(February 29, 2016 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Please point to what Church teaching I have denied or "cherry picked."

No, the church is already doing the cherry picking for you. As I pointed out earlier, I didn't have the liberty to discount the OT as being alllegorical, as far as the priests were concerned. I'm speaking of the early 70ies. A time that's not so long ago.

(February 29, 2016 at 11:31 am)abaris Wrote:

(February 29, 2016 at 11:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Please point to what Church teaching I have denied or "cherry picked."

No, the church is already doing the cherry picking for you. As I pointed out earlier, I didn't have the liberty to discount the OT as being alllegorical, as far as the priests were concerned. I'm speaking of the early 70ies. A time that's not so long ago.

Ok that's fair, and I agree. 

Catholicism DOES cherry pick from the bible. I'm glad it does. The reason we do so is because we think the Church is above the bible. Church first, bible second. Poca did a good job of explaining for me that Catholicism isn't about following the bible as closely as possible. We believe the Church was founded by Jesus Himself and has ties to the divine. We believe that takes precedence.

(February 29, 2016 at 11:42 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Catholicism DOES cherry pick from the bible. I'm glad it does.

That's why I have less of a problem with Catholicism than with evangelical bible literalists, whom I consider dangerous in positions of power. It's open for debate what that says about the value of dogmas in general, but the Catholic church adapts when it's losing popularity.

-and yet you no more adhere to the doctrines of your church than you do to the contents of scripture.  You can see why this might perplex an observer? If I can point to neither and hold you to them..in what way are you a catholic, or even a christian, again? What then, is the point of pointing to either for an objective morality, or even a subjective one, as arising from them....in your case?

Seems to me you have your own morality, your own doctrines...and you've shoehorned the church and christianity to fit them regardless. I'd expect no less from a human being, I know you're capable..and I'm not actually criticizing you for having done so. I -also- formed my own moral opinions and seek to make the world fit to them....even if I have to stuff those fat heifers into a shoe one size too small. Bear that in mind.

(February 28, 2016 at 11:26 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

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

Maybe it seems that way to you, but believe me, I'm not being hostile.

Quote: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.

I don't "hate" you. I'm allowed to dislike things you say and express it without hating you.

Quote:And I don't like your accusation about me "avoiding" or "not being honest" about controversial topics.

Please quote me where I said you were being dishonest. I accused you of not being earnest in starting this thread. If you feel the need to edit a post five times because you're watching TV and not paying attention, there's probably a better time for you to answer a topic you seemingly take pretty seriously, is there not?

Quote: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. 

The Catholic Church has talked about it, and you've repeated it here. Why start an entire thread if all we have to do here is look up what it says in the catechism?

Quote:Sorry if my responses aren't up to your standards.

My standards are only to have an actual discussion.

Quote:This site is a fun thing for me more than anything else. I'm not going to stop my life for it.

Dude. YOU started the thread. No one's asking you to stop your life. I'm only asking that you do what you implied you would when you started a thread about your own beliefs: answer questions when you're actually involved with the forum; not when you're watching the Oscars. Again, this is a topic that, according to your own views, affects eternal life for everyone, right? Don't you think we deserve a little more attention for something so dire? That is my entire point.

Quote: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.

Again, point to me where I said you were being dishonest.

Tone can be hard to determine via text. Obviously I have 0 problem with people not liking what I'm saying, and telling me they don't like what I'm saying. Sometimes though, you come off very harsh and hostile and it feels like I'm being attacked by someone with a strong dislike for me... not just someone who doesn't agree with me. This wouldn't bother me with some people here, but it bothers me with people I've been friendly with outside of forum topics, because then I can't tell if I'm ok/friends with the person or if they hate me. That's what prompted my response. But you're saying that's not the case, so at this point I have no reason not to believe you. Just my incorrect perception I guess. My apologies.

For the record, I wouldn't have answered that question you asked me any differently if the Oscars weren't on. That was my answer. I did have to go back and edit due to grammatical errors and adding a few things to make it better, but the answer itself would not have changed. What upset me is that I thought I was being considerate by taking the time to answer even though I was having time with my husband, only to be told I'm being dismissive for it. I was trying not to get too far behind because it's impossible to catch up when I do. 

As for the dishonesty thing, sorry that I misunderstood. It sounded like you meant I wasn't being sincere or like I avoid controversial topics, which bugged me because it couldn't be further from the truth. I read too quickly and made assumptions that I shouldn't have made.

Every time you make a claim that -demands- elaboration, you "have a life"...and other assorted dodges.  May as well not even make the claims, we get enough of that as-is. Maybe you're simply, sincerely, incapable of elaboration?

(February 29, 2016 at 11:47 am)abaris Wrote:

(February 29, 2016 at 11:42 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Catholicism DOES cherry pick from the bible. I'm glad it does.

That's why I have less of a problem with Catholicism than with evangelical bible literalists, whom I consider dangerous in positions of power. It's open for debate what that says about the value of dogmas in general, but the Catholic church adapts when it's losing popularity.

I personally don't know any evangelicals, but I don't think they take the bible completely literally either, do they? I know the Westboro's do, but thankfully, they are a group of like 20 people that exist no where else in the world. Can't imagine what it would be like to deal with them if they were an official world wide denomination.

(February 29, 2016 at 11:42 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 29, 2016 at 11:31 am)abaris Wrote: No, the church is already doing the cherry picking for you. As I pointed out earlier, I didn't have the liberty to discount the OT as being alllegorical, as far as the priests were concerned. I'm speaking of the early 70ies. A time that's not so long ago.

Ok that's fair, and I agree. 

Catholicism DOES cherry pick from the bible. I'm glad it does. The reason we do so is because we think the Church is above the bible. Church first, bible second. Poca did a good job of explaining for me that Catholicism isn't about following the bible as closely as possible. We believe the Church was founded by Jesus Himself and has ties to the divine. We believe that takes precedence.

Being that the church isn't one individual's opinion, and even the popes get replaced when they die, then how can you call that source of morality "objective"? You know papal opinions change your doctrines, therefore how can you possibly regard any papal opinion as an objective and perfect source of morality? You surely can't call that "eternal"!

(February 29, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Every time you make a claim that -demands- elaboration, you "have a life"...and other assorted dodges.  May as well not even make the claims, we get enough of that as-is.  Maybe you're simply, sincerely, incapable of elaboration?

I will admit some/very few posts I purposely ignore because they come from people I know I can't have a productive discussion with (I don't put people on my ignore list, but I will skip over their posts at times). Or, as happens more often, because they talk about something I have already addressed multiple times. When I have so many posts to reply to and only a limited amount of time, I try to address those that I think would be more productive to the discussion. I'm sure there are some good ones that I honestly just don't get to though, and for that I apologize.

(February 29, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I personally don't know any evangelicals, but I don't think they take the bible completely literally either, do they?

Don't you watch your own politicians? Ted Cruz, only to give one example? Read up on what he says on the bible. Don't you follow what guys like Drippy or GC say here, on these very boards? Huggy?

Many of them take the bible very literal.