Core Message Of Christianity Isn't One Of Love

[Catholic_Lady]

I agree. The point of being Catholic is that you don't make your own individual interpretations on the bible (at least not on the things that really matter).

Why is taking someone else's word on such an important matter a good thing?

I see it this way, PT, if my doctor gave me specific orders on a health related issue, I would feel comfortable taking his word for it because I know he is much wiser than I am and knows much more than I do. Of course, if he said something that sounded completely ridiculous to me, or made no sense to me, or went against every fiber of my being, lol, I'd be very reluctant. But if it made sense to me, and if I did my research on the doctor and my findings pointed me to believe he is legit, I would confidently take his word. 

I think the important thing to remember here is that I believe Church Doctrine (official matters of faith and morals) is led by the Holy Spirit itself, so it's not even so much a matter of it just being "someone else." If I believe it comes from God, I will feel confident with it.

[Rhondazvous]

How can anyone misinterpret a book that can be made to say whatever one wants it to say. If that weren't true there wouldn't be fifty eleven denomination and each one thinking the other is wrong.

That is exactly right, Rhonda. That is precisely why the bible should not be held as the main pillar of Truth, but rather, the Church should. And that is why we are not sola scriptura. 

(Drich will disagree with me on this lol, but that is why I'm Catholic and he's protestant. I can only speak for my own faith.)

Oh, then deep 6 my previous post. I didn't know you thought this way. I don't know enough about the teachings of the Catholic church to say what I do or don't disagree with since I dame from an evangelical Christian tradition. This throws me way off now but I think I'll soon figure out which way is up.
a

[Whateverist]

I think the important thing to remember here is that I believe Church Doctrine (official matters of faith and morals) is led by the Holy Spirit itself, so it's not even so much a matter of it just being "someone else." If I believe it comes from God, I will feel confident with it.

For your sake I hope the Catholic church never goes rogue to the extent that the rest of us regard them the way the nazis were regarded after world war two. If it did, I'm afraid what you say here would not get you exonerated by a Nuremberg styled court. I have to hope the human beings you count on never fail you in this way since I don't believe any higher power is going to make sure of it.

[Minimalist]

Meaning that "god" can change his mind?

http://www.quora.com/Have-any-of-the-Cat...en-changed

Historically, one of the most prominent examples of the Church changing its teaching was in the matter of usury, or charging interest on loans. The early Church forbad interest on loans, much in the same way Islam does today. But the teaching was eventually softened to state that exorbitant interest was forbidden. Unfortunately, "exorbitant" was never defined, so in effect the teaching was reversed, with sad effects on our economy today.

A skeptic (wink, wink) might suggest that rather than some holy spirit the driving force was the determination that there was a lot of money to be made in banking!

[Rhondazvous]

GGovernment: What is sin?
Church: What do you want it to be?

What gets me is when Christians claim that without religion we would have no moral absolutes.

Excuse me?

[Kingpin]

GGovernment: What is sin?
Church: What do you want it to be?

What gets me is when Christians claim that without religion we would have no moral absolutes.

Excuse me?

I believe moral absolutes exist in spite of religion.  Religion (church) skews the morals to fit their denominational beliefs.

To me, sin is simply a violation of God's purpose.  But then that becomes subjective as well because it begs the question of what is God's purpose.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why is taking someone else's word on such an important matter a good thing?

I see it this way, PT, if my doctor gave me specific orders on a health related issue, I would feel comfortable taking his word for it because I know he is much wiser than I am and knows much more than I do. Of course, if he said something that sounded completely ridiculous to me, or made no sense to me, or went against every fiber of my being, lol, I'd be very reluctant. But if it made sense to me, and if I did my research on the doctor and my findings pointed me to believe he is legit, I would confidently take his word. 

I think the important thing to remember here is that I believe Church Doctrine (official matters of faith and morals) is led by the Holy Spirit itself, so it's not even so much a matter of it just being "someone else." If I believe it comes from God, I will feel confident with it.

I disagree with confidence in a doctor's education being equated to confidence in a priest's "knowledge". On the one hand, you have thousands of years of exploration of the matter, in hands-on detail; on the other, you have someone who cannot know the matter any better than you can yourself, given its remove from mortal concerns.

What makes a priest an authority on your god's will? What makes the Pope an authority? Cannot popes or priests make mistakes? What makes their pronouncements authoritative?

If a person has undergone eight years of specialized schooling, and another four of practical internship, studying the human body up close, that lends weight to their opinions. But who has dissected god? And what have they found?

If "I feel that's wrong" is the guide-marker, well, that's just another way of you saying that you will exercise your own judgement ... which of course brings out its own questions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But then that becomes subjective as well because it begs the question of what is God's purpose.

... not to mention, how does one know it? How can you ascertain your god's purpose in a way that is comprehensible to those who don't share your faith?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

But then Christians use love as a license to treat one another any old kind of way then demand forgiveness. I know some people right here at AF who love me, not because if they don't I'll sic god on them, but because they start with respect and respect turns to love. Love is not something you can command people to do. What could be more phony than, "I can't stand you but god told me I have to love you, so I will because I don't want to spoil my blessings."

...And the "Christians" who do this, are certainly not acting in a loving way and are merely using any excuse they can to be bullies. That is wrong, and that is NOT love. Love does not mean abusing people on purpose only because you feel you can "demand" forgiveness afterwards. Any sane person who tries to do this and calls it love, is being dishonest to themselves.

As for your second point, love doesn't necessarily mean liking someone and having good feelings about them. You are right, that would be phony, because we can't possibly feel that way about everyone. But love, in the sense us Christians (ought) to mean when we say things like "love your enemy", is not a feeling, it's a decision and an action. We love our enemy by acting kind to them, forgiving them even if they are not sorry, not seeking revenge against them, and treating them with respect. Those are all actions, not feelings.

---

My favorite thing that Jesus said was this: 

"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. If you only love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even tax collectors love those who love them. And if you only do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even tax collectors do the same. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return."

^THIS should be a Christian's understanding of love, straight from the Man Himself, and is also one of the most fundamental and important Christian message. So when a Christian uses "love" to mean anything other than the above, or to act in a way that is not loving, he/she is not acting on the teachings of Christ.

That sounds good but then Jesus says that he's going to toss everyone who doesn't believe him into the lake of fire.  He's not loving or forgiving.

[Catholic_Lady]

---

...And the "Christians" who do this, are certainly not acting in a loving way and are merely using any excuse they can to be bullies. That is wrong, and that is NOT love. Love does not mean abusing people on purpose only because you feel you can "demand" forgiveness afterwards. Any sane person who tries to do this and calls it love, is being dishonest to themselves.

As for your second point, love doesn't necessarily mean liking someone and having good feelings about them. You are right, that would be phony, because we can't possibly feel that way about everyone. But love, in the sense us Christians (ought) to mean when we say things like "love your enemy", is not a feeling, it's a decision and an action. We love our enemy by acting kind to them, forgiving them even if they are not sorry, not seeking revenge against them, and treating them with respect. Those are all actions, not feelings.

---

That sounds good but then Jesus says that he's going to toss everyone who doesn't believe him into the lake of fire.  He's not loving or forgiving.

The belief is that if you turn away from love/goodness (aka God), there is no where left to go except the only place where those things are not present. God is not present in Hell, and since we believe God is love/goodness, those things are not present in Hell and that's why Hell is so awful. Of course, if you are truly sorry, meaning if you don't reject those things, of course you will be forgiven.