This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
"Love one another as I have loved you" is all well and good as an ideal, but it's hardly practical.When people call God's decisions impractical, I'm reminded of the Isrealites who demanded a king, for practicality reasons. So, they got a king that they wanted, Saul. Really, Jesus was supposed to be the only king, but that was way to impractical, so we have it our way, the human way, the practical way. We add on our own things, stipulations, rules, etc. We fit in our own opinions and wills. In the end, it really doesn't work out in our favor.
You're equivocating with my use of practical (concerned with everyday/particular matters). I'm not sure what you're taking practical to mean, but the way I'm using it does not involve opinion or will.
The original meaning was that you would end up being tossed in a garbage heap at Gehenna, not what it became to symbolize- hell. Garbage=/= eternity playing pool with the Devil scratching all the time.
Again I ask you, are you talking about the early Jewish concept of Gahenna? Because if so, you're a bit off. If not, where is this "original" coming from? Also neither does hell = eternity playing pool with the Devil scratching all the time.
Secondly, that was what is called metaphor. It was an attempt for a person to wrap their minds around something that you cannot normally imagine. So picking it apart and saying there wouldn't be days does nothing to back up your points, it is just shoddy nit picking.
I showed that your metaphor did not work and I provided a different one to replace it. How is that "shoddy nit picking?" If you're going to discuss the Catholic teaching of eternity, you have to understand it first.
Hell is not a matter of free will, no one wants to go there. I am sorry, anyone that would want to go to a place as defined by the Catholic is insane and cannot make decisions on their own. You can argue, but they turned away from God therefore they cannot be in his presence. No, it is not an if then kind of thing. If you do not believe in God, then you go to Hell is a horrible thing to believe in. So anyone that spent their lives living selflessly should be thrown in Hell because their actions were not good enough to justify not being a Catholic?
First of all, hell is not a place; it's a state. Thus there is no fire, no devils poking sticks at you, etc. That's all (as MyTie put it) a metaphor. Put all your preconceived notions aside -- hell is a state of eternal rejection of God. God created us, he's not going to do the separating; it's human free will that does it.
Now
I'm going to say this once:
CATHOLICISM DOES NOT TEACH THAT YOU HAVE TO BE A CATHOLIC TO GO TO HEAVEN.
Of course someone will go to heaven of they lived a selfless life. The Church has never said that you go to hell if you don't believe in God. You go to hell if you reject God, yes--because that's the very definition of hell.
Finally the bit on the Native Americans, forgetting your mission practices and ways of conversation your argument makes no sense. What are you basing this off of, how do you know you can hunt in Heaven? Where on Earth does God say anything about Heaven being like this? So you can hunt animals in Heaven, even though there is no way for them to get there? Does that make any sense to you? Simply saying, the joy you felt from hunting would be in Heaven will be there when you are in Heaven does no work. The joy from hunting comes from spending hours waiting, following and then killing the animal. The joy comes from the kill and the spoils afterwards, its based purely off an action. The joy you are referring to is more of nostalgic kind.
If God is truly the fullness of being and goodness then
every good can be found in him.
By denying this, you're denying God's infinite goodness.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
This angered me to no end. Who are you to say that you know God's intentions?
God's intention is for us to share eternal life with him. Who are you to not know that?
Who are you to know what God wants on Earth? How can you ever justify what you think God would say if he talked to us about cloning?
Either cloning is good or it's bad. You must believe in a fairly spiteful God, if you believe he'd leave you to fend for yourself in maters of morality. How can I justify it? Because
MY
God cares about his people enough to provide us a means of guidance.
You cannot say, God's Word is living, his word is not living, the Catholic Church's DOGMA is. There is a huge difference between the two. One is a human institution and the other is set up by something that cannot do anything wrong or evil.
Did you just say God's Word is not living? I think the big guy might have a few problems with that.
And no, the Church is not a human institution. It was established by Christ and is continually watch over by him and the Holy Spirit. The people within the Church are merely instruments.
I do not care if you argue that the Pope is infallible and that the Magisterium can do no wrong. The reason for this is simple logic- why does tossing a robe make your thoughts on only certain subjects correct?
The robe is not the cause of the correctness, the Holy Spirit is.
How does getting into with other like minded Western conservative white men make you correct, because those men said that they are right?
What? You calling us racist?
See how people looking in from the outside think you are following the pied piper?
If you see the Pied Piper for who he really is (God), then yes, that's quite a good analogy.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Of course someone will go to heaven of they lived a selfless life. The Church has never said that you go to hell if you don't believe in God. You go to hell if you reject God, yes--because that's the very definition of hell.
I'd love to see your documentation for that one.
Wait you want documentation about something the Church
hasn't
said?
I think whoever claims that the Church does say it should be the one showing where they say it, dontcha think?
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I did and I backed it up,
Ball's in your court now.
I don't see a single Church document quoted.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Of course someone will go to heaven of they lived a selfless life.
Guess I should be more specific ...
So, really?
Yup, as long as they lived for the good and are repentant of any evil they might have done.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why would the Word of God need to evolve over time and get better- shouldn't what God believes in stay the same over time- why would he change or update his rules over time?
It doesn't change over time...
we do
.
Post by
Sandos
In before molestation joke.
Between 1950 and 2002, 4392 priests have been accused of sexual molestation or an average of 84 priest molesters accused every year. Of these only 252 have been convicted (However, this number doesn't take into account that a lot of the priests died before they could be tried).
Now compare that to the national numbers.
~80,000 reports every year (which makes priests 0.1%)
Unfortunately, I can't find any numbers on how many are convicted each year, so I can't compare that number.
TL;DR: Priests aren't the problem.
It's not about the percentage. It just clearly shows how deceiving religion is.
Priests are supposedly so dedicated to their religion and so dedicated to limiting others in living their life that they are meant to do anything that is said in the bible. If a person who is meant to be a 'prime example' of a good person commits such foul acts, this really shows how far religion has went into the meaningless regulation of your life. I mean, c'mon, a priest needs to express his sexual needs so badly (like everybody needs to) that he decides to abuse his misplaced trust on a kid...
Religion is a tool used in the feudal age to make sure the rich people got even richer, and the poor people wouldn't start a riot. Now we live in a situation where almost anybody can read and think for him or herself, yet we still believe in this tool of mind control.
That
is what puzzles me. And it angers me too. Why? Because the money that I earn is spent on religion as well. In which I don't even believe.
If you feel more confident by praying each day, fine! If you feel more happy by believing in God, fine! But the prejudice and general sheep behaviour that comes with it, which disables any social development (especially here in the Netherlands -
Pillarisation
) boggles my mind. The biggest political party in our country is a religious party, and even though the church and state are separated, they are still trying to stop anything that conflicts with Christianity. As an example, they want to prevent shops being opened on sundays more often. Do they have any tangible arguments for it? No, but they are the reigning party, thus it happens.
Really, it is time for religion to move onto a modern form.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In before molestation joke.
Between 1950 and 2002, 4392 priests have been accused of sexual molestation or an average of 84 priest molesters accused every year. Of these only 252 have been convicted (However, this number doesn't take into account that a lot of the priests died before they could be tried).
Now compare that to the national numbers.
~80,000 reports every year (which makes priests 0.1%)
Unfortunately, I can't find any numbers on how many are convicted each year, so I can't compare that number.
TL;DR: Priests aren't the problem.
It's not about the percentage. It just clearly shows how deceiving religion is.
Priests are supposedly so dedicated to their religion and so dedicated to limiting others in living their life that they are meant to do anything that is said in the bible. If a person who is meant to be a 'prime example' of a good person commits such foul acts, this really shows how far religion has went into the meaningless regulation of your life. I mean, c'mon, a priest needs to express his sexual needs so badly (like everybody needs to) that he decides to abuse his misplaced trust on a kid...
Religion is a tool used in the feudal age to make sure the rich people got even richer, and the poor people wouldn't start a riot. Now we live in a situation where almost anybody can read and think for him or herself, yet we still believe in this tool of mind control.
That
is what puzzles me. And it angers me too. Why? Because the money that I earn is spent on religion as well. In which I don't even believe.
If you feel more confident by praying each day, fine! If you feel more happy by believing in God, fine! But the prejudice and general sheep behaviour that comes with it, which disables any social development (especially here in the Netherlands -
Pillarisation
) boggles my mind. The biggest political party in our country is a religious party, and even though the church and state are separated, they are still trying to stop anything that conflicts with Christianity. As an example, they want to prevent shops being opened on sundays more often. Do they have any tangible arguments for it? No, but they are the reigning party, thus it happens.
Really, it is time for religion to move onto a modern form.
A man murders another man, does that necessarily mean that it is in our nature to murder? No.
Does the religion teach that molesting children is right? No. So does that mean that that particular priest is acting outside the bound of Catholicism? Yes.
All men are sinful.
Priests are men.
Therefore Priests are sinful.
No one claims nor has claimed that priests are angels. Many of the Popes in the last 1000 years had illegitimate children. Does that mean there is a problem in the religion? No. Does that mean there was a problem in the person? Yes.
What if I started listing off atheists who have molested children? Does that mean atheism is wrong too?
I find it hilarious that you're equating capitalism with religion by using the "richer get richer" argument.
Post by
TheMediator
Many of the Popes in the last 1000 years had illegitimate children.
I thought the Holy Spirit protected the Pope from wrong.
Post by
Sandos
A man murders another man, does that necessarily mean that it is in our nature to murder? No.
Does the religion teach that molesting children is right? No. So does that mean that that particular priest is acting outside the bound of Catholicism? Yes.
Religion tends act like they have a monopoly on knowledge. The people that tell you what is wrong and what is right are actually very wrong themselves.
All men are sinful.
Priests are men.
Therefore Priests are sinful.
Yeah, about that... Sin is - as I pointed out before - nothing more than a human invention intended to keep the lesser educated at bay in the middle ages. Still, you're saying "Hey, the bible says it's wrong, but everybody sins, so he can't help it!"
He indoctrinates people with false ideas and acts as a saint (heh). That is *wrong*.
No one claims nor has claimed that priests are angels. Many of the Popes in the last 1000 years had illegitimate children. Does that mean there is a problem in the religion? No. Does that mean there was a problem in the person? Yes.
You see, if there is a problem in a person (alas, having children is not a problem in my eyes, but let's keep that aside) who has such a major role in a religion, it's not wrong to state that there is something wrong with the religion too. You know why? Because obviously that person is taking advantage of his followers as he is doing exactly what he preaches against. He maintains a lie while living the sweet life.
What if I started listing off atheists who have molested children? Does that mean atheism is wrong too?
First of all, I never said religion is wrong. I think
forcing religion on to others
is wrong. Still, in atheism there are no priests who have the trust of many people by letting them live to a 2000-year-old tale and abuse that trust by doing the exact opposite of what they are saying. Theoretically speaking, an atheist's perception of child molesting can be that it is okay. The thing is, atheism allows you to have your own perception of practically anything. This allows for the most objective possible way of e.g. law enforcement, as everybody can express their view on the subject. Therefor it is really difficult to actually bind common perceptions to atheism. Is atheism wrong when an atheist molests a child? No. No atheist leader tells you it's wrong to do so. Is religion wrong when a priest molests a child? Yes. The one person that tells you it's wrong to do so does so.
I find it hilarious that you're equating capitalism with religion by using the "richer get richer" argument.
I find it hilarious that you think there was a capitalistic system in the feudal age.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Many of the Popes in the last 1000 years had illegitimate children.
I thought the Holy Spirit protected the Pope from wrong.
I thought you were paying attention when I explained it the
first
time.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A man murders another man, does that necessarily mean that it is in our nature to murder? No.
Does the religion teach that molesting children is right? No. So does that mean that that particular priest is acting outside the bound of Catholicism? Yes.
Religion tends act like they have a monopoly on knowledge. The people that tell you what is wrong and what is right are actually very wrong themselves.
Well, you just made yourself into "one of those people" by telling me that it is wrong to say what's right and wrong. If you're going to be subjective about it, you have to go all the way, and admit that subjectivity can't be objective.
All men are sinful.
Priests are men.
Therefore Priests are sinful.
Yeah, about that... Sin is - as I pointed out before - nothing more than a human invention intended to keep the lesser educated at bay in the middle ages. Still, you're saying "Hey, the bible says it's wrong, but everybody sins, so he can't help it!"
He indoctrinates people with false ideas and acts as a saint (heh). That is *wrong*.
You just told me something is wrong again...you're no different than the people you're arguing against. If you really believe that I (or the Church) can't tell you what's right and wrong, then who are you to tell me what's wrong?
You see, if there is a problem in a person (alas, having children is not a problem in my eyes, but let's keep that aside) who has such a major role in a religion, it's not wrong to state that there is something wrong with the religion too. You know why? Because obviously that person is taking advantage of his followers as he is doing exactly what he preaches against. He maintains a lie while living the sweet life.
So if a policeman breaks a law it's a problem with the law, not the policeman?
First of all, I never said religion is wrong. I think
forcing religion on to others
is wrong.
I've already stated at least once in this thread that religion cannot be forced onto someone. Believing something is an act of the will and only you have control over that.
I find it hilarious that you're equating capitalism with religion by using the "richer get richer" argument.
I find it hilarious that you think there was a capitalistic system in the feudal age.
I never said there was. I was pointing out that you're using the same argument used against capitalism against religion.
Post by
TheMediator
Sandros has a point - priests molesting children ruining the image of the Christian church makes sense because the church shouldn't be accepting child molesters. However, you can't say that "atheism" is to blame for atheist child molesters, because there is no organization that has accepted them that is "the atheist organization". Maybe if there was an atheist organization that was accepting child molesters, building their reputation in the community, and then shattering that trust, you might have a point that one specific atheist organization is flawed, but that isn't the way atheism works - its not a community, its just a way of classifying people who don't believe in God. There's a link between members of the Christian church and the church itself, however there is no relationship between individual atheists. Trying to establish a link between them would be like saying that if an Asian commits murder, you believe that being Asian is a cause of being a murder. Are you racist Hyperspacerebel?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Sandros has a point - priests molesting children ruining the image of the Christian church makes sense because the church shouldn't be accepting child molesters.
Correct it ruins the
image
, ie how people perceive it. It has no effect on the substance of the Church though.
However, you can't say that "atheism" is to blame for atheist child molesters, because there is no organization that has accepted them that is "the atheist organization". Maybe if there was an atheist organization that was accepting child molesters, building their reputation in the community, and then shattering that trust, you might have a point that one specific atheist organization is flawed, but that isn't the way atheism works - its not a community, its just a way of classifying people who don't believe in God.
I agree with you. But the same holds true for the Church. If you actually think the Church ordains people they know to be child molesters, you're sadly mistaken.
There's a link between members of the Christian church and the church itself, however there is no relationship between individual atheists.
There is a link, but it's a hierarchical link downwards.
Trying to establish a link between them would be like saying that if an Asian commits murder, you believe that being Asian is a cause of being a murder.
Atheism is a choice, race is not. Check your own analogies before attacking others'.
Are you racist Hyperspacerebel?
No,
you are
.
Post by
TheMediator
Many of the Popes in the last 1000 years had illegitimate children.
I thought the Holy Spirit protected the Pope from wrong.
I thought you were paying attention when I explained it the
first
time.
So having illegitimate children isn't a "wrong" moral?
No, you are.
It takes one to know one. I know deep down you're racist just like me, so I don't see why you feel the need to deny it.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.