-interest. One "should" help the poor only after first taking care of yourself and then only as you choose to give. Charity cannot be forced. If it is, then it is not charity but "forced giving" which is an oxymoron.
You can easily recognize statist poiticians by their frequent use of the word "must" (which involves force) instead of a free society where the word "should" implies a higher moral calling and never uses force to accomplish it's goals. The difference between "should" and "must" is huge!
Read almost any Ayn Rand and it will become apparent that being a staunch individualist and voluntarily "giving" works of great value to others is totally compatible. In fact it is the only way that true gifts are given to mankind, from the lowliest scrap of bread to the loftiest works of art, science and literature. Mr. DiVinci did what he did for himself, but his works were also a great gift to the world.
Yes there are several varieties of great moral teachings in existence. To each his own and they are there for us to voluntarily choose...or not. Amazingly, they all have very similar, common ground. Treat others as you would be treated. Help those in need, etc.
How do we know freedom is "right."? Well we don't, but take a brief tour of world history and we see a recurrent theme of great works being done in times of peace and freedom. Free trade, free people, and free thinking have produced great advances in all things.
Finally, one of the key reasons Americans assert that we are "born" with our freedoms, is to prevent gov't from asserting that they have "granted" certain freedoms. If to misguidedly believe that our freedoms come from gov't....they can also be taken by that gov't.
Keep asking good questions and you'll keep getting good answers. Enjoy the journey!
"..shall not be infringed."
"..shall not be infringed."
Morals and reason, science and religion
I don't believe in God, so the church stuff goes right over my head. But there is an excellent book which gives and introduction to the biological and psychological underpinnings for what many of us would call morals.
Steven Pinker - The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature
HIGHLY recommended. It doesn't say much (if anything) about God or religion, but if you want to start to form an objective basis for moral thought, this book will help you state your principles in a way that they can be either reinforced or refuted by actual evidence.
Also, in the back of the book, there is a list of traits and properties of human beings that demographers have determined are universal to the entire human race: independent of time or culture.
My Shelfari page