Evidence for Christianity

[downbeatplumb]

Well the Church still teaches that selling indulgences is correct in theology, however it is to easily abused so the Church has suspended the selling of indulgences to stop the abuse. Now it is sin to sell indulgences, because the Church has prohibitied it. However, the Church still uses indulgences, you just purchase them with good works excluding alms giving. So you can recieve an indulgence for praying or reading your Bible or doing acts of charity etc. You just can not recieved an official indulgence for giving money, even though the Church still recognizes this as a good work. Does that make sense?

Thank you for your thorough response.

I find it hard to believe that in this day and age the concept of indulgences is given any credence at all, EVEN by the catholic church. I had truly thought that they had moved on from this mindset and am disappointed to find that the it still thinks that way.

[Captain Scarlet]

I think the spirit of morality is discoverable. I think it is that morals always serve the good in relation to man and God. However, morals are not always black and white, some moral situations are subjective and some are not; and sometimes they are a mix of the two. And God and the Church offer indulgenes which free men from the law, and the result of trangressing the law is dead in Christ, so that man is no longer subject to the law but freed from it.

The practically of all this means that whenever we say something is wrong we must demonstrate how it hurts man and that condemning the wrong is only helpful in so far as it helps the person afflicted and those around him. So I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I must deal with the issue in such a way that I am consciously recognizing that its harmful in and of itself, it is not just arbitrarily harmful, and I must approach the issue is such a way as what is best for the individual and the people around him.

Again I'm not sure what you mean discovering the spirit of morality. It sounds a bit wooly and fluffy to me. I would say all morality is ultimately subjective and morality is something between man and man. The Jesus (assuming he was real) figure is a dead iron age Jew and carries no exalted meaning for me, nor billions of other moral humans alive and well on the planet today.

Claiming homosexuality is immoral is bigotry. I don't see it as a moral issue, just a matter of the nature. Homosexauls are human too and deserve to be treated equally. Unfortunately if you buy into deutoronomy, leviticus and all those other ghastly manuscripts you buy into all sorts of nonsense, which is why xtians cherry pick the bits they're ok with (like thinking homosexuality is wrong), then say Jesus saved us from all the bitys which are bronze age garbage (like having to stone our own kids for answering back). If you scour the bible for morality its a very depressing outlook.

[Dotard]

Immoral;
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

Bigotry;
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.



Claiming homophobia is 'wrong' or immoral (not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent) is bigotry.

[Minimalist]

Why is it, d-q, that whenever you say something and I check it out I find that you are incredibly full of shit?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregi...gence.html

Published: February 9, 2009

The announcement in church bulletins and on Web sites has been greeted with enthusiasm by some and wariness by others. But mainly, it has gone over the heads of a vast generation of Roman Catholics who have no idea what it means: “Bishop Announces Plenary Indulgences.”

And, more.

“Why are we bringing it back?” asked Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who has embraced the move. “Because there is sin in the world.”

Not only "sin" but apparently money to be extracted from gullible fools!

[Anomalocaris]

Why is it, d-q, that whenever you say something and I check it out I find that you are incredibly full of shit?

Because it would be an impossible burden to try to embrace apologetics, much less defend the catholic church, without being full of shit?

[dqualk]

Thank you for your thorough response.

I find it hard to believe that in this day and age the concept of indulgences is given any credence at all, EVEN by the catholic church. I had truly thought that they had moved on from this mindset and am disappointed to find that the it still thinks that way.

An indulgence is really just an assurance from the Church that your good work is cherished by God and it has done your soul good.

Claiming homosexuality is immoral is bigotry. I don't see it as a moral issue, just a matter of the nature. Homosexauls are human too and deserve to be treated equally. Unfortunately if you buy into deutoronomy, leviticus and all those other ghastly manuscripts you buy into all sorts of nonsense, which is why xtians cherry pick the bits they're ok with (like thinking homosexuality is wrong), then say Jesus saved us from all the bitys which are bronze age garbage (like having to stone our own kids for answering back). If you scour the bible for morality its a very depressing outlook.

Is condemning incest, polyamouras promiscuity, or consentual child-adult love just bigotry? Homosexuals are humans and they do deserve equal treatment and respect. We do not get our morals from the OT alone, we get if from Christ who superceded the old Jewish understanding of morality.

The Jews never said that one shoudl stone their sons for talking back. It was a common Jewish style of exaggeration. It is similar to when Jesus says I tell you to hate your parents etc. He did not mean to hate your parents. Its an exaggeration to get a point across. In the case of mouthy children it shows the power of the parent over teh child, and how bad it is to disrespect your parent. I assure you that if someone kills their child for nearly any reason in Jewish society today, and ancient Jewish society they would kill the guy who killed his child for murdering his child. We know this from Jewish commentary on their own scripture that that was not intended to be taken literally.

Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. That is all of the law to Jesus and Christians. So if we claim homosexuality is wrong we have to show how its a way of loving them and loving God and ourself. Perhaps we could point to the extremely high STD rates, or the extremely low life expectancy of homosexuals, or there extremely high depression rate, or maybe their extreme substance abuse etc. So if we condemn a sin we are only supposed do it for teh good of the individual and the community, if you can prove that we are not helping the individal and community then we would be forced, by our own internal logic to stop doing whatever it is that we are doing.

I know many ignorant and arrogant Christians are arbitrary in their sense of morality, and that is sad, but morality is difficult and the ignorant arrogant masses just dont always get it. That is why idiots treat homsexuals poorly when they are really no worse than promiscous or divorcing Christians etc.

---

lol nice one dotard

---

Minimalist it is still a sin to sell an indulgence. You cannot recieve an indulgence for money, anywhere. Also, indulgences never went away. We did not use them in America becuase protestants were very bigotted back in teh golden days and they LITERALLY might have killed Catholics becasue of it. In my home town, in the Bible belt, my Church was not able to put up their statue of Mary, that they put in the shed, until the late 1980s because when they put up in the late 60s there was a threat that protestants would tear it down. haha Thank God America is changing, unfortunately anytime something changes for the better something else changes for the worse lol.

I suggest not going to the NY times for info about Catholicism, they rather ignorant on issues concerning the Church. And who can blame them, they don't give an ef about Catholciism, and they surely are not going to be reading up on Catholic teachings in their spare time.

[DeistPaladin]

Is condemning incest, polyamouras promiscuity, or consentual child-adult love just bigotry?

Incest creates genetic problems with the offspring. Polyamoury isn't immoral if all parties agree (my fantasy marriage is three bisexual wives and one bisexual husband). There is no such thing as "consensual child-adult love".

So why does love become evil when the body parts are similar? If my wife were somehow transformed into a man, how would my marriage suddenly be a threat to everyone else's?

The Jews never said that one shoudl stone their sons for talking back.

Not only did the Jews say so (Deut 21:18-21), Jesus said so (Matt 15:4).

Perhaps we could point to the extremely high STD rates

Lesbians have virtually no problems with STDs in comparison with heterosexual women. Even the most monogamous of the latter are at greater risk if they have a philandering husband.

or the extremely low life expectancy of homosexuals, or there extremely high depression rate, or maybe their extreme substance abuse etc.

Are these things the result of loving someone with similar body parts or are they the result of abuse from society?

[dqualk]

Incest creates genetic problems with the offspring. Polyamoury isn't immoral if all parties agree (my fantasy marriage is three bisexual wives and one bisexual husband). There is no such thing as "consensual child-adult love".

So why does love become evil when the body parts are similar? If my wife were somehow transformed into a man, how would my marriage suddenly be a threat to everyone else's?

Ok first off there is abortion and contraceptives in our modern day. So again why is incest wrong? Second why is there no such thing as consenutal child adult love?

I personally believe that there is an objective morality, so obviously I beleive those things are evil. I still have compassion on my fellow man who has equal human dignity.

I never said love becomes evil when the body parts are the same. I for one separeate love from sex. I love my friends who are male, and I do not at all think about having sex with them ever, far from it. Sex is a dangerous thing that tends to turn people into objects. For this reason it is good that we have restricted to a most basic sense. That is between one man and one woman who make a life commitment to each other, and we see it as a good thing becuase it is able to bring children into the world.

Are these things the result of loving someone with similar body parts or are they the result of abuse from society?

That is a good question. However, studies show that San Francisco and Netherlands are as bad as anywhere. In these places you are a hero if you are gay. So I don't think so. Further the burden of proof is on those trying to change our sexual mores. They should prove to us how good their relationships are by being stable and so on. Instead they act like crazies. Parade around in slutty attire, mock their countrymen who disagree with them ,and call for ever progessive sexual standards.

[Anomalocaris]

. Sex is a dangerous thing that tends to turn people into objects. For this reason it is good that we have restricted to a most basic sense.

That only proves you are an inferior without ability to master all that you have access to. Inferior beings ought not to fantasize about some imaginary deity granting them special dispensation to preacher to their superiors. Now run along.

[OnlyNatural]

Ok first off there is abortion and contraceptives in our modern day. So again why is incest wrong?

Aren't you against abortion and contraceptives too?

Second why is there no such thing as consenutal child adult love?

Because children are too young to consent to sex in a fully informed way, and the adult has more power over the child.

I personally believe that there is an objective morality, so obviously I beleive those things are evil. I still have compassion on my fellow man who has equal human dignity.

So 'hate the sin, love the sinner?' I'm pretty sure it's an insult to someone's dignity to be considered a sinner with loose morals.

Sex is a dangerous thing that tends to turn people into objects. For this reason it is good that we have restricted to a most basic sense.

The vast majority of people have enough self-control to keep it in their pants, if they're not in a consensual situation. We don't need rigid rules to control our sex lives. I just can't understand why a lot of religious people (and I'm not referring to you personally, dqualk) believe that we would all rape and molest to our heart's content if God's objective morality and next-life punishments weren't there to stop us.

Heterosexual sex has its dangers too, you can still get STDS, HIV, get pregnant unintentionally etc.. Just use protection, be careful, be faithful to your partner (unless you both agree to some other arrangement), and don't force sex on anyone who doesn't want it (or cannot consent). I don't see why any other rules are necessary.

the burden of proof is on those trying to change our sexual mores. They should prove to us how good their relationships are by being stable and so on. Instead they act like crazies. Parade around in slutty attire, mock their countrymen who disagree with them ,and call for ever progessive sexual standards.

Who's trying to change sexual mores? The 'progressive sexual standards' that society's trying to promote are just about sex education, awareness of the risks, and respect for sexual differences. 'Pride parades' are the attempt of a long oppressed group of people to be noticed, acknowledged and accepted. Once the party is over, I'm sure they get back to their normal lives and aren't constantly 'crazy' and 'slutty' or trying to convert others to homosexuality.

I'm sure most of them want stability too, like most people. Not allowing them to marry or adopt or even be intimate with each other is not exactly helping them in their quest for a stable family life.