What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Longhorn]

Fair enough, I see what you mean now. I understand what you're saying but am having a hard time seeing it that way. I was taught about Hell but never once felt like I was being threatened. We were taught morality and the reasons behind why certain things were moral/immoral. It was never about "do this or you're going to be tortured forever in Hell!" But I don't doubt that some people may have taught it that way, and that's not right.

That's good to hear. I'm glad it isn't fire and brimstone everywhere.

Just feel sorry for you for having such a bad experience. You seem like you're really traumatized. Sounds like some pretty terrible stuff happened to you, and I don't want to dismiss that.

Long story. Thanks for the sentiment.

While this is heinous on the part of the people involved, I don't know if I'd go as far as to make the general statement "the Catholic Church forces people to..."

Fair enough, no point in arguing further.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, it is "the institution" that talks....the catholic church does not allow you to make up your own doctrine Cath.  When the church says sinners go to hell...it's the institution saying it, you're just a mouthpiece, when you relate it's message to us...and by now it's painfully clear that you haven't thought a single -bit- of it through.  You believe in contradictory things, while espousing positions contrary to doctrine.

I think you did what most people do, when holymen start talking.....explaining the faith....you fell asleep, or payed no attention whatsoever. There's no real shame in this...I did it too, but then again...I'm not a believer, nor have I ever been.. it may have been a -little- more important for -you- to have kept your eyes open and your ears perked up....

[robvalue]

Religious beliefs get away with it because they deal with unknown realms from which no information can be gathered, if they exist at all. So they are never held to account by everyday experience.

If instead religion started preaching that gravity didn't exist, that particular doctrine would be instantly dismissed by virtually everyone. When religion dares to step outside the circle of unfalsifiability, it has a history of getting a nasty rap on the knuckles before retreating. That's a good indication that it has no overlap with the reality we are able to experience.

[abaris]

Yes, it is "the institution" that talks....the catholic church does not allow you to make up your own doctrine Cath.  When the church says sinners go to hell...it's the institution saying it, you're just a mouthpiece, when you relate it's message to us...and by now it's painfully clear that you haven't thought a single -bit- of it through.  You believe in contradictory things, while espousing positions contrary to doctrine.

I think you did what most people do, when holymen start talking.....explaining the faith....you fell asleep, or payed no attention whatsoever.  There's no real shame in this...I did it too, but then again...I'm not a believer, nor have I ever been.. it may have been a -little- more important for -you- to have kept your eyes open and your ears perked up....

It always depends on the personality of those listening and wanting to believe. And it boils down to cherry picking. Everybody does that and that's why we have radicals as well as moderates in every religion. You can actually find both in every dogma and every holy book.

When I was slowly turning away from religion I did that too. In my mid to late teens I made the distinction between Jesus and the god figure to hang on a little longer. I always kept thinking, but Jesus was rather nice, wasn't he, to evade my final decision of it all being wrong.

[Cyberman]

You disingenuous asshole. It's not the belief in god that is harmful, and you know that.

Oh, of course it is. You "new atheists" believe that religion causes wars, the spread of AIDS (no condoms, remember) and all kinds of bad stuff.

Religion has to be eradicated, right?

What, you mean like Ratzinger stating that condom use aggravates the AIDS crisis in Africa? That "the most effective presence on the front in the battle against HIV/Aids is the Catholic church and her institutions"? Or Archbishop Francisco Chimoio of Mozambique stating in 2007 that European condom manufacturers are deliberately infecting their products with HIV? Nothing harmful about any of that, right?

[LastPoet]

Well ol'chap, unlike priests and little boys do, them and all other catholics should stop having sex at all. It would be a good thing.

[Nope]

I finally found the thread that Huggy was talking about. It was from 2009. Although I know Harvey Milk's name, I don't know a lot about him.  I don't want to read a thread that I can't post on because it is so old.

Huggy, please start a new thread on the subject. I would find that interesting but right now I am just confused.

[Cato]

I think telling kids about the Catholic teaching of Hell hardly qualifies as "torture".

Only if they believe it.

Seriously though, I grew up in a Catholic household and don't remember any specific emphasis placed on the idea of hell. In fact, I'm struggling to remember a specific instance of it ever being discussed. It certainly wasn't used as a psychological tool to influence behavior or belief. As far as premarital sex, I got a heavy dose of 'don't dare get anyone pregnant' and one believable threat that if I did my junk would be doused in kerosene and set ablaze, but no religious based prohibition was ever touted.

There was certainly discussion about Christ's promised return, but my Catholic experience never approached anything resembling the end times/armageddon that is now synonymous with Christianity in the USA. I think Mainline Protestants are similar. This lunacy is reserved for the Evangelical crowd, which is unfortunate since they are a sizable and very loud faction here.

[Randy Carson]

[...] the intrinsic evil of contraception [...]

You'll need to demonstrate this before you swing it around in a conversation.

Here is some background.

[Randy Carson]

I have already addressed this in full several pages back. I also briefly addressed this on the sentence that came right after the one you quoted. :-)

No, you didn't. You wrote: "They are expected and involuntary" in that sentence.  That doesn't address the fact that Jesus says that in thinking about adultery with a woman, the thinker has already committed the deed. That doesn't address that at all.  You only say that sexual thoughts are "expected and involuntary" -- and really, that only makes this sort of thoughtcrime worse, because you will be held to account for the sin of lustful thinking, even though you cannot help but do it, and God knows and expects that sin to occur. It's as if the State of Arizona outlawed the consumption of water.

I should think where your words and those of Jesus convey different messages, his words are regnant regarding the alleged propriety or impropriety of an act. Odd that you still have to deploy interpretation here.  It's looking more and more like your conception of the Bible is that of a tract which must be read with special glasses.

Parkers-

I'm not sure what CL had in mind in her post to which you are objecting. However, I would like to say that while SOME instances of looking at a beautiful woman MAY cross the line to "committing adultery" as Jesus said, not all do.

• It’s one thing to be looking at a marble statue of a nude woman.
  
• It’s another to be looking at a color photograph of a nude woman.
  
• It’s another yet to be looking at a real live nude woman.
  

Here is an exceptionally good and clear article on this subject.