Catholic Lady, I wonder if you've heard this one?  We all think its a hoot and you seem to have a good sense of humor so enjoy.  (Hope you're not offended.)

https://youtu.be/zQ36S3d1CaU

(June 18, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Iroscato Wrote: This life is the only one which we can all be 100% certain is real. Therefore, all other considerations must by definition come second. The reverse sets an extremely dangerous precedent that has been played out countless times through history, as pointed out abovem

If believing in an afterlife means a person stops caring so much about material possessions and superficial things, and starts looking more out at the big picture verses just selfishly on themselves, then I think this is very positive. Even if it ends up not being true.

That's moral utilitarianism (and highly subjective)...btw. Better keep that to yourself next time you're in the confessional.

(June 18, 2015 at 2:00 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I apologize. Let me be clear.

I believe the stories told in the OT were written allegorically. I do not believe the story of Jesus in the NT was written allegorically. That doesn't mean that Jesus Himself didn't sometimes use figure of speech or metaphor when describing something. This is nothing unusual or alarming. We all do it, probably every day.

Verily.  Good point.  The teachings attributed to Jesus probably were largely allegorical.  Some people even think that when Jesus said "I am the way", he was referring to his example - not himself.  If they're right, eating his flesh and blood, even symbolically, misses the point.  He calls on us to join him, not worship him.  Actualization, not abnegation, may have been the way of which he spoke.

The join Him and worship Him do not have to be mutually exclusive. As Christians, we believe both.

---

(June 18, 2015 at 2:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:I think what matters most is what is in a person's heart.

You mean, the crucifixion of christ, and accepting the crucifixion of christ -isn't- actually required...for me to get into heaven?  I don't know...should we check the catechism?  You're a catholic, right?  I think you're being disingenuous.

No, no..scratch that, I -know- that you are.  Disingenuousness was a problem for you, just a few posts back.....maybe it's only a problem, for you,  when non-catholics leverage it?

Do you have a position on the moral status of vicarious redemption?  How has god helped you to see -why- this is "good", or - on the off chance, -why- this is "bad"?

Rhythm, keep in mind that "I think what matters most is what is in a person's heart" is by no means all I wrote.

I explain what it is exactly that the Church teaches, and what the Church leaves open for discernment.

I did tell you that the Catechism talks about how we should not automatically discount Heaven for people who have not been baptized as Christians. Here it is:

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

(June 18, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 1:37 pm)Iroscato Wrote: This life is the only one which we can all be 100% certain is real. Therefore, all other considerations must by definition come second. The reverse sets an extremely dangerous precedent that has been played out countless times through history, as pointed out abovem

If believing in an afterlife means a person stops caring so much about material possessions and superficial things, and starts looking more out at the big picture verses just selfishly on themselves, then I think this is very positive. Even if it ends up not being true.

Not caring about material possessions and and superficial things does not make one unselfish, and being unselfish isn't mutually exclusive from caring about material things. 

For example: I own a car; it's not fancy, but it's not absolutely necessary for me to own it.  However, if I didn't own a car, I couldn't make to it to my SART (sexual assault response team) calls when I get them, and I wouldn't be able to help out the victim.

(June 18, 2015 at 2:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:I think what matters most is what is in a person's heart.

You mean, the crucifixion of christ, and accepting the crucifixion of christ -isn't- actually required...for me to get into heaven?  I don't know...should we check the catechism?  You're a catholic, right?  I think you're being disingenuous.

No, no..scratch that, I -know- that you are.  Disingenuousness was a problem for you, just a few posts back.....maybe it's only a problem, for you,  when non-catholics leverage it?

Do you have a position on the moral status of vicarious redemption?  How has god helped you to see -why- this is "good", or - on the off chance, -why- this is "bad"?

I also want to add, Rhythm, that this is what Pope Francis, the leader of the Catholic Church said just 1 year ago:

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter  that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there."

-and so the vicarious redemption -is- required......which is all I asked you, and the only thing you -didn't- respond to in that post...where you quoted me.  

So, now that we can both openly agree that this vicarious redemption business can't be removed from your catholicism...and that without it no one gets the golden ticket.....do you think that it was a morally "good" act, do you think that a system of morality which contains this arrangement -can be- morally "good"...and how has god helped you to determine it's moral status....either way you go with it -as you have claimed- god has helped you regarding the moral status of this, that, and the other?

If you haven't guessed it by now...the comments you quoted directly above are, to me, horrible..disgusting.......immoral, irreconcilably evil....-even- if the pope is willing to share his cookies with me -regardless- of the status of my belief-. Am I wrong? If so....why? I'm not asking you if an atheist can get in....and you know that, so lets cut to the chase, and respond to the questions of those we -choose- to quote -as if- in response. Shall we?

(June 18, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: And this means that we need to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.  You yourself acknowledge that having so many children is a problem, and yet you support an organization that actively works to make the problem worse.  Every time you put money in the offering plate, you are helping to pay for advertising and political activity that actively tries to make the problem worse, by trying to eliminate access to birth control and to tell people that it is immoral to use birth control.  You should stop doing that, as your voluntary contribution works against what you know to be right.

I just want to address this real quick because it just seems to me as very far from the truth.

1. The Church teaches to save sex for marriage. This alone would cut down on a lot of pregnancies.

2. While the Church does teach married couples that they should not use contraception, she also teaches couples to be responsible when it comes to planning a family. And "no contraception" does not mean a husband and wife need to have a lot of kids. I avoided pregnancy for my first 4 years of marriage, and I used a fertility monitor for that. The Church provides many resources and establishments to teach people how to morally avoid pregnancy through fertility monitoring.

3. The Church also urges people to adopt children that are already existing rather than creating more through the means of IVF.

I feel like your blame on the Church is a little unfair here.

(June 18, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I just want to address this real quick because it just seems to me as very far from the truth.

1. The Church teaches to save sex for marriage. This alone would cut down on a lot of pregnancies.

Just one tiny detail that you may not be aware:



Can you spot what's wrong with this image?

(June 18, 2015 at 2:13 pm)whateverist Wrote: Catholic Lady, I wonder if you've heard this one?  We all think its a hoot and you seem to have a good sense of humor so enjoy.  (Hope you're not offended.)

https://youtu.be/zQ36S3d1CaU

Well to answer your question, I have never heard it before.

I do like to think I have a good sense of humor, but to be honest with you, I actually don't find this funny at all lol, no offense.

I don't enjoy profane mockery of something that is so sacred to me and close to my heart. I think anyone would agree on that, when applied to themselves.

---

(June 18, 2015 at 2:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 2:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If believing in an afterlife means a person stops caring so much about material possessions and superficial things, and starts looking more out at the big picture verses just selfishly on themselves, then I think this is very positive. Even if it ends up not being true.

That's moral utilitarianism (and highly subjective)...btw.  Better keep that to yourself next time you're in the confessional.

Well, there's no reason why I should, and if you think there is, then you have deeply misunderstood Catholicism and the confessional. Probably partly my fault for not being so clear on some things.

No, I haven't.  Stop assuming you know catholicism (or the confessional) better than your audience.  I have as catholic a set of credentials as you.  Understand? Do you -ever- plan to answer the question you've been pretending to respond to for these last few pages?