Billion, definitely billion. Carry on.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, you said the Catholic church encourages sincere fact-based inquiry. I’m curious how far that tolerance extends? My own church claimed the same, but what they really meant was that everyone should pursue truth, but they are only doing it correctly if they arrive at the same conclusions shared by the church.
What if the sincere pursuit of truth leads someone out of the Catholic church and indeed away from the belief in a god?[/quote]
They did it wrong. Lol, I’ll have to find the poet, but he was a scientist/poet/professor and he for a long time would move in and out of the Church because he found conflicting results. However, he always ended up back in the Church when he’d reconcile his findings with the Church’s teachings.
Most people do not realise that it is okay to question the Church, for heaven’s sake, we paid Christopher Hitchens to be our Devil’s Advocate when it came to Mother Theresa. The Church loves when people ask questions and get things wrong.
I have found two things in my pursuit of wisdom…one, that I am not afraid of looking at science. Two, if I find something that conflicts with the Church it is one of two things 1) I either am retarded and misunderstood what the Church believes and/or the particular subject had no dogma on it, meaning that the Church hasn’t said anything on the subject or 2) someone did the science wrong.
I would venture to guess that it is equal parts 1 and 2 when people think they found science that disagrees with the Church. However, ultimately we have to be careful to not move into the heresy of reasonism <— I just made that up, I think the actual name is scientism or something. Where if you can’t figure out something through reason…you just say it does not exist. Or, you reason away miracles and divine beings.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, that sounds reasonable. Would the Catholic church, and would you, view honest defectors as still inheriting the kingdom of god, identically to if their pursuit of truth had caused them to stay in the fold?[/quote]
Not really for me to say, and I certainly don’t know who is going to Heaven and who to Hell.
According to the teachings of the Church, however, it’s going to be pretty damned hard for those who reject the Church to inherit the Kingdom of God. Less hard for those who have never known or accepted the Catholic Church as the truth, but not necessarily easy, either.
I would say that it is very unfortunate that they came to the wrong conclusion. I also believe, and there is some evidence to support my belief, that Jesus is going to save those people you are talking about if their search was truly honest, and that they did not engage in activities that would isolate them from God before their death (ie mortal sin).
On a side note, you probably know this already, but the Catholic Church welcomes homosexuals along with all people. She just asks that you refrain from that particular behavior. And trust me, she’s freakin strict with heterosexual behavior as well. I’m not looking to convert you, of course, and don’t by any means expect to. Just letting you know in case you had the wrong idea that we are taught “gays are evil” or some such bullshit. [/quote]
Yeah, I heard this the other day. That the Catholics hated gays or some shit. I was like fo sho! Who be saying this? And they said, well the Catholic Church put out a statement that the seminaries were not to take men with deep seeded homosexual tendencies. And, I had to explain to them that at the current moment, that the Church will not (not cannot) take homosexual men. However, in the future they can if they wish to. Statistically there are homosexual priests in the priesthood. Not sure why we would hate our priests, but whateverz dudez.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i have no reason to believe otherwise. So yes, 100%…
[/quote]
I feel like Rick Deckard.
You really believe there is absolutely no element of self-determination we possess? Not the slightest inkling? Sorry for pressing this so hard, but I have a hard time believing you truly buy this when it leaves the realm of the internet and theory and philosophy and you actually have to make real-life decisions.
[/quote]
…you do realise that Deckard was a replicant, don’t you? The decisions i make are based on predetermined factors, and as such the probability of what i choose is highly predictable…
…suppose i get to choose between 2 cars that are the same in every way except for the color. My choice of color depends on my preference. My preferences are shaped by many, many factors, most of which were outside of my realm of influence [as a kid]…
…i would like to know from you if you can come up with a situation where you’d have to make a life-choice, and you’d have no frame of reference nor preference regarding one or the other…
[/quote]
So, much for his reason. I picked the pink car. Bitchen man!
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Billion, definitely billion. Carry on. [/quote]
Correct, I decided to do a little extra work and googled it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
That’s along the lines of what I believe, regarding the consequences of pursuing truth. I don’t think it’s likely there is a god(s). But if there is, and if god(s) is just, I can’t imagine being judged negatively for sincerely pursuing the truth.
Not to get sidetracked, but I have to ask how willing you would be to stay in the Catholic church if they welcomed you, but only if you refrain from heterosexual behavior for the rest of your life? Would you be willing to stay single and celibate forever, while listening to sermons about heterosexual behavior being an abomination? That’s a pretty high price to pay, especially if it turns out the doctrine is nothing more than the opinions of men.
It’s irrelevant, in any case. I could no more join the Catholic church in good conscience than I could rejoin my former church, even if they suddenly embraced gays as equals. My reasons for leaving are independent of my sexuality. I have several gay friends who are Catholic, and I understand their denominations are more accepting than some. I’m glad they find happiness and meaning there, but my own pursuit of truth is in a different direction. [/quote]
Well, it is the whole Natural Law thing. But, for reals, most sermons, not even a few sermons are about homosexuality being an abomination. That would not make sense, because if a priest was homosexual, and he was preaching about how it was an abomination…wouldn’t that mean he was condemning himself?
However, we do teach about chaste life and that has stuff to do with homosexuality. As well, I’ll leave the Holy Ghost to give conviction to those who are doing wrong in the eyes of God, and I’ll just be charitable.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Billion, definitely billion. Carry on. [/quote]
Correct, I decided to do a little extra work and googled it.[/quote]
[derail]It amazes that research indicates that Earth is about a 1/3 the age of the universe and life on Earth is 1/4 the age of the universe. The existence of life is ancient indeed. I can’t help but wonder if it happened on other planets and if so, is life on Earth an early bird or a late bloomer.[/derail]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
If someone is saved there should be a “war” going on with in them. One that desires to do good at all cost, and one that desires to not do good. Sometimes to even be out right evil.
[/quote]
Lulz! Wait…what? Oh, I thought I was supposed to become virtuous and not be tempted to do evil, my bad. I just go back to being okay with having “war” with my temptations over sleeping around with promiscuous women.[/quote]
No need for sarcasm. We are talking about a subject that can be very deep. The opinions and observations that you and forlife have expressed concerning this view have been very surface level up to this point. So why respond that way to my surface level comment?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
If someone is saved there should be a “war” going on with in them. One that desires to do good at all cost, and one that desires to not do good. Sometimes to even be out right evil.
[/quote]
Lulz! Wait…what? Oh, I thought I was supposed to become virtuous and not be tempted to do evil, my bad. I just go back to being okay with having “war” with my temptations over sleeping around with promiscuous women.[/quote]
No need for sarcasm. We are talking about a subject that can be very deep. The opinions and observations that you and forlife have expressed concerning this view have been very surface level up to this point. So why respond that way to my surface level comment?
[/quote]
Because you say shit like very surface level. Any intelligent fool can complicate simple logic, this includes doctrine.
[quote]forlife wrote:
…especially if it turns out the doctrine is nothing more than the opinions of men.
[/quote]
Well that really is the crux of the matter, isn’t it?
If it is nothing but the opinions of men, then it would certainly be absurd to observe rules that appear to suppress your natural inclinations.
But if the Church is right, and God really does have a set of rules, some of which you had better follow, well then, that makes your own opinion rather invalid, and you would pursue it at your peril.
As for me, I believe that the Catholic Church does hold the truth, so I would do what I could to abide by her dictates (putting aside for a second that I would have a hard time swallowing the truth of an organization whose mandates would lead to the extinction of the human race).
And again, trust me, when you start looking deep enough into the Catechism, you will quickly realize that it is VERY, VERY hard for any normally libidinous male, of either sexual orientation, to remain in a state of purity.
As far as homosexuals, homosexual abstinence is viewed as a calling, and indeed homosexuals who decide to remain celibate are granted special blessings (can’t remember the actual term, but think of it as, God realizes the sacrifice you are making and takes note of it). As you know, our priests, similarly, are called to celibacy. This is not something unnatural, nor does it cause psychological problems or pedophilia or any such nonsense when the choice is voluntary. We abstain from all sorts of natural urges all the time, when we diet, when we withhold violence or anger, when we give up our time to work for our families, but only one form of abstinence is viewed as somehow turning us into drooling sexually perverted secret members of NAMBLA. And this point of view has only arisen in recent times.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
But surely that cant be possible - the bible says he created everything and that humans started, as humans. And all this occurred at the start of “time” -
BUT we know humans evolved later in the piece. So, to combine the two is in complete opposition. ???
[/quote]
What are you mumbling about? Obviously you’re not looking at the literal meaning of what Moses was trying to convey. Let me explain…Yes, God created everything, good. If Genesis was a historical account, why would one man write the story two different times right next to each other? In the same book? Moses was trying to get across that there was order to the world. Hebrew translates day in English to mean something ultimately different than 24 hours or even what they considered a day back then (sunset to sunset). (Jewbacca if you’re in here reading, correct me if I am wrong and also do you speak Hewbrew or Yiddish?)
Well science pretty much proved that humans as we know them have been around for maybe 200,000 years. Kind of hard to be here at the start of time, when the universe is 13.5 million years old? Or, is it billion I do not remember been a long time since I took a science class.
Evolved later in what piece? To combine what two?[/quote]
AHHH i get it! The dude who wrote the good book was a fuckin lunatic so you only take out of it what you need to justify your own beliefs. good hustle. BUT without following what is written in the book/s, what is religion? I mean you either follow the historical “reality” or you dont… as it would appear, you substitute your own.
Just to be clear - do you or do you not believe in the adam/eve scenario?
Because if you do… and also believe in evolution, you’re very confused.
This is what i meant by “combining the two” - ie. evolution and the bible - I refuse to agree with anyone who says they can go together because they are directly contradicted in more than just this case.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
This is what i meant by “combining the two” - ie. evolution and the bible - I refuse to agree with anyone who says they can go together because they are directly contradicted in more than just this case.
[/quote]
Well, ok, you can refuse. I mean, that’s up to you. But I doubt it’ll be announced in our church newsletters. Nah, we’ll still be reading our bibles, and appreciating the dino exhibit at the local museum without having a panic attack.
Edit: And why the heck are all atheists sola-scriptura evangelicals? Yeah, they don’t believe in Christianity, but they tend to stake out a claim concerning the role and understanding of the bible. Do more atheists have evangelical backgrounds than the sort of scripture/church understanding of more apostolic faiths? Again, it’s just odd how my times I’ve seen an atheist suddenly become fiercely sola-scriptura.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
But surely that cant be possible - the bible says he created everything and that humans started, as humans. And all this occurred at the start of “time” -
BUT we know humans evolved later in the piece. So, to combine the two is in complete opposition. ???
[/quote]
What are you mumbling about? Obviously you’re not looking at the literal meaning of what Moses was trying to convey. Let me explain…Yes, God created everything, good. If Genesis was a historical account, why would one man write the story two different times right next to each other? In the same book? Moses was trying to get across that there was order to the world. Hebrew translates day in English to mean something ultimately different than 24 hours or even what they considered a day back then (sunset to sunset). (Jewbacca if you’re in here reading, correct me if I am wrong and also do you speak Hewbrew or Yiddish?)
Well science pretty much proved that humans as we know them have been around for maybe 200,000 years. Kind of hard to be here at the start of time, when the universe is 13.5 million years old? Or, is it billion I do not remember been a long time since I took a science class.
Evolved later in what piece? To combine what two?[/quote]
AHHH i get it! The dude who wrote the good book was a fuckin lunatic so you only take out of it what you need to justify your own beliefs. good hustle. BUT without following what is written in the book/s, what is religion? I mean you either follow the historical “reality” or you dont… as it would appear, you substitute your own.
Just to be clear - do you or do you not believe in the adam/eve scenario?
Because if you do… and also believe in evolution, you’re very confused.
This is what i meant by “combining the two” - ie. evolution and the bible - I refuse to agree with anyone who says they can go together because they are directly contradicted in more than just this case.
[/quote]
Are you intentionally this stupid?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…especially if it turns out the doctrine is nothing more than the opinions of men.
[/quote]
Well that really is the crux of the matter, isn’t it?
If it is nothing but the opinions of men, then it would certainly be absurd to observe rules that appear to suppress your natural inclinations.
But if the Church is right, and God really does have a set of rules, some of which you had better follow, well then, that makes your own opinion rather invalid, and you would pursue it at your peril.
As for me, I believe that the Catholic Church does hold the truth, so I would do what I could to abide by her dictates (putting aside for a second that I would have a hard time swallowing the truth of an organization whose mandates would lead to the extinction of the human race).
And again, trust me, when you start looking deep enough into the Catechism, you will quickly realize that it is VERY, VERY hard for any normally libidinous male, of either sexual orientation, to remain in a state of purity.
As far as homosexuals, homosexual abstinence is viewed as a calling, and indeed homosexuals who decide to remain celibate are granted special blessings (can’t remember the actual term, but think of it as, God realizes the sacrifice you are making and takes note of it). As you know, our priests, similarly, are called to celibacy. This is not something unnatural, nor does it cause psychological problems or pedophilia or any such nonsense when the choice is voluntary. We abstain from all sorts of natural urges all the time, when we diet, when we withhold violence or anger, when we give up our time to work for our families, but only one form of abstinence is viewed as somehow turning us into drooling sexually perverted secret members of NAMBLA. And this point of view has only arisen in recent times.
[/quote]
If you think it is VERY, VERY hard restricting sex to your marriage, imagine what it would be like to have no intimacy your entire life, on top of being told your nature is an abomination. Most people have no idea how devastating it is to grow up in such an oppressive environment, and seem surprised that so many teens commit suicide because of it. I’ve been there, you haven’t. The major health organizations all say that acting contrary to one’s orientation is damaging, doesn’t change one’s orientation, and is not recommended. Yet some religions continue to hurt people, out of the misguided belief that people will really be happier in some future life, no matter how miserable they are in this life. I think it’s tragic, but having been there I at least understand it.
To the main point though, why would it matter what the church says if you are 100% sincere In your pursuit of truth? I’m not really convinced you believe that people should act on their conscience, even when doing so contradicts church doctrine.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…especially if it turns out the doctrine is nothing more than the opinions of men.
[/quote]
Well that really is the crux of the matter, isn’t it?
If it is nothing but the opinions of men, then it would certainly be absurd to observe rules that appear to suppress your natural inclinations.
But if the Church is right, and God really does have a set of rules, some of which you had better follow, well then, that makes your own opinion rather invalid, and you would pursue it at your peril.
As for me, I believe that the Catholic Church does hold the truth, so I would do what I could to abide by her dictates (putting aside for a second that I would have a hard time swallowing the truth of an organization whose mandates would lead to the extinction of the human race).
And again, trust me, when you start looking deep enough into the Catechism, you will quickly realize that it is VERY, VERY hard for any normally libidinous male, of either sexual orientation, to remain in a state of purity.
As far as homosexuals, homosexual abstinence is viewed as a calling, and indeed homosexuals who decide to remain celibate are granted special blessings (can’t remember the actual term, but think of it as, God realizes the sacrifice you are making and takes note of it). As you know, our priests, similarly, are called to celibacy. This is not something unnatural, nor does it cause psychological problems or pedophilia or any such nonsense when the choice is voluntary. We abstain from all sorts of natural urges all the time, when we diet, when we withhold violence or anger, when we give up our time to work for our families, but only one form of abstinence is viewed as somehow turning us into drooling sexually perverted secret members of NAMBLA. And this point of view has only arisen in recent times.
[/quote]
If you think it is VERY, VERY hard restricting sex to your marriage, imagine what it would be like to have no intimacy your entire life, on top of being told your nature is an abomination. Most people have no idea how devastating it is to grow up in such an oppressive environment, and seem surprised that so many teens commit suicide because of it. I’ve been there, you haven’t. The major health organizations all say that acting contrary to one’s orientation is damaging, doesn’t change one’s orientation, and is not recommended. Yet some religions continue to hurt people, out of the misguided belief that people will really be happier in some future life, no matter how miserable they are in this life. I think it’s tragic, but having been there I at least understand it.
To the main point though, why would it matter what the church says if you are 100% sincere In your pursuit of truth? I’m not really convinced you believe that people should act on their conscience, even when doing so contradicts church doctrine. [/quote]
Just for clarification, I’m not talking about the dictates restricting sex to one’s wife. I’m okay with that. There are a lot of other rules, though, regarding sex, even within marriage, that are not the easiest to follow.
Second, please be careful, I feel you are coming at me now, whereas we’d been having a pretty civil discussion before. For the record, and I’m not exaggerating, I’ve been going to church regularly for as long as I can remember and I cannot remember one, not one single homily dedicated to the abomination of homosexuality. Is it sin according the the Catholic Church? You betcha, but if you have this idea that the preacher is up there every Sunday talking about fire and brimstone and this sin and that, you really have the wrong idea. Most homilies, in my experience, tend to focus on a positive, rather than a negative. Sure, there are certain times that the concept of sin comes up. That’s inescapable. However, by and large most of the Masses I have ever known have been more uplifting than anything. And again, I have plenty of sins of my own, mortal sins, to account for. So I perk up and listen if the priest starts talking sin.
Next, the Church does not ask members to act “contrary to their orientation.” She feels that homosexuals are called to celibacy. There’s a big difference. You will never find a shred of evidence that the Catholic Church pushes homosexuals or anyone else to be anything other than they are. Sure, you said “some religions,” but we’re not talking about “some religions,” we’re talking about the Catholic Church right now. You’ll have to take that argument up with someone else.
As to your last statement, there is honestly, and I mean honestly, not a single rule of the Catholic Church’s that causes me any conflict of conscience. Now I may have trouble following some of those rules (masturbation, lusting after other women, using sex for other than procreative purposes), but every single rule has a reason, and the reasons are good ones, and I know how I feel when I do or do not obey them.
I never said people “should act on their conscience, even when doing so contradicts church doctrine,” anyway. I don’t believe that. There are too many dumb people, some of them posting in this very thread (not you), who I don’t think should be trusting their own conscience. And others who’ve got other reasons to ignore it that are so strong they can’t really trust theirs anymore, either.
Finally, as I said, if God is real, and I believe He is, then it doesn’t matter how many justifications you can come up with. In the end, you, me, all are going to have to stand before him and account for our actions on this earth. And there will be no more deception or confusion or explanations or excuses. There will be only Truth. Because He is Truth.
What if your own pursuit of truth, which you knew to be 100% sincere, led you to conclude something contrary to church doctrine? Would you follow your conscience, or would you follow the church?
[quote]forlife wrote:
What if your own pursuit of truth, which you knew to be 100% sincere, led you to conclude something contrary to church doctrine? Would you follow your conscience, or would you follow the church?[/quote]
Speaking for myself, follow my conscience. If I’m not a Catholic, after all, why would I show up for mass? Though, I would also know that the true members of the church are following theirs. However, I did follow my conscience. Followed it right in to the arms of the church. I follow my conscience, 100% sincerely, when I protest the state recognition of gay marriage, the killing of the unborn, etc. Maybe you in turn believe something else, but I’m still following my own beliefs spiritually and politically, without apology. Our ideas are at war with yours. No reason to speak past it. We would both like to see the world more aligned with our way of thinking. Or, neither of us would feel the need to even debate the other. Most likely yours will prevail, so you have that going for you. But, we’ll never be completely silent.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
AHHH i get it! I am a fuckin lunatic
[/quote]
Wait…what? You do understand that your entire argument is a fallacy right? The Catholic Church does not go off Sacred Scripture alone. You do understand you don’t take from poetry like you do a science book? You don’t take from a metaphor as you do a history book. Yes, I believe there is an Adam and an Eve (Catholics even have a feast day for them…oh so creationism), there has to be first humans right? Or did evolution snap it’s fingers and apes turned into humans?
I’m sure I’m not confused, I’ve been looking at science for a long time. I know what I am talking about. Well, I’ll make sure to tell the Pope. He’ll be devistated you won’t agree with him, but I’m sure he’ll get over it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…especially if it turns out the doctrine is nothing more than the opinions of men.
[/quote]
Well that really is the crux of the matter, isn’t it?
If it is nothing but the opinions of men, then it would certainly be absurd to observe rules that appear to suppress your natural inclinations.
But if the Church is right, and God really does have a set of rules, some of which you had better follow, well then, that makes your own opinion rather invalid, and you would pursue it at your peril.
As for me, I believe that the Catholic Church does hold the truth, so I would do what I could to abide by her dictates (putting aside for a second that I would have a hard time swallowing the truth of an organization whose mandates would lead to the extinction of the human race).
And again, trust me, when you start looking deep enough into the Catechism, you will quickly realize that it is VERY, VERY hard for any normally libidinous male, of either sexual orientation, to remain in a state of purity.
As far as homosexuals, homosexual abstinence is viewed as a calling, and indeed homosexuals who decide to remain celibate are granted special blessings (can’t remember the actual term, but think of it as, God realizes the sacrifice you are making and takes note of it). As you know, our priests, similarly, are called to celibacy. This is not something unnatural, nor does it cause psychological problems or pedophilia or any such nonsense when the choice is voluntary. We abstain from all sorts of natural urges all the time, when we diet, when we withhold violence or anger, when we give up our time to work for our families, but only one form of abstinence is viewed as somehow turning us into drooling sexually perverted secret members of NAMBLA. And this point of view has only arisen in recent times.
[/quote]
If you think it is VERY, VERY hard restricting sex to your marriage, imagine what it would be like to have no intimacy your entire life, on top of being told your nature is an abomination. Most people have no idea how devastating it is to grow up in such an oppressive environment, and seem surprised that so many teens commit suicide because of it. I’ve been there, you haven’t. The major health organizations all say that acting contrary to one’s orientation is damaging, doesn’t change one’s orientation, and is not recommended. Yet some religions continue to hurt people, out of the misguided belief that people will really be happier in some future life, no matter how miserable they are in this life. I think it’s tragic, but having been there I at least understand it.
To the main point though, why would it matter what the church says if you are 100% sincere In your pursuit of truth? I’m not really convinced you believe that people should act on their conscience, even when doing so contradicts church doctrine. [/quote]
Since you eat da poo poo, your arguments are invalid.
The minister of ethics has spoken.
[quote]forlife wrote:
What if your own pursuit of truth, which you knew to be 100% sincere, led you to conclude something contrary to church doctrine? Would you follow your conscience, or would you follow the church?[/quote]
I’d know that I’m not 100% reasonable, even though I may be a 100% sincere and ask the Holy Ghost to reconcile my findings with the Church, however he may do that. Worked so far, never had to ignore science yet.