(February 28, 2016 at 4:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(February 28, 2016 at 4:02 pm)abaris Wrote: Not todays catholic church. They steer an ambivalent course on that matter. Same goes for evolution.

Negatron...I just linked the catechism, the declaration of vatican 1, and a pope on the subject.  Todays -catholics- are ambivalent in these regards -in spite- of their doctrines, which are not.  A person cannot believe in the current theory of evolution or the reliability of genetic evidence and remain faithful to catholic doctrine.  The church is holding out hope that we will find a "correct" theory that allows for adam, eve.  They believe it really happened and so it's understandable why they would do that.  That's what they're referring to when they say catholics can believe in evolution.  It's the same bait and switch the fundies pull day in and day out.  A novel use of a misleading term or phrase.

Catholics, however, don't give a fuck anymore.  Some of them, apparently, don't even know they're supposed to give a fuck.

In the same vein, todays catholics are not as concerned with the moral demands of their church, regardless of whether they come from a man in a funny hat or god.  They were already rudderless, now they're a rudderless mob.  St. Peter would weep to see it.

This isn't really new.  First, there was Jesus, then there were Christmas trees, Easter eggs and little flying naked boys on a romantic holiday.  The catholic church has NEVER been about Jesus purism, and has ALWAYS been about getting more people to show up on Sunday.  I mean, how else do you go from "sell your possessions to feed the poor" to "abstain, wear dresses inlaid with gold, and live in a giant golden castle surrounded by Swiss guards."

How to you go from "dwell not on the rituals of man, but rather on the word of God" to swinging smoking censers and speaking in Latin?
How do you go from imprisoning scientists for contradicting the Bible to taking the Bible "figuratively" as CL does?

I'm not against the God idea as much as you are, but bullshit religion is obvious bullshit religion.

(February 28, 2016 at 2:58 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 28, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Absolutely, yes. 

People who think it's okay, and even divine, to string up the better man for their own misdeeds have greater issues than the intellectual honesty of their positions.  To hold up an example of base immorality as the greatest possible expression of love and goodness, in order to fulfill a blood debt that never was, is the kind of thing that forms the context of our moral landscapes...and it's more disturbing if they really -do- believe it, rather than pay it lip service.

yeah... but they're conditioned to not think about like that.

"He died for our sins" (whatever that means....)
"He showed the ultimate expression of love"
"we should aspire to be as he was"

Sounds so much better than what you said.... while being the exact same thing

... which is to say, scapegoating.

And -- if the Bible must itself be interpreted subjectively, how on Earth can the morality it espouses be held as "objective"?

You can't have your cake if you've done eaten it.

(February 28, 2016 at 3:30 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm)The_Empress Wrote: 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'm sorry; this really bugs me. Here, you start a thread on a discussion forum about something you know perfectly well will be a bit of a hot topic, especially coming from you, because most of us here are aware of your tendency to either stay away from or be extremely vague about the more controversial things. Then you answer with "I'm Catholic", "catechism", "no sola scriptura", etc., same as you do with every other tough topic you involve yourself in, and then you can't be bothered to answer honest questions about your views- the ones you started an entire thread about- without turning away from the TV. Why bother starting the thread in the first place if you didn't intend to take it seriously? Don't you regard our, people you claim to care about, eternal lives important enough to be earnest, at least?

(February 28, 2016 at 9:50 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(February 28, 2016 at 3:30 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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'm sorry; this really bugs me. Here, you start a thread on a discussion forum about something you know perfectly well will be a bit of a hot topic, especially coming from you, because most of us here are aware of your tendency to either stay away from or be extremely vague about the more controversial things. Then you answer with "I'm Catholic", "catechism", "no sola scriptura", etc., same as you do with every other tough topic you involve yourself in, and then you can't be bothered to answer honest questions about your views- the ones you started an entire thread about- without turning away from the TV. Why bother starting the thread in the first place if you didn't intend to take it seriously? Don't you regard our, people you claim to care about, eternal lives important enough to be earnest, at least?

You're mad because I had to edit the post because I was watching TV when I wrote it? Not sure what to say.

(February 28, 2016 at 10:45 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 28, 2016 at 9:50 pm)The_Empress Wrote: I'm sorry; this really bugs me. Here, you start a thread on a discussion forum about something you know perfectly well will be a bit of a hot topic, especially coming from you, because most of us here are aware of your tendency to either stay away from or be extremely vague about the more controversial things. Then you answer with "I'm Catholic", "catechism", "no sola scriptura", etc., same as you do with every other tough topic you involve yourself in, and then you can't be bothered to answer honest questions about your views- the ones you started an entire thread about- without turning away from the TV. Why bother starting the thread in the first place if you didn't intend to take it seriously? Don't you regard our, people you claim to care about, eternal lives important enough to be earnest, at least?

You're mad because I had to edit the post because I was watching TV when I wrote it? Not sure what to say.

Right. That's it. I'm "mad" because you were watching TV. No need to think any more deeply into it.

(February 28, 2016 at 10:53 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(February 28, 2016 at 10:45 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You're mad because I had to edit the post because I was watching TV when I wrote it? Not sure what to say.

Right. That's it. I'm "mad" because you were watching TV. No need to think any more deeply into it.

I like you Becca, and we've had friendly conversation in the past. But sometimes you come off seeming really pissed off and hostile towards me, seemingly out of nowhere. Not sure what to make of it, or what to make of you. Sometimes I feel like we're good, other times I feel like you hate me. And I don't like your accusation about me "avoiding" or "not being honest" about controversial topics. I've been 100% honest about everything I believe here regardless of how much fire I knew it would cause - abortion, homosexuality, contraception... you name it, I've talked about it. Sorry if my responses aren't up to your standards. This site is a fun thing for me more than anything else. I'm not going to stop my life for it. It's the weekend, my husband is sitting next to me and we've been chilling out and watching the Red Carpet all day. I tried to take the time to respond a little bit to some of your questions, as I am now while the Oscars are on. Being told I'm just basically blowing people off or being dishonest is not fun.

(February 28, 2016 at 11:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 28, 2016 at 10:53 pm)The_Empress Wrote: Right. That's it. I'm "mad" because you were watching TV. No need to think any more deeply into it.

I like you Becca, and we've had friendly conversation in the past. But sometimes you come off seeming really pissed off and hostile towards me, seemingly out of nowhere. Not sure what to make of it, or what to make of you. Sometimes I feel like we're good, other times I feel like you hate me. And I don't like your accusation about me "avoiding" or "not being honest" about controversial topics. I've been 100% honest about everything I believe here regardless of how much fire I knew it would cause - abortion, homosexuality, contraception... you name it, I've talked about it. Sorry if my responses aren't up to your standards. This site is a fun thing for me more than anything else. I'm not going to stop my life for it. It's the weekend, my husband is sitting next to me and we've been chilling out and watching the Red Carpet all day. I tried to take the time to respond a little bit to some of your questions, as I am now while the Oscars are on. Being told I'm just basically blowing people off or being dishonest is not fun.

I think the point is that it's a sensitive and significant topic, and that posting off the hand and dismissive remarks doesn't really come across as caring much for a topic that you posted yourself. Some people take Theistic beliefs and culture seriously, and we need to have serious discussions especially when regarding something as significant as objective morality, which may or may not land people in serious harm if cemented and further propagated into first world culture. 

Objective morality is tricky, and it can be dangerous. Fair enough if you want to casually check in and out, but just bear in mind people take all of this very seriously, as it greatly impacts the world around us.

(February 26, 2016 at 12:06 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 25, 2016 at 10:20 pm)Jenny A Wrote: In which case you are asserting that there is an objective standard, but that we don't know what that standard is?  If so, how do we know there is an objective standard?

I think the more civilized we become, the more clearly we are able to understand certain things. Thousands of years ago, perhaps most of humanity didn't see slavery as being wrong. (or maybe deep inside they did, but chose to ignored it or tried to rationalize it). Whatever the case, now a days we know better, and have come to understand that human beings have the inherent right to their own lives.

The problem with this it makes it as if the last of humans are the only ones are going to have access to objective morality. Everyone else just have pieces here and there and mixed in it with great evils (like enslaving entire people was ok for some people).

The real issue is that objective morality and it's various stages, and the path of God, is something we are meant to travel to.

That is why in all times, before and after Jesus, in all times,  there must be a way for humanity to connect to God and the guidance.

God could of spoken to every soul, but it seems, according to Judaism, Chrisitianity, and Islam, he honored beings like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and made the means towards God, his Kings on earth by which people are ruled spiritually by God.

We also can observe that people aren't guided all directly by God.

Jesus was an anointed King by God for example, despite, not having an army, officials, etc.

I don't know personally if Simon or James succeeded Jesus,  the Shia hadiths suggest it was Simon, but Quranic way of blood relationships inheriting one another, it would seem it would be James.

But no matter who truly succeeded, the successor is not person who doesn't have access to the divine light and sees things with vision of God's sight. He is rather God's eyes and hands on earth. And as he is God's eyes seeing with vision, and we need eyes to see, we ought to make them the eyes to our heads as well, by which we see.

He is God's face on earth.

Whether such a guide is hidden or manifest,  he remains the way to know the path perfectly. He is the guide on earth, the leader of God's friends towards God and by which they turn to God. 

He is the manifestation of God's will and plan to each individual.  Each individual can become part of God's plan through the leader of time, and play particular roles by obeying the command of the God's appointed Master of humanity, and fulfilling his wishes and helping in his way.

Not only can we know what is generally right or wrong through this appointed Master, but, we can know particularly, what we must do to spiritually advance as well as our role in the greater whole of life and become part of God's plan.

A lot of the manifestation of inward guidance cannot be just told in words or shown physically, but must be shown in spiritual forms and states to imitate. 

But aside from that, is God's plan with every soul, and God's Leader and Guide is the way for God to prove his particular plan for every soul that comes to God with repeatedly turning heart towards God.

Enjoy your shows, C_L. We get worked up, sometimes, and the "objective morality" thing is a hotbutton for us because it's slung our way so often. You just have bad timing, with the Oscars coming on.

Here y'go.



(Even got it from a Christian website!)