(February 28, 2016 at 2:54 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 28, 2016 at 2:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Thank you, Poca. I'm not very good at explaining things. 

This is all correct. Peter was the first pope of the church which we believe God Himself (as Jesus) founded, and has a divine connection to.

Cheers!

It is sometimes strange to see how the folks around here pick on catholicism without understanding that it's not a form of christianity that follows the bible as best they can.
There's a difference, compared to the "protestant" and similar versions of christianity... and it's an important difference, albeit one that even you seemed to find difficult to account for.

My bold. I say this literally all the time, but it's like people just don't get it lol. I mean, I know I'm not so good at explaining things, but gosh, I've explained it soooo many times, so many different ways. 

No, not "difficult to account for," in and of itself. I just generally have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. I was always more of a math girl. Language, reading, writing, etc... were never my thing. I have 0 eloquence lol.

Won't you just love to stand watching lightning?

People do "get it" Cath...Poca...that's -why- they bring it up, lol. Been that way since the reformation. I guess it helps believers, though, to think that the opposition "just doesn't get it"...probably easier than considering that they themselves got it wrong. We see how hard that can be for a believer, here in this thread.

(February 28, 2016 at 3:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: People do "get it" Cath...Poca...that's -why- they bring it up, lol.  Been that way since the reformation.  I guess it helps believers, though, to think that the opposition "just doesn't get it"...probably easier than considering that they themselves got it wrong.  We see how hard that can be for a believer, here in this thread.

When someone here keeps saying I should believe in something because it's written on some random sentence in the bible, after I have already explained that I am Catholic and Catholicism is not based on sola scriptura, I can only guess that they simply still don't understand. That's a more charitable assumption than to think they did understand but are just being obtuse on purpose.

(February 28, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 28, 2016 at 2:54 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Cheers!

It is sometimes strange to see how the folks around here pick on catholicism without understanding that it's not a form of christianity that follows the bible as best they can.
There's a difference, compared to the "protestant" and similar versions of christianity... and it's an important difference, albeit one that even you seemed to find difficult to account for.

My bold. I say this literally all the time, but it's like people just don't get it lol. I mean, I know I'm not so good at explaining things, but gosh, I've explained it soooo many times, so many different ways. 

No, not "difficult to account for," in and of itself. I just generally have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. I was always more of a math girl. Language, reading, writing, etc... were never my thing. I have 0 eloquence lol.

That's the thing, though, is it not the same god who inspired all of it? Isn't it the same god you're referring to in the OT, NT, and catechism? And if so, how do you figure there's anything coming even close to "objective" about any of it, especially when you pick and choose which holy books/people are your guiding force?

(February 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(February 28, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: My bold. I say this literally all the time, but it's like people just don't get it lol. I mean, I know I'm not so good at explaining things, but gosh, I've explained it soooo many times, so many different ways. 

No, not "difficult to account for," in and of itself. I just generally have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. I was always more of a math girl. Language, reading, writing, etc... were never my thing. I have 0 eloquence lol.

That's the thing, though, is it not the same god who inspired all of it? Isn't it the same god you're referring to in the OT, NT, and catechism? And if so, how do you figure there's anything coming even close to "objective" about any of it, especially when you pick and choose which holy books/people are your guiding force?

Yes, we believe there is only one God and that He does not change. We try to understand Him as best as we can, and as a Catholic, I believe the Church has a divine connection to God and is the main pillar of truth, taking precedence over the bible. The bible is a difficult to understand book that can be interpreted many different ways. That's why we believe Jesus left us the Church to guide us in a way that the bible, by itself, cannot.

(Edited about 5 times because I'm watching TV lol.)

I agree with most of the video except that I don't think it can be put simply to be command of God, and that morality is a divine code of commands.

This would make morality arbitrary. We would not know if it's good to obey the Creator or not. We cannot simply believe it's good to obey the Creator because they Creator says so or threatens us with punishment or promises reward or programs us to believe so.

Just like we cannot simply believe something is good because evolution programmed us to believe it's good. 

Rather believing in the command of God in the soul is about believing the nature of God himself, the nature of light, the nature of existence, it's to believe in the divine link. The command is revelation of God in saying to the human, you are light in so much as you are related to the source, and honor way to ascend to him is through the good word in the soul which the the righteous lifts towards God.

The other issue is everything is judged and every action is measured by relative to the knowledge and state of that being.

That is why relative morality and objective morality are not opposites, but work together. The relative morality get's it realism in it's relationship or reality compared to the objective standard.

As well, if we are ever going to transcend our errors and subjectivity, we need access to one who has attained certainty in vision of God's Signs, Glories, commands, and revelations, and that person must show us the way.

Aside from this, is the issue of how rights are created. Rights and value of people are created through a reality that is real. It's not simply conceptual. 

One problem with Atheism is that it tends to make morality to be some sort of conceptual program, while, in in theism, it recognizes that it's a living reality. That said, Atheists can't even see themselves as living realities as opposed to a program created by the brain. Even their will power has no reality as opposed to simply an experienced created by the brain.

They deny will power living reality, goodness living reality, the inheritance of actions to the soul, etc.

Yet if they would just observe themselves, think about what an action is, their value, and inheritance of value, they would see a divine link.

If they would ponder over the issue of higher to lower reality, that's not simply metaphorically higher, but there is spiritual ranks, then everything becomes easy.

I think I've made over 10 topics that all are about this issue but from different angles, and different forms of argument.

A pillar of truth that is infallible by its own decree and simultaneously subject to changing its mind. Remember Limbo? Doesn't exist anymore. Remember when the Jews were collectively guilty of deicide? Not so much these days. Remember when slavery was fine?

(February 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: When someone here keeps saying I should believe in something because it's written on some random sentence in the bible, after I have already explained that I am Catholic and Catholicism is not based on sola scriptura, I can only guess that they simply still don't understand. That's a more charitable assumption than to think they did understand but are just being obtuse on purpose.

-and again, that has been precisely the criticism of catholicism since the reformation.  We get it, we all get it.  

People point to a bible and you don't believe.  People point to the infallible declarations of your own church and you don't believe......and somehow, you think that's -other- people "not getting it".  

@Mystic, yay, fun with words! The light and soul and nature of god, yaddaa yadda yadda, being goodness....still commanded people to genocide. How is that to be judged and by whom..or does god get a pass because god? Got some word games for that one?

(February 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: When someone here keeps saying I should believe in something because it's written on some random sentence in the bible, after I have already explained that I am Catholic and Catholicism is not based on sola scriptura, I can only guess that they simply still don't understand. That's a more charitable assumption than to think they did understand but are just being obtuse on purpose.

When someone tries to nail you to a single sentence, you have a point. But there's a whole book out there, filled to the brim with horror stories, the ancients considered to be inspired by god and perfectly moral.

Yes, I get it. The modern catholic church doesn't require you to believe in talking snakes, dragons and Adam and Eve. Well, lucky you. When I grew up, we didn't have that liberty. They present the stories in the OT to be allegorical because they know, they don't make for good publicity. They also can't do away with the old book entirely, since without the OT, the NT doesn't make any sense.

We've deviated from the original point of this thread, which was objective morality. Which most of us don't think exists. Proof, as I said, right under your nose. The OT.

But you said, you never had any deeper thoughts on what is written in the OT. Is it usual for you, not to reflect on what you are reading? Or is it just with religious texts that you accept them without questioning the reasons for the text being there and written in a certain way?