The times a changing?

[obfuscator]

 

It's hard for people to see - but when you beleive in something like religion, apostolate, or missionary work (forcing down people's throats) is part in parcel with belief.

 

I'll use an example. Let's say you found out that tomorrow a virus would hit the world that would anihilate the entire population in hours. The only way to protect against this virus is to drink a litre of ketchup the day before. You know this for certain fact.

 

Sounds ridiculous, right? To many, it is ridiculous.

 

But I ask you this. What would you do? Would you drink your litre of ketchup and be the last man alive on earth? Or would you try to get the word out, to tell people..because you feel you have a duty to humanity to save them from something that could be avoided? Is it a desire to force people to be like you? Or is it an overwhelming urge to do something good for your fellow man based on your beleifs?

 

The failure to recognize the motivation behind religion is one of the biggest failures of contemporary liberal society. Add that in with a tendency to hold the church to far higher standards than any other organization while simultanously discrediting them as an organization better than any other leads to ever increasing slandering of the church's motives.

 

And what is the force that religion is saving non followers from?

 

 

Religion has always been about good vs. evil - heaven vs. hell, etc. I don't know what else it could possibly be about....

 

A system of beliefs a way of life a culture perhaps?

 

Its not good versus evil as in the past millennium christianity has caused a LOT of evil, between crusades, witch hunts, holy wars, inquisitions, oppressive laws, etc.

 

Heres my personal thoughts, I personally read the bible I read it the same way I would read The Odyssey or other mythologies from ancient cultures, while the history of the text may have some merit, the deities interacting with the world are part of ancient cultures views of the world. You are writing this to me as if the bible is not fictional. Something that always troubled me as a little kid who was raised in a christian family, I wondered where did God go, In the bible he was responsible for every little deed and suddenly now earthquakes are no longer his will they are natural disasters. On a related note I dont deny that a man named Moses existed and lead the Jews out of egypt however I dont believe he split the Red Sea (Oh btw it was the Reed Sea in the hebrew bible which is a completely different river, and the jews in egypt were identified by the word worker not slave making the whole exodus story out context but this is beside the point).

 

Wow. Way to go completely off topic. I have no idea what you're trying to say at all.

[Jaffy1]

 

]Well both people that replied to my question said that the church resembles a government rather then a religion.

 

Is this a corner case that aims to discredit the whole organization, or is this evidence that the whole organization is flawed?

 

 

To catholics, I still want to know where Jesus preached celibacy, hatred towards homosexuals, forcing righteousness on your neighbors, and birth control being wrong. If no quotes are provided for these I stand by my belief that the church is a tool used by people to force their morality on others.

 

 

Please educate yourself... or read the above posts that already answered this.

Also, I was never taught I was to hate homosexuals, force anything on anyone, or that I couldn't use birth control... I think you have the wrong religion there. :rolleyes:

 

There is a distinct difference between Bible, Pope, and religion in practice.

 

If you yourself admit this was not told by God yet the church does this then it is evil. Just looking at how [cabbage]ty the church treated their fellow man when they had absolute power is my evidence for that.

 

And I was trying to educate myself by asking the question. And yes but the problem with the religion is the morality it imposes on those who dont necessarily follow the religion. For example, it IS good to give a 10% tithe to the church so you OUGHT to do so. Homosexualility IS immoral so you OUGHT not be homosexual. Sex outside of marriage IS immoral so you OUGHT not have sex outside of a marriage.

 

The fundamental flaw with moralility is that it is generally forceful, to someone who agrees that something IS good, there is a force that makes them OUGHT to do it. This IS-OUGHT gap shows the flaw of morality in that it is generally forcing people who agree with the morals do follow them but it goes a step further. Morality tends to force itself on those who do not believe in those subjective morals, the prime example is the abortion issue. Prolifers are trying to put their morals over that of Prochoicers who simply say everyone deserves to choose their own morals.

 

It's been said, but could you please just read the replies instead of continue to randomly repeating the same questions?

 

 

Edit (added one of the points you appear to have missed):

There is a distinct difference between Bible, Pope, and religion in practice.

[obfuscator]

I get what you are saying completely I was just stating why I dont believe it. Major mistranslations, ancient mans view of the world - not relavent anymore just like The Odyssey wouldnt be as a religious text, and the oppressiveness religion has been since.

 

I understand you think all non religion is evil and are trying to bring your morals to save the non believers however I listed some of my legitimate concerns with that. I got what you said I just simply dont agree

Except you obviously didn't get it. I'm not claiming the bible is accurate by any means, I don't think all non-religion is evil. I'm merely explaining the mindset behind people with strong morals. (religious or otherwise)

 

In the same way, why do you bother trying to persuade the religious that they're following a lie?

[obfuscator]

I get what you are saying completely I was just stating why I dont believe it. Major mistranslations, ancient mans view of the world - not relavent anymore just like The Odyssey wouldnt be as a religious text, and the oppressiveness religion has been since.

 

I understand you think all non religion is evil and are trying to bring your morals to save the non believers however I listed some of my legitimate concerns with that. I got what you said I just simply dont agree

Except you obviously didn't get it. I'm not claiming the bible is accurate by any means, I don't think all non-religion is evil. I'm merely explaining the mindset behind people with strong morals. (religious or otherwise)

 

In the same way, why do you bother trying to persuade the religious that they're following a lie?

 

Fair enough that makes sense (haha sorry I can be very dense at times)

 

But why do I try and persuade people that religion is a lie? Partially in the same sense moralists try to spread their morals and partially to confirm my own beliefs, with any argument I join in I would back down if I was ever given a strong enough argument for why I am wrong [in fact if given irrefutable evidence I may even change my belief]

 

Precisely. You are set in your beliefs(admirable) and you will stop at nothing to perpetuate them; just as the religious do. You don't see it as forcing it down someone's throat, you see it as an attempt to enlighten. Yet, when it comes to religion, though the religious think the same way, they're accused of trying to force it down people's throats.

[Hamtaro]

First of all, I'm a Catholic who has been in Catholic school for almost 12 years (I'll try not to bore anyone with the "cheesy" details). If you think our theology classes are just "Jesus is good," you're wrong. Based on a study of the New Testament and Church History, we do NOT base our teachings solely on what Jesus said. Matthew 16:18 states "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." We use this as the basis for regarding Peter as our first Pope (considering he led the Church after Pentecost and whatnot). Because of this, we have a Church with a body of laws known as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On the issue of birth control/contraceptives relevant to this thread, it states: "The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)." It's referring here to Natural Family Planning with some statistic (that I don't know the truth of) that a woman is only fertile 4-5 days per month.

 

The Church only sees sex as a way to bring about new life, which is why it opposes same-sex marriage (but also teaches that they're just called to a life of chastity). In regards to the obvious trolls who have a hatred for religion in general that seem to enjoy mentioning priests' molesting of children, you do know we can never take you seriously, right? No lay (that is, one who is not a priest, deacon, bishop, cardinal, monk, nun, or the Pope) member of the Church has any condolences for priests who molest children. No one wants to defend them. Unfortunately for us, as mentioned earlier, there are Atheist trolls who, out of nothing but a simple hatred for religion, will make an ass out of their self by saying how the church supposedly supports molesting children or some bull[cabbage]. But then these same trolls try to cite something from HUNDREDS of years ago, that NO Catholic alive today either supports or was around when it occurred, that think we still support the Inquisition or the crusades. And following that, once again the same trolls think the Catholic church still denies evolution. WRONG. The Catholic Church believes that the scientists have it right about the big bang and evolution, except that we acknowledge that something set the universe in motion. And then the REALLY clever ones like to mention some sort of floating pasta bowl as proof that anything could have done that. While it's funny for 5 seconds, we believe that the roots of our religion, historically speaking, are much stronger than those of Mormons, Scientologists, Muslims, or Pastafarianists.

 

Finally, the science behind condoms' stopping STDs is inconclusive at best. While, yes, they prevent the majority of STDs, they won't stop HPV (as it's skin-to-skin contact). If teens (or anyone else) are going to have sex outside of marriage, I believe they should wear a condom. It certainly beats the alternative of not wearing one if they won't have a child anyway, but that's a different thread.

 

Tl;dr: Ignorance is bliss, right :thumbup: ?

 

Catholic Bible

Catechism of the Catholic Church (Index)

[obfuscator]

Your right its all a matter of how you look at it, I feel that I am different because I am telling this to people who I think are old enough to have formed their own opinions as well as defend them from my own, while religion begins being taught when you first learn to talk. Of course its all a matter of perception. If you feel I am forcing my opinions on you then I can certainly back down

What about athiest parents? Do you think they don't teach their kids?

[Furah]

Times aren't changing. It's just that the church slowly gives in to new social trends and scientific findings. It has been like this forever.

New social trends? Condom use has been commonplace for hundreds of years.

[fakeitormakeit2]

To catholics, I still want to know where Jesus preached celibacy, hatred towards homosexuals, forcing righteousness on your neighbors, and birth control being wrong. If no quotes are provided for these I stand by my belief that the church is a tool used by people to force their morality on others.

You're so ignorant. It is in Catholic teaching to be against the hatred of homosexuals, there is Jesus's statement on judgment of not forcing righteousness on your neighbor because we have our own imperfections (hence take the beam out of your eye before your neighbor]. Also, before you start criticizing Catholics perhaps you should learn that Catholic teachings are based upon Scripture and Tradition, not just Scripture [it is also believed that Scripture is written by man and may not necessarily be exactly what Jesus said, but it still holds authority as it is canonized and written under the "extended authorship"(i.e. from the same "school"/group) of apostles and disciples]. Science is incorporated in the understanding of the Church a lot more than they're given credit. Also I hate how every simpleton cites child molestation when I have never met one Catholic who supports it... And by the way, why the hell should anyone blame all 1.7billon Catholics for the secret actions of an extreme minority? Last and quite frankly I find your last sentence extremely offensive, as I have never tried to force my morality nor has the majority of Catholics I know. I don't care what you believe, as long as you're not running your mouth about how my Faith and I force feed our beliefs to other people.

 

I've expended all my last patience in those last couple of sentences because quite frankly this forum is starting to annoying me because of a few leftist atheists who stereotype religions and preach in the most pretentious self-righteous manner.

 

 

Edit: It's quite laughable how you included a "tithe" as your example of morality on the last page. Most Catholics don't even know what a tithe is. Even my near-fundamentalist Protestant friend's parish does not morally suggest a tithe, so I suggest you learn a little about Christian theology.

[Furah]

And by the way, why the hell should anyone blame all 1.7billon Catholics for the secret actions of an extreme minority?

The Catholic church has around 1B followers, not 1.7B. I don't recall anyone blaming the followers for the child molestation cases either. The problem is the church.

[fakeitormakeit2]

And by the way, why the hell should anyone blame all 1.7billon Catholics for the secret actions of an extreme minority?

The Catholic church has around 1B followers, not 1.7B. I don't recall anyone blaming the followers for the child molestation cases either. The problem is the church.

I was wrong, 1.2B. You've missed the point by scrutinizing numbers, 1.2B is still substantial and the molesters are still an extreme minority. And obviously you do not understand the concept of the catholic church if you separate the followers from the church, seeing as how the church IS [i specifically picked 'is' over 'consists of'] the followers.

[Furah]

And by the way, why the hell should anyone blame all 1.7billon Catholics for the secret actions of an extreme minority?

The Catholic church has around 1B followers, not 1.7B. I don't recall anyone blaming the followers for the child molestation cases either. The problem is the church.

I was wrong, 1.2B. You've missed the point by scrutinizing numbers, 1.2B is still substantial and the molesters are still an extreme minority. And obviously you do not understand the concept of the catholic church if you separate the followers from the church, seeing as how the church IS [i specifically picked 'is' over 'consists of'] the followers.

Still, 1.B is substantially closer to 1B than 1.7B. Sorry that I am not familiar with religious terminology. By church I was meaning those that work in the church like priests, bishops, cardinals and other such persons.

[obfuscator]

Your right its all a matter of how you look at it, I feel that I am different because I am telling this to people who I think are old enough to have formed their own opinions as well as defend them from my own, while religion begins being taught when you first learn to talk. Of course its all a matter of perception. If you feel I am forcing my opinions on you then I can certainly back down

What about athiest parents? Do you think they don't teach their kids?

 

Perhaps they do the same, in my experience atheist parents (strictly of people I know) did not offer spirituality in any sort of way, nor oppose it in anyway. Some kids of atheists have gone through all the major religions to search for which one fits them (in their case they nearly always go through many major religions instead of directly to one), while others choose to ignore it entirely.

 

While (again just in my own experience) the parents with a faith chose to teach their kids to follow that faith, and gave their kids a lot of crap for differing from their faith. Now I would be a fool to say its like this 100% of the time but in my own subjective experience this has been true.

Right, and I can say that your subjective experience is often wrong. I've never been forced to follow a specific faith - my parents raised me catholic but always stressed that religion is a choice in every way.

[meol]

To catholics, I still want to know where Jesus preached celibacy, hatred towards homosexuals, forcing righteousness on your neighbors, and birth control being wrong. If no quotes are provided for these I stand by my belief that the church is a tool used by people to force their morality on others.

You're so ignorant. It is in Catholic teaching to be against the hatred of homosexuals, there is Jesus's statement on judgment of not forcing righteousness on your neighbor because we have our own imperfections (hence take the beam out of your eye before your neighbor]....

Without really going into what Ring_World say, there is something that I want you to understand, from my own perspective at least. -And please correct me if I am wrong somewhere regarding your faith.

Hell, i.e. a complete separation from God, is the punishment for dying in mortal sin, and is irremediable, and sex between two homosexuals is a mortal sin, since it invariably is fornication, and is never used for procreation.

 

So your religion is condemning, as far as I understand it, two people who maybe just happened to love each other enough to have sex to the worst possible of all punishments, eternally and without a chance for redemption, just as it would condemn a serial killer.

 

That might sound as "hate" to some people - if you choose to believe that the most cruel and painful of punishments is really deserved.

 

Then, these teachings are often used as a base of legislation in a lot of countries, while the ethics behind it are not obvious to a lot of people, to say the least. And sadly, the whole argument can sometimes create actual hate or fuel some existing from others -who of course are no True Scotsmen Christians, since it's understandable (even if not supported by the Church itself) to hate someone who is intrinsically prone to commit evil acts. And that's without mentioning the feelings of guilt the teachings cause in some people who find themselves unable to change, with some kind of horrible curse bestowed on them.

 

That's the reason, IMO, why Catholics are often accused to "hate homosexuals".

 

And another reason why the Church -and other religions- are so often attacked (and more relevant to the thread) is because their ethics, unchangeable as they should be coming from God, seem to change a lot -you know about the whole historical examples, and condom use seems to be last case-. To quote Stephen Fry, "And what is the point of the Catholic Church if it says 'oh, well ,we couldn't know better because nobody else did'? Then what is it for?" If their moral attitudes change as the moral attitudes of the rest of society change, then who are they to claim more to hold moral truth (and other truths concerning life, the universe, and everything else, for that matter)?

[sees_all1]

Trying to be on topic - I think the secular media missed the point entirely.

 

This is not "Catholic Church says condoms are good." or even "can be good." I wouldn't even go so far to say that the Church is condoning condom use. The Catholic Church is very clear in its teachings of sexuality, and the idea that someone would completely ignore the whole "be chaste" thing on sex, while not use a condom because of Catholicism is ridiculous.

 

Thats the way the secular media portrays it though - Infected people are having promiscuous sex and not using condoms because of religion or ignorance. I don't see this as the Church changing its teaching either. Given an undesirable situation, people need to chose the lesser of two evils. First bit of advice from the Church is stay chaste - no sex before marriage, and stay married (monogamy after marriage). People ignore that, and given the situation that an infected person will have sex with a non-infected person, then yes, do everything you can to not infect them. They're already sinning, why make it worse?

 

 

EDIT:

So your religion is condemning, as far as I understand it, two people who maybe just happened to love each other enough to have sex to the worst possible of all punishments, eternally and without a chance for redemption, just as it would condemn a serial killer.

We're not condemning them, they're condemning themselves. Part of the requirement for a mortal sin is the person has to know its wrong, yet do it anyway. That means they know homosexuality is wrong, yet they still do it anyway.

 

We also believe that no one is beyond God's grace - if someone is truly sorry for what they did, God will forgive them. This could also include a change of heart at the time of death, but I wouldn't rely on that. That's why we're not supposed to condemn or punish someone for their sins - because that's a matter between them and God.

[obfuscator]

In fact, the church has held unpopular moral positions on many issues for quite some time. Abortion, gay marriage, contraception - none of these teachings have changed in time since they've been an issue, and they won't.

 

Of course some changes need to be made to keep the teaching relevant - as society changes, opportunities and situations arise that just were not there before, and the church needs to make a decision about the morality of such.

[meol]

We're not condemning them, they're condemning themselves. Part of the requirement for a mortal sin is the person has to know its wrong, yet do it anyway. That means they know homosexuality is wrong, yet they still do it anyway.

 

We also believe that no one is beyond God's grace - if someone is truly sorry for what they did, God will forgive them. This could also include a change of heart at the time of death, but I wouldn't rely on that. That's why we're not supposed to condemn or punish someone for their sins - because that's a matter between them and God.

First, I have an honest question. You say they need to know it's wrong for it to be a sin. So it's okay if it's not clear for them why it could harm somebody or otherwise be evil?

 

"They condemn themselves" sounds a lot like shifting the blame. But you are explaining it from your point of view -you are assuming we already know Christianity is right. To an outsider, it looks very differently: "We have decided this behaviour is immoral because it goes against our ethics. Now, let's see, what would an all-loving God give as a punishment for this? What would they deserve? Eternal damnation." Am I explaining myself?

 

And when I meant "without chance of redemption", I meant after death. Even after an eternity of suffering, God doesn't pardon offenders or lets them go on parole, as far as I understand your doctrine. There seems to be more mercy on the American justice system -there are even chances of rehabilitation!.

 

In fact, the church has held unpopular moral positions on many issues for quite some time. Abortion, gay marriage, contraception - none of these teachings have changed in time since they've been an issue, and they won't.

 

Of course some changes need to be made to keep the teaching relevant - as society changes, opportunities and situations arise that just were not there before, and the church needs to make a decision about the morality of such.

I hate to bring these topics back up, and maybe I'll sound like a broken record, so please forgive. But slavery and the the Inquisition, do they go in the first group of things that won't ever, ever change, no matter what, or were the stances changed "to keep teaching relevant", just because Emancipation hadn't been an issue in the 1700's, or Freedom of Speech in the Middle Ages?

 

The point is, either your morals are eternal, or they are not.

[obfuscator]

I hate to bring these topics back up, and maybe I'll sound like a broken record, so please forgive. But slavery and the the Inquisition, do they go in the first group of things that won't ever, ever change, no matter what, or were the stances changed "to keep teaching relevant", just because Emancipation hadn't been an issue in the 1700's, or Freedom of Speech in the Middle Ages?

 

The point is, either your morals are eternal, or they are not.

Actually, church doctrine is quite clear on how those situations should have been approached. It's a pity they were approached they way they were because obviously what happened isn't permissible or moral. Those incidents were a corruption and abuse of the moral power of the church, not the fruition of it.

 

I'll be the first to admit the church isn't perfect - it may come from God but as it's run by humans it's prone to mistakes.

 

Morals are eternal - but they may need to be implemented, expanded or applied to deal with certain situations. That's why the church's teachings on abortion are what they are - because murder has been immoral since the foundation of the church and before that.

[sees_all1]

First, I have an honest question. You say they need to know it's wrong for it to be a sin. So it's okay if it's not clear for them why it could harm somebody or otherwise be evil?

They need to know its wrong for it to be a mortal sin - there's a difference between mortal and venial. A venial sin is still a sin, but it doesn't separate you from God.

 

"They condemn themselves" sounds a lot like shifting the blame. But you are explaining it from your point of view -you are assuming we already know Christianity is right. To an outsider, it looks very differently: "We have decided this behaviour is immoral because it goes against our ethics. Now, let's see, what would an all-loving God give as a punishment for this? What would they deserve? Eternal damnation." Am I explaining myself?

I'll give you three distinct scenarios.

Consider:

Person A was raised as a Catholic. They were taught to go to church on Sunday, receive reconciliation, was baptized and confirmed. They learned the Church's doctrine, everything. At the age of 21, person A realizes that they're homosexual. Person A then rejects the Church's teachings, everything, and gets into an impure relationship. For the rest of their life, they ignore attempts at a change of heart, and become set in their ways. Assuming everything the Catholic Church teaches is correct, and person A dies without a change of heart - yes, they will probably be in hell. The torment of hell isn't punishment from God, its because God is completely absent from hell.

 

As Heaven and Hell have been explained to me - when you die, God is going to give you whatever you want. If what you want, what you're seeking isn't God, you'll find yourself without Him, and in hell.

 

 

Person B was raised by monkeys. They are completely human, except they had no contact with humanity. As a wild person, they have no concept of morality, and commit atrocious acts. Person B dies, and even though they committed atrocious acts, they lived as they were taught, and had no concept of sin. As far as I know, they'd end up in heaven.

 

Person C was raised in some other religion. They do everything correct, live to their doctrine's moral standards. As far as I know, they'd end up in heaven as well.

 

Every other non-Catholic pretty much falls between those three scenarios, with a mix of falling away from the church, never knowing the church, or never knowing morality.

If Adam and Eve had never known about the different trees in the Garden of Eden, how could they sin?

 

And when I meant "without chance of redemption", I meant after death. Even after an eternity of suffering, God doesn't pardon offenders or lets them go on parole, as far as I understand your doctrine. There seems to be more mercy on the American justice system -there are even chances of rehabilitation!.

For most people, when they die, they must go through purgatory. Purgatory is a purification process, making oneself ready for God. You can imagine God as an extremely bright light, and when you die you open your eyes to it. You can either acclimate yourself to the light, try opening your eyes a bit more and more (as painful as it might be), or you can shut your eyes tight. If you try opening your eyes, you'll find Heaven, if you shut your eyes you'll lose God and be in Hell.

[Furah]

We also believe that no one is beyond God's grace - if someone is truly sorry for what they did, God will forgive them. This could also include a change of heart at the time of death, but I wouldn't rely on that. That's why we're not supposed to condemn or punish someone for their sins - because that's a matter between them and God.

Ever heard of the unforgivable sin? It's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and I've committed it.

 

Person B was raised by monkeys. They are completely human, except they had no contact with humanity. As a wild person, they have no concept of morality, and commit atrocious acts. Person B dies, and even though they committed atrocious acts, they lived as they were taught, and had no concept of sin. As far as I know, they'd end up in heaven.

Jesus would like to disagree.

 

Jesus answered' date=' I am the way and the truth and the life. [b']No one[/b] comes to the Father except through me."

[sees_all1]

Person B was raised by monkeys. They are completely human, except they had no contact with humanity. As a wild person, they have no concept of morality, and commit atrocious acts. Person B dies, and even though they committed atrocious acts, they lived as they were taught, and had no concept of sin. As far as I know, they'd end up in heaven.

Jesus would like to disagree.

 

Jesus answered' date=' I am the way and the truth and the life. [b']No one[/b] comes to the Father except through me."

That's a silly point to disagree on, and a silly quote to use. Given that God is three persons in one being - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, its impossible to fully know God without knowing ALL of God. And its also to say that when you die, no one (on earth) knows what really happens. Are you saying that if this person died, it would be absolutely impossible for Jesus to introduce himself?

[Furah]

Person B was raised by monkeys. They are completely human, except they had no contact with humanity. As a wild person, they have no concept of morality, and commit atrocious acts. Person B dies, and even though they committed atrocious acts, they lived as they were taught, and had no concept of sin. As far as I know, they'd end up in heaven.

Jesus would like to disagree.

 

Jesus answered' date=' I am the way and the truth and the life. [b']No one[/b] comes to the Father except through me."

That's a silly point to disagree on, and a silly quote to use. Given that God is three persons in one being - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, its impossible to fully know God without knowing ALL of God. And its also to say that when you die, no one (on earth) knows what really happens. Are you saying that if this person died, it would be absolutely impossible for Jesus to introduce himself?

Jesus is God, yet he says that even he doesn't know when the world ends. If you were right, and those who hadn't ever heard of God go to heaven, then why tell them of him in the first place? By giving them a choice in rejecting him, aren't you potentially condemning them hell?

 

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

[sees_all1]

Person B was raised by monkeys. They are completely human, except they had no contact with humanity. As a wild person, they have no concept of morality, and commit atrocious acts. Person B dies, and even though they committed atrocious acts, they lived as they were taught, and had no concept of sin. As far as I know, they'd end up in heaven.

Jesus would like to disagree.

 

Jesus answered' date=' I am the way and the truth and the life. [b']No one[/b] comes to the Father except through me."

That's a silly point to disagree on, and a silly quote to use. Given that God is three persons in one being - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, its impossible to fully know God without knowing ALL of God. And its also to say that when you die, no one (on earth) knows what really happens. Are you saying that if this person died, it would be absolutely impossible for Jesus to introduce himself?

Jesus is God, yet he says that even he doesn't know when the world ends. If you were right, and those who hadn't ever heard of God go to heaven, then why tell them of him in the first place? By giving them a choice in rejecting him, aren't you potentially condemning them hell?

 

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

 

¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Sorry if this is a bit late, I've been busy.

 

The problem with what you say is if the church is a peaceful tolerant organization why does it have so much blood on its hands in its history? I have posted this argument elsewhere and people most commonly write off the actions of the church in the past as a hypocritical minority. However how is it that a minority can have so much power that they can commit such dastardly crimes in the name of God and not be opposed by the rest of the religion?

The previous faults of the Church were because the leaders essentially reflected the actions of the Pharisees. I.e., they followed to the very minimal of the letter of the law but committed to horrible actions. Many of the faithful Catholics, even to today, have a bad problem of not being able to introspect their own faith which led them to sheepishly follow whatever they were told. So things like the Crusades, justified by the Pope as a taking back of the Holy Land from “infidels”, was justified to the common people as the will of God and also anyone who were to fight would be granted indulgences. In actuality, the Crusades caused more harm to Christianity in the East because it led to direct conflict with the Eastern Churches and then the Muslims no longer trusted most of the Eastern Churches as well.

 

There was a saying from Abraham Lincoln I heard and I liked it a lot, ““Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” I think it’s very appropriate.

 

Catholicism was at fault though, but do not make such a sweeping statement such as the rest of religion did not oppose it. That was simply not the case. It was allowed to take place simply because might makes right.

 

Without really going into what Ring_World say, there is something that I want you to understand, from my own perspective at least. -And please correct me if I am wrong somewhere regarding your faith.

Hell, i.e. a complete separation from God, is the punishment for dying in mortal sin, and is irremediable, and sex between two homosexuals is a mortal sin, since it invariably is fornication, and is never used for procreation.

It is a mortal sin. But what you do not seem to realize is mortal sin must be done with full knowledge. If you do not believe in the authority of the Church, it would not be a mortal sin. Furthermore, the concept of dying with a mortal sin and going directly to hell is a bit of an outdated concept. Since people do not know the true intentions of everyone else, plus the time frame between death, purgatory/heaven or hell, God could always forgive the homosexual and they could go to heaven.

 

And another reason why the Church -and other religions- are so often attacked (and more relevant to the thread) is because their ethics, unchangeable as they should be coming from God, seem to change a lot -you know about the whole historical examples, and condom use seems to be last case-. To quote Stephen Fry, "And what is the point of the Catholic Church if it says 'oh, well ,we couldn't know better because nobody else did'? Then what is it for?" If their moral attitudes change as the moral attitudes of the rest of society change, then who are they to claim more to hold moral truth (and other truths concerning life, the universe, and everything else, for that matter)?

The Church uses revealed Truth, i.e. that of the New Testament, and infuses it with Tradition and Authority of Apostolic Succession. The only direct unchangeable morals received from God are the ones that Jesus himself said. Keep in mind that [most] Catholics are not fundamentalists; therefore they do not believe God wrote the Bible and dropped it down to earth, meaning even if the things in the Bible that say "Jesus said 'X' " doesn't mean Jesus necessarily said that. The Church is made of humans who pursue the Catholic goal: To learn God’s will, to know God’s will and to serve God’s will. People are people and as such can get things wrong. The Church does not claim they hold across the board moral truth, and moral truth is something that develops. This is a criticism of the catechism because it is seen more as a search for truth rather than a definitive statement of the total need for Catholicism.

 

There is salvation outside the Church if one is in moral behavior, guided by their conscience and their sincere attempt to continually develop their conscience. The Church is a fraternal means of development upon the basis of Tradition and Scripture.

 

 

I think the largest problem with the Church is not that their beliefs are distasteful to people, rather it is people who make assumptions based on half a fact and make the real teaching askew. Most teachings are not contradictory or problematic, a poor understanding of Catholicism mixed with anti-Catholic sentiment is the source of wishing it is problematic with overall Catholic teaching so that it is a point that can be used against the Church.

[Myweponsg00d]

I'm really quite intrigued with the way that the Catholic church changes its ways to accomodate for modern rationale and scientific progress. TBH it is changing my whole idea of what a "religion" actually is, and is making me not really hate religion quite so much.

 

Good job Catholics :thumbup: