"Cafeteria Catholics"

[revots33]

I realized recently that, while I was raised Catholic, and believe in God and Jesus, that I also just ignore the many, many teachings of the Catholc Church that I deeply disagree with.

Among those:

I think gay people should be allowed to get married if they want.
I also don't think it is a sin to be gay.
I think a woman has a right to choose.
I don't see anything wrong with birth control.
I don't think premarital sex, or sex just for pleasure (not procreation) is wrong.

There are probably others that I'm not remembering right now.

So my question is, since I disagree with so many fundamental laws of the church - do I even have a right to call myself a Catholic? or a Christian?

I feel like I get a lot out of my faith, especially the Christian teachings of forgiveness, charity, etc. Plus, I really do feel like God has helped me during times of trouble. But lately during homilies I find myself tuning out when the priest starts talking about petitioning Congress to amend the constitution on gay marriage, how abortion is a mortal sin, etc. I just tell myself, I'll focus on the things I find good about my faith, and ignore what I disagree with. But I disagree with so much that I begin to doubt my faith overall.

Do I even have a right to go to catholic church when I have all these disagreements with their teaching? Maybe I need to find a new faith? I don't know. I just want to know how people reconcile themselves with rules of their faith that they don't agree with.

[sweetjazz]

A lot of Catholics are frustrated by the orthodoxy. Nevertheless, it seems you are doing a disservice by not listening to the teachings of the church and reflecting on them carefully. If you come to believe that your opinions are based on the will of God, then most reasonable Catholics would support your disagreement. But many would question whether your beliefs are based on reflection of God's will or just on how you would like the world to work.

It sounds like you are in the unfortunate position of being at a church where the priest is under the misguided impression that the political issues of the day should dominate the teachings of the faith -- when in fact there is much more to Catholicism than activism regarding gay marriage and abortion.

There's nothing wrong with finding a different parish that has a more balanced view of Catholicism. But you should also work on really challenging your beliefs and considering seriously the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

Hope that helps. Good luck with it.

[Peter666]

The OP is a nominal Catholic pure and simple. If you still believe that Jesus is God, but don't believe in all the teachings in the Catholic Church, then you are a Protestant.

"There's nothing wrong with finding a different parish that has a more balanced view of Catholicism. But you should also work on really challenging your beliefs and considering seriously the official teachings of the Catholic Church."

Absolutely impossible. Catholic doctrine and dogma is universal and binding on all. If there is a parish with a priest that excepts some but not all the teachings, or has a difference of opinion on matters of doctrine, it is heretical pure and simple and cannot be truly Catholic.

I agree that if the OP has problems with some of the teachings, he should study them in depth and then make a decision. Waffling and religion don't go together.

[Lestat]

How dare you think for yourself!

For some, this is how atheism starts. Convinced that certain aspects about their religion can't be right, they start questioning whether anything about it is right.

I doubt switching religions will help. There are bound to be aspects of every religion that you'll conclude to be incorrect or won't agree with. So I think you either continue being a sheep and believe without questioning, realize it's all BS, or perhaps start your own religion? This way, you can pick and choose what to believe and do whatever you want without feeling guilty!

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I realized recently that, while I was raised Catholic

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean?

[ QUOTE ]
and believe in God and Jesus

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe in what?

[ QUOTE ]
that I also just ignore the many, many teachings of the Catholc Church that I deeply disagree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

They teach stuff? O RLY. I hope you know that teaching things means it can be explained.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see anything wrong with birth control.

[/ QUOTE ]
&
[ QUOTE ]
I think a woman has a right to choose.

[/ QUOTE ]
&
[ QUOTE ]
I think gay people should be allowed to get married if they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you actually think certain people should have the power to decide these things?

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't think it is a sin to be gay.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a sin.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think premarital sex, or sex just for pleasure (not procreation) is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you define right and wrong, because if you're talking opinion here, what could it possibly mean?

[ QUOTE ]
So my question is, since I disagree with so many fundamental laws of the church - do I even have a right to call myself a Catholic? or a Christian?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as a 'Catholic'. You're buying into the hocus pocus.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like I get a lot out of my faith, especially the Christian teachings of forgiveness, charity, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again: 'Christianity' doesn't teach anything, and especially not those things.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, I really do feel like God has helped me during times of trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think that.

[ QUOTE ]
But lately during homilies I find myself tuning out when the priest starts talking about petitioning Congress to amend the constitution on gay marriage, how abortion is a mortal sin, etc. I just tell myself, I'll focus on the things I find good about my faith, and ignore what I disagree with. But I disagree with so much that I begin to doubt my faith overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you cannot find logic and truth in their weekly brain-wash sessions, why do you view your natural feelings towards it as a bad thing?

[ QUOTE ]
Do I even have a right to go to catholic church when I have all these disagreements with their teaching? Maybe I need to find a new faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you are waking up from a lifetime of conformism. I don't think you need another faith.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I realized recently that, while I was raised Catholic, and believe in God and Jesus, that I also just ignore the many, many teachings of the Catholc Church that I deeply disagree with.

Among those:

I think gay people should be allowed to get married if they want.
I also don't think it is a sin to be gay.
I think a woman has a right to choose.
I don't see anything wrong with birth control.
I don't think premarital sex, or sex just for pleasure (not procreation) is wrong.

There are probably others that I'm not remembering right now.

So my question is, since I disagree with so many fundamental laws of the church - do I even have a right to call myself a Catholic? or a Christian?

I feel like I get a lot out of my faith, especially the Christian teachings of forgiveness, charity, etc. Plus, I really do feel like God has helped me during times of trouble. But lately during homilies I find myself tuning out when the priest starts talking about petitioning Congress to amend the constitution on gay marriage, how abortion is a mortal sin, etc. I just tell myself, I'll focus on the things I find good about my faith, and ignore what I disagree with. But I disagree with so much that I begin to doubt my faith overall.

Do I even have a right to go to catholic church when I have all these disagreements with their teaching? Maybe I need to find a new faith? I don't know. I just want to know how people reconcile themselves with rules of their faith that they don't agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just add a line to the list "I dont believe in hell or eternal damnation".

Then you can do whatever you like without repercussion (at least till you get there).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Well, let's approach this rationally. Let's take two points that are related.

I think gay people should be allowed to get married if they want. I also don't think it is a sin to be gay.

First, you need to articulate your reasoning for these positions. Then you need to compare and contrast your reasoning to the reasoning behind why the RC Church has a different opinion.

Now you ask who is making the fundamental error, you or the church.

I feel like I get a lot out of my faith, especially the Christian teachings of forgiveness, charity, etc.

What is the basis of you faith? Is it the result of your own philosophical inquisitiveness or is it simply something to which you were exposed while growing up and thus came to accept without question (at least until now)?

You are at the horns of the dilemma of Faith vs. Reason. There are those who will tell you that reason trumps faith, and that you should abandon positions based on faith when confronted by rational evidence to the contrary. Then there are others that would tell you that what you think of as "reason" is only temptation placed before you tp tempt you to stray from the path of the faithful.

You have to decide what's important to your life. Do you choose one over the other? Most people, I suspect, make their peace with some hybrid of the two, somewhere along a faith<--->reason continuum. Others become zealots one way or the other.

Don't beat yourself up about it. Keep asking questions.

[moorobot]

As a non-religous person, I don't think I should tell you whether or not you have a right to call yourself catholic or christian.

But what I will say is that since you recognize that: [ QUOTE ]
I get a lot out of my faith, especially the Christian teachings of forgiveness, charity, etc. Plus, I really do feel like God has helped me during times of trouble.

[/ QUOTE ] then you can just believe these things, and not necessarily the teachings of any entire currently existing faith. I don't think that in order to believe in these things you are compelled to believe in other things just because most others who agree with the idea(ls) quoted above believe in those other things.

That said, I am sure there is a faith out there with similar beliefs to you; there is a politically left-liberal evangelical movement, for example.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
How dare you think for yourself!

For some, this is how atheism starts. Convinced that certain aspects about their religion can't be right, they start questioning whether anything about it is right.

I doubt switching religions will help. There are bound to be aspects of every religion that you'll conclude to be incorrect or won't agree with. So I think you either continue being a sheep and believe without questioning, realize it's all BS, or perhaps start your own religion? This way, you can pick and choose what to believe and do whatever you want without feeling guilty!

[/ QUOTE ]

You have all the power to think whatever you wish about anything you want. But I would like to see you save yourself from eternal damnation. If you don't believe that is true to begin with, then there is really no point in belonging to a religion which believes in that. It makes one a hypocrite.

[MrMon]

Two words - Reform Judism. You'll have to dump the Jesus fellow, but other than that, you'll fit right in. Seriously.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, let's approach this rationally.
You are at the horns of the dilemma of Faith vs. Reason. There are those who will tell you that reason trumps faith, and that you should abandon positions based on faith when confronted by rational evidence to the contrary. Then there are others that would tell you that what you think of as "reason" is only temptation placed before you tp tempt you to stray from the path of the faithful.

You have to decide what's important to your life. Do you choose one over the other? Most people, I suspect, make their peace with some hybrid of the two, somewhere along a faith<--->reason continuum. Others become zealots one way or the other.

Don't beat yourself up about it. Keep asking questions.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Reason is the devil's whore."

-Martin Luther

[siegfriedandroy]

Your thinking is deluded.

[Dominic]

if you can't follow the rules you shouldn't join the club.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of Catholics are frustrated by the orthodoxy. Nevertheless, it seems you are doing a disservice by not listening to the teachings of the church and reflecting on them carefully. If you come to believe that your opinions are based on the will of God, then most reasonable Catholics would support your disagreement. But many would question whether your beliefs are based on reflection of God's will or just on how you would like the world to work.

It sounds like you are in the unfortunate position of being at a church where the priest is under the misguided impression that the political issues of the day should dominate the teachings of the faith -- when in fact there is much more to Catholicism than activism regarding gay marriage and abortion.

There's nothing wrong with finding a different parish that has a more balanced view of Catholicism. But you should also work on really challenging your beliefs and considering seriously the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

Hope that helps. Good luck with it.

[/ QUOTE ]


jazz,

All you have done is to advocate being intellectually dishonest, i.e. belonging to a group but disagreeing with the commonly held beliefs that define that group. And it doesn't matter at all if that group's beliefs are not chosen by popular vote within the group.

This is all the more intellectually dishonest in view of the fact that advocating dissent, whether through finding other like minded dissenters within the church with whom to worship and make yourself feel better about dissenting, or just sitting quietly and "not agreeing" without seeking to come to an understanding and agreement with the church through faith, has already been done before as Peter666 notes. Various protestant sects split off the Catholic Church, and then off each other in a process that is never-ending. So the intellectually honest thing to do, if one refuses to place one's faith in God and His Church and believe and obey on that basis even when it doesn't come easy, is to simply walk down the street and find a protestant church that accomodates one's views. Or start a new one if none can be found to perfectly accomodate one's own thinking (my just how strong is that! - making oneself almost a god by defining a belief system).

But of course then one is no longer a "progressive" thinking darling of the liberal media, but just another break off protestant, awash in a sea of conflicting doctrines whose main similarity is that they adhere to a sect not much older than 500 years at best, while the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years since Christ with an unbroken apostolic succession traced back to the apostles.

There are certainly some doctrines in the church's teachings that I don't personally find easy to believe, but faith allows me to accept those small doubts and turn them into belief, because of the compelling evidence of the greater inegral whole that cannnot be separated into parts for picking and choosing.

The legacy of protestantism, instead of a returning to so-called "primitive" or "early" church doctrines supposedly gotten away from by a later "institutional" church, is not in fact a harmonious return to such beginnings, but just further disharmonious splits from each other and the true church established by Christ and founded with St. Peter as its head after His Ascension.

[Lestat]

Peter -

I inadvertently responded under you because it was the last post I read, when I meant to respond to the OP. So now I'm not sure if you're response is to me or OP. -lol

I do agree with you however. In fact, I think almost all religions have a little hypocrisy built in them as well as those who practice them. I don't mean that as an insult. I'm sure we're all hypoctritical now and then.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I... believe in God and Jesus...

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you believe the Word of God? If so, read your Bible and earnestly pray about it. Take your time in coming to your conclusions, but don’t get lazy about pursuing the truth.

By reading your Bible, you are not putting your faith in other peoples hands. There are a lot of people who have never read the Bible who have very strong opinions about what it says. Case in point... “'Christianity' doesn't teach anything, and especially not those things.” (Referring to forgiveness, charity, etc) That was written by someone who obviously has very little, if any, first hand knowledge of what the Bible says.

[BluffTHIS!]

miketurner,

It is obvious that the Bible can be, has been, and is being, interpreted differently by different people. Therefore the necessity of an authentic interpreter of same, or else God's Word is made void to some extent by people not having access to a 100% true and faithful interpretation.

[miketurner]

Sure. But I believe that if you pray and search for the truth, God will reveal it to you... Just my personal paradigm.

[BluffTHIS!]

So of all the sincere Christians who hold differing views of the same doctrines, and who have prayed and searched, to which ones has God revealed the truth? For there can only be one truth.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So of all the sincere Christians who hold differing views of the same doctrines, and who have prayed and searched, to which ones has God revealed the truth? For there can only be one truth.

[/ QUOTE ]
There can only be one truth but it doesn't follow that god's message to everyone is the same.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

As to how His message applies to the specific conditions of one's life that is true in many cases chez. As to how it applies to the entire human race, and as to most doctrines (either the virgin birth was/was not true), it isn't.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
As to how His message applies to the specific conditions of one's life that is true in many cases chez. As to how it applies to the entire human race, and as to most doctrines (either the virgin birth was/was not true), it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
god could want some to believe its true and others to be skeptical and others to believe its false. Whether it actually happened or not may be besides the point.

chez

[sweetjazz]

Bluff,

There is a large difference between belonging to the Church while rejecting its core beliefs and belonging to the Church while questioning, and perhaps rejecting, some of its teachings about how one's faith should affect social issues of the day.

It's simply absurd to say that one's beliefs must agree with those established by the Church's hierarchy, especially given how much the hierarchal positions have changed over 2000 years. The beauty of the Catholic Church is that it is always (or should always be, at least) evolving -- staying true to its core beliefs but always adapting to changing circumstances. Did the use of the vernacular to celebrate mass suddenly become okay in God's eyes during the Second Vatican Council? Of course not. That just happened to be the time when the Church came to believe that the vernacular was the most appropriate language to celebrate mass in. It's possible that the Church erred and that there is more value in keeping the mass in Latin, that this is more in keeping with God's will. I don't believe so, but there is nothing wrong with someone questioning that and coming to that conclusion, provided that line of thought was guided by the Holy Spirit and made in good faith.

It is my opinion that some of OP's questions could end up being as harmless as this. However, others led me to believe that he has a fundamentally different idea as to the role God should play in one's life than do most Catholics, and that this difference in belief could be damaging. I do not want to see him leave the Church. But he does need to reflect on his beliefs and try to search in his heart for faith. There is nothing wrong with finding a parish which is going to help in that journey.

Being a Catholic is about much much more than being able to cross off a checklist of beliefs, as I am sure you are acutely aware. What makes the Catholic Church great is not that we have had the same positions on all issues for 2000 years -- we haven't! -- but that we have tried our best to fulfill God's wish that there be one universal church for all those who believe in Him and to spread his message of Love throughout the world.

I understand your concerns about letting the human tendency to have our beliefs become centered around how we want things to be take control over us and cause us to reject teachings merely because we find them inconvenient. Certainly that is a flaw that many of us, myself included, suffer from on a not infrequent basis. But the solution is most certainly not to become "intellectually honest" and abandon the Church. Rather the solution is to come back to the Church and continue to practice one's faith even as doubts exist and questions remain. Hopefully, through the practice of the faith, one will eventually come to a deeper relationship with God and become more capable of accepting those aspects of Catholic faith which are tempting to reject or ignore.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As to how His message applies to the specific conditions of one's life that is true in many cases chez. As to how it applies to the entire human race, and as to most doctrines (either the virgin birth was/was not true), it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
god could want some to believe its true and others to be skeptical and others to believe its false. Whether it actually happened or not may be besides the point.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


chez,

It can't be beside the point. There is nothing whatsoever in either the Jewish doctrine that preceded it, or in the Christian doctrine (other than perhaps in smaller cults/sects), that would indicate that God wishes some to believe one thing to be true, and others the opposite, in doctrinal matters, apart from Jesus intentionally not enlightening the scribes and pharisees about the true import of some of his sayings because of their lack of sincerity.

[BluffTHIS!]

jazz,

It is true that all of the doctrines of the Church are not held with the same degree of certainty, and this in fact is a very complicated topic. However, as to those that are/have been held with the highest degrees of certainty, there has never been a change. Prove otherwise if you wish to assert it. Note that I am not talking about modes of worship/liturgy, speculative doctrines not impacting on salvation, nor such non-doctrinal rules such as priests (for the most part) not being able to marry (they are able to do so in the Easter Rites of the Catholic Church).

In particular, the Church has always held sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman to be morally wrong, and the same with abortion.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As to how His message applies to the specific conditions of one's life that is true in many cases chez. As to how it applies to the entire human race, and as to most doctrines (either the virgin birth was/was not true), it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
god could want some to believe its true and others to be skeptical and others to believe its false. Whether it actually happened or not may be besides the point.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


chez,

It can't be beside the point. There is nothing whatsoever in either the Jewish doctrine that preceded it, or in the Christian doctrine (other than perhaps in smaller cults/sects), that would indicate that God wishes some to believe one thing to be true, and others the opposite, in doctrinal matters, apart from Jesus intentionally not enlightening the scribes and pharisees about the true import of some of his sayings because of their lack of sincerity.

[/ QUOTE ]
of course it could be besides the point. Everything you just said could be irrelevent.

It all depends on what god's purpose is.

chez

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Your thinking is deluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are projecting your emotions.

[BluffTHIS!]

chez,

The rest of us in this thread are talking from a Christian perspective that assumes certain things, rather than from the perspective of Christianity in the context of all possible belief systems, which includes agnosticsim/atheism.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez,

The rest of us in this thread are talking from a Christian perspective that assumes certain things, rather than from the perspective of Christianity in the context of all possible belief systems, which includes agnosticsim/atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine but even so the point about truth remains. Catholics/protestants/other christians could all be equally correct (or wrong) about gods message to them.

The 'one truth' argument is logicaly invalid but is of course, an important religous argument.

chez

[Lestat]

Don't the Catholics have such an interpreter in the pope?

[Lestat]

You guys realize you are proving Sklansky's point better than he ever could have.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys realize you are proving Sklansky's point better than he ever could have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky is a closet Catholic.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing whatsoever in either the Jewish doctrine that preceded it, or in the Christian doctrine (other than perhaps in smaller cults/sects), that would indicate that God wishes some to believe one thing to be true, and others the opposite, in doctrinal matters, apart from Jesus intentionally not enlightening the scribes and pharisees about the true import of some of his sayings because of their lack of sincerity.

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be nothing in the doctines, but there is much other evidence that says the above is wrong.

Clearly God (if He exists), did not make much of a deliberate attempt to insure His word will be clear to all. The evidence for this is all around you.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
chez,

The rest of us in this thread are talking from a Christian perspective that assumes certain things, rather than from the perspective of Christianity in the context of all possible belief systems, which includes agnosticsim/atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then my comments above are probably off base as well. I apologize. I did lose sight of the fact that Catholicism specifically, was the subject. Sorry.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">In particular, the Church has always held sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman to be morally wrong, and the same with abortion.
</font>

I think Jazz' point is that this too could one day change. The church has changed quite a few of it's stances to keep up with modern times. And not in my opinion, because the church's beliefs have changed, but because of pressure from it's own perisheners.

I'd be willing to bet that the church changes its stance on evolution and other aspects of creationism within the next 20 years (if they haven't already?). If they continue to deny evolution and science, they will lose far too many of their intelligent flock.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">In particular, the Church has always held sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman to be morally wrong, and the same with abortion.
</font>

I think Jazz' point is that this too could one day change. The church has changed quite a few of it's stances to keep up with modern times. And not in my opinion, because the church's beliefs have changed, but because of pressure from it's own perisheners.

I'd be willing to bet that the church changes its stance on evolution and other aspects of creationism within the next 20 years (if they haven't already?). If they continue to deny evolution and science, they will lose far too many of their intelligent flock.

[/ QUOTE ]
but the certainty always remains. The catholic church will pass from one state of certainty to another.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Jazz' point is that this too could one day change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat,

Why would some persons choose to stay in the catholic church in the hope that it might one day change into a set of beliefs consistent with those of one of the hundreds of existing protestant denominations? When they could just go join that denomination today?


[ QUOTE ]
I'd be willing to bet that the church changes its stance on evolution and other aspects of creationism within the next 20 years (if they haven't already?). If they continue to deny evolution and science, they will lose far too many of their intelligent flock.

[/ QUOTE ]


Lestat,

You've been around this forum long enough that you *should* know that I have on many occasions shown that the church does NOT deny evolution and science as do many fundamentalist protestant denominations. The real point is that God could have brought the human race about either via direct creation or by evolution of the species, and that the scientifc evidence points overwhelmingly to the latter. The key that is important is that God is our Creator, rather than the means He chose to use.

[MidGe]

Hiya Bluffthis,

I note your point about the church (catholic in this instance) totally accepting evolution. In fact it was in the news quite recently.

Conversely, do you think that some members of the congregation may be ahead of the institution and that in that sense the OP view point is quite rational and catholic? I mean, someone has to think outside the square first!

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, let's approach this rationally.
You are at the horns of the dilemma of Faith vs. Reason. There are those who will tell you that reason trumps faith, and that you should abandon positions based on faith when confronted by rational evidence to the contrary. Then there are others that would tell you that what you think of as "reason" is only temptation placed before you tp tempt you to stray from the path of the faithful.

You have to decide what's important to your life. Do you choose one over the other? Most people, I suspect, make their peace with some hybrid of the two, somewhere along a faith&lt;---&gt;reason continuum. Others become zealots one way or the other.

Don't beat yourself up about it. Keep asking questions.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Reason is the devil's whore."

-Martin Luther

[/ QUOTE ]

Also sprach ein zealot

[MrMon]

The Church has not always held that abortion is wrong, despite a lot of attempts to bury those opinions. The Church has bounced around a lot on early term abortions, finally settling on a total ban only in 1869.

[BluffTHIS!]

MrMon,

That is an untruth propagated by Catholics For a Free Choice, which is not a membership organization, but a liberal anti-church mouthpiece funded by liberal trusts.

The early church fathers and the Roman Catechism that was published in 1566 as a result of the Council of Trent, condemned abortion either through the use of medicines or removal techniques. For the earliest (~100 A.D.) Christian writing denouncing abortion, I would refer you to the Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which was a doctrinal and liturgical primer used to educate converts to be baptized. It specifically mentions in its condmenation both abortion and infanticide.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Lestat,

Why would some persons choose to stay in the catholic church in the hope that it might one day change into a set of beliefs consistent with those of one of the hundreds of existing protestant denominations? When they could just go join that denomination today? </font>

Because a lot of people don't feel "choosing" their religion is an option. If their family is Catholic, then THEY are Catholic. I don't know many people who would say to their family, "Hey, you know what? The Protestants make more sense to me. See ya!". I can't cite a survey, but I think one is more likely to go to an extreme like becoming an atheist, Muslim, or a scientologist, than switching from Protestant to Catholic or visa~versa. I could be wrong about that though.

<font color="blue">You've been around this forum long enough that you *should* know that I have on many occasions shown that the church does NOT deny evolution and science as do many fundamentalist protestant denominations. </font>

No, I did not realize this. I thought you were a fundamentalist. Perhaps I'm confusing you with NotReady and if so, I really apologize.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat,

Why would some persons choose to stay in the catholic church in the hope that it might one day change into a set of beliefs consistent with those of one of the hundreds of existing protestant denominations? When they could just go join that denomination today?

Because a lot of people don't feel "choosing" their religion is an option. If their family is Catholic, then THEY are Catholic.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's also those who consider themselves catholic but think that the catholic church is mistaken about some things. Many catholics think contraception is fine and do not have to reject being catholic to use contracpetion.

Just because some catholics believe that being a catholic means believing that all catholic rules are correct doesn't make it so.

chez

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
MrMon,

That is an untruth propagated by Catholics For a Free Choice, which is not a membership organization, but a liberal anti-church mouthpiece funded by liberal trusts.

The early church fathers and the Roman Catechism that was published in 1566 as a result of the Council of Trent, condemned abortion either through the use of medicines or removal techniques. For the earliest (~100 A.D.) Christian writing denouncing abortion, I would refer you to the Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which was a doctrinal and liturgical primer used to educate converts to be baptized. It specifically mentions in its condmenation both abortion and infanticide.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've read from numerous sources, you're leaving out a lot. The Church bounces around quite a bit on animated and inanimated fetuses. Yes, they started out as 100% against, then backtracked, then back to 100%, then backtracked, and only in 1869 do we get to the final position.

I'm not going to claim expertise in the area, but let's take a look at just one claim. You tell me if it's true:

[ QUOTE ]
Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

[/ QUOTE ]

If those Papal Bulls exist, then it's pretty clear a debate was going on long after the founding of the Church, at the highest levels of the Church. Now, it's possible they don't exist, or that someone is making it up, but I'd have to see the evidence for it.

[BluffTHIS!]

Sure chez. Just because if a person listed their religious beliefs, and then compared them with sets named A and B, there is nothing to stop them saying that they are closer to A, when impartial observors would say that they are in fact objectively closer to B. You can call yourself anything you want. But it doesn't make it so.

[revots33]

Thanks everyone for the replies. You've given me a lot to think and pray about.

[ QUOTE ]
Because a lot of people don't feel "choosing" their religion is an option. If their family is Catholic, then THEY are Catholic.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like this is very true for me. I was raised in a strict Catholic family, had 12 years of Catholic school, and went to a Catholic college as well. It is ingrained in me. It just seems alien to me to start "shopping around" for a new religion. But I realize that just because it feels alien, doesn't mean it might not be the right thing to do.

And I do realize what some of you are saying, that faith isn't supposed to be easy all the time, and that I can't just wish everything worked exactly the way I want. That being said - I still find it hard to reconcile my personal beliefs with the teachings of the Church. For example, as I mentioned before, their stance on homosexuals. In the eyes of the church being gay is a sin. I have several gay friends - and find it hard to believe that they can never be saved because they were born gay. I also find the Church's stance on homosexuals to be against their preaching of love and acceptance for all. It supposes that gay people are somehow sinning simply by being the way God made them.

Another good example of my doubts is the church's position on embryonic stem-cell research. I firmly believe that these cells should be used to help end human suffering. Yet my priest wants me to petition my elected officials to outlaw the very research I feel should be done.

I sometimes rationalize by saying, "well I'm sure half the people in this church disagree with the Church's position on one issue or another". But that doesn't make me feel less hypocrytical. I've actually had the urge to get up and walk out during homilies on these subjects.

I guess the bottom line is that I am very much a liberal in my politics. Lately it seems to me that it is impossible to be both a liberal and a Catholic.

I say all these things as a confused Catholic, not someone who's looking to disparage the only church I've ever belonged to. I appreciate all your input.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MrMon,

That is an untruth propagated by Catholics For a Free Choice, which is not a membership organization, but a liberal anti-church mouthpiece funded by liberal trusts.

The early church fathers and the Roman Catechism that was published in 1566 as a result of the Council of Trent, condemned abortion either through the use of medicines or removal techniques. For the earliest (~100 A.D.) Christian writing denouncing abortion, I would refer you to the Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which was a doctrinal and liturgical primer used to educate converts to be baptized. It specifically mentions in its condmenation both abortion and infanticide.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've read from numerous sources, you're leaving out a lot. The Church bounces around quite a bit on animated and inanimated fetuses. Yes, they started out as 100% against, then backtracked, then back to 100%, then backtracked, and only in 1869 do we get to the final position.

I'm not going to claim expertise in the area, but let's take a look at just one claim. You tell me if it's true:

[ QUOTE ]
Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

[/ QUOTE ]

If those Papal Bulls exist, then it's pretty clear a debate was going on long after the founding of the Church, at the highest levels of the Church. Now, it's possible they don't exist, or that someone is making it up, but I'd have to see the evidence for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. One must distinguish the teaching of abortion in and of itself versus the penalties against it declared by Popes.

The Church has always and must always hold that the killing of a rational creature in "real potential" is always murder. The scientific question was when does this actually take place? The debate was absolutely concluded in 1869. But that never meant that abortion before was not murder. If it was determined that the sperm just kind of swims around the egg in a messy concotion for three months before conception, it would be ok to remove this from the woman. But the scientific consensus was that this does not happen.

If the Pope wants to decree the death penalty for this and another one wants to take it away, they are in authority to do so. But this does not change the fundamental doctrine associated with it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure chez. Just because if a person listed their religious beliefs, and then compared them with sets named A and B, there is nothing to stop them saying that they are closer to A, when impartial observors would say that they are in fact objectively closer to B. You can call yourself anything you want. But it doesn't make it so.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's true and in the past I've used that argument to point out that you're not christian (although you may be catholic).

Its slightly tounge in cheek on my part but maybe you can see the arrogance inherent in this type of argument. All you are saying is that in your opinion they are not catholic even though they believe they are, just like I'm really saying that in my opinion you're not christian even though you believe you are.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Lately it seems to me that it is impossible to be both a liberal and a Catholic.

[/ QUOTE ]


This means you have a choice to make. You can either stay in the church and pray that God will bring you to a fuller understanding of Him and His doctrine, and accept same in faith, or you can leave and find another denomination that makes you feel better about your beliefs, or you can stay and not fully believe in the church's teachings.

God is our Father who created us, and we are His children. Children trust their father even when they don't understand or agree, and Jesus said that we must indeed become as little children. Particularly applicable also is the Parable of the Sower in the gospels. Faith demands sacrifices, but they are worth making for the reward that awaits us.

I would suggest that you might take a year in which you fully participate in the church and the sacraments, and daily read the gospels/Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and seek to understand the "mind of the Church" better.

May God bless you and guide you on your journey.

[BluffTHIS!]

chez,

I'm not going to play your semantics game. All I will say is that it is an objective matter whether a person's beliefs agree or not with core teachings of the Church. They can call themselves whatever they want to regardless of how their beliefs correspond to the Church's teachings.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez,

I'm not going to play your semantics game. All I will say is that it is an objective matter whether a person's beliefs agree or not with core teachings of the Church. They can call themselves whatever they want to regardless of how their beliefs correspond to the Church's teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not semantics, just reason.

The rest of your post is correct but it doesn't mean that all of the church teachings are correct.

chez

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I would also suggest that Exodus 21:22 suggests that the matter of abortion is no business of the government.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MrMon,

That is an untruth propagated by Catholics For a Free Choice, which is not a membership organization, but a liberal anti-church mouthpiece funded by liberal trusts.

The early church fathers and the Roman Catechism that was published in 1566 as a result of the Council of Trent, condemned abortion either through the use of medicines or removal techniques. For the earliest (~100 A.D.) Christian writing denouncing abortion, I would refer you to the Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which was a doctrinal and liturgical primer used to educate converts to be baptized. It specifically mentions in its condmenation both abortion and infanticide.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've read from numerous sources, you're leaving out a lot. The Church bounces around quite a bit on animated and inanimated fetuses. Yes, they started out as 100% against, then backtracked, then back to 100%, then backtracked, and only in 1869 do we get to the final position.

I'm not going to claim expertise in the area, but let's take a look at just one claim. You tell me if it's true:

[ QUOTE ]
Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

[/ QUOTE ]

If those Papal Bulls exist, then it's pretty clear a debate was going on long after the founding of the Church, at the highest levels of the Church. Now, it's possible they don't exist, or that someone is making it up, but I'd have to see the evidence for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. One must distinguish the teaching of abortion in and of itself versus the penalties against it declared by Popes.

The Church has always and must always hold that the killing of a rational creature in "real potential" is always murder. The scientific question was when does this actually take place? The debate was absolutely concluded in 1869. But that never meant that abortion before was not murder. If it was determined that the sperm just kind of swims around the egg in a messy concotion for three months before conception, it would be ok to remove this from the woman. But the scientific consensus was that this does not happen.

If the Pope wants to decree the death penalty for this and another one wants to take it away, they are in authority to do so. But this does not change the fundamental doctrine associated with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can buy that. Before 1869, it was kind of like, "Well, you really shouldn't, but if you do it before a certain time, feel real bad, do a lot of Hail, Marys, don't do it again, and we'll let you back in."

Still, it's not as cut and dried as some would make you think it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">God is our Father who created us, and we are His children. Children trust their father even when they don't understand or agree, and Jesus said that we must indeed become as little children. </font>

But Bluff,

It sounds to me that his issue of trust is NOT with God, or God's will, but with the church's interpretations of it. I'm sure he does trust God his Father. He just doesn't turst that the church (which is made up of mortal men), is always right on all things. Does this really necessitate a change in religion? Especially when the church has changed it's stands and/or interpretations before?

[Lestat]

This is very true Chez, but I sometimes wonder if it's because people really believe that things like contraception are ok, or because it is just more convenient for their lifestyle to choose contraception. Let's face it... Abstinence is no fun.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks everyone for the replies. You've given me a lot to think and pray about.

[ QUOTE ]
Because a lot of people don't feel "choosing" their religion is an option. If their family is Catholic, then THEY are Catholic.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel like this is very true for me. I was raised in a strict Catholic family, had 12 years of Catholic school, and went to a Catholic college as well. It is ingrained in me. It just seems alien to me to start "shopping around" for a new religion. But I realize that just because it feels alien, doesn't mean it might not be the right thing to do.

And I do realize what some of you are saying, that faith isn't supposed to be easy all the time, and that I can't just wish everything worked exactly the way I want. That being said - I still find it hard to reconcile my personal beliefs with the teachings of the Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, your rational mind leads you to ethical conclusions which fundamentally differ from church dogma, such as the patently ridiculous (and immoral) teachings that homosexuality is "sinful," or that stem cells have "rights" and therefore may not be used for research.

This leads you to confusion, as it should. You will always encounter inescapable contradictions provided your rational faculty retains sufficient acumen to identify moral/scientific truths, but yet you also try to follow the proclamations of a dogmatic institution on faith.

Since I wasn't raised to be indoctrinated in faith and subservient to such authority, I probably find it difficult to understand why you don't just follow your own reasoning (which still may include belief in god), and reject church doctrine without guilt, when that doctrine is irrational and immoral.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This is very true Chez, but I sometimes wonder if it's because people really believe that things like contraception are ok, or because it is just more convenient for their lifestyle to choose contraception. Let's face it... Abstinence is no fun.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of couse most people can persuade ourselves to believe what suits them but they're still beliefs.

There's more to it tha that imo. There are many catholics who believe in and practice the core doctrines of the church but think the church's views on birth control, sex before marriage, adultary etc are just social conventions and the idea they're important in a religous sense is risable.

chez

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Lately it seems to me that it is impossible to be both a liberal and a Catholic.

Not in Rhode Island. Clearly the most Catholic *and* most liberal State in the US.

[MrMon]

It all comes down to this: Do we choose the believe what we believe because it is true or do we believe what is true because of our beliefs?

In other words, does truth lead us to faith or does faith lead us to truth?

[KeysrSoze]

If you want to belong to a glorifies social club and can ignore the wonky guidelines with a clear conscience, have at it. If you actually think you should take it seriously, perhaps you should move on or take an active part in changing the antiquated bylaws. Accepting it and doing nothing is the wrong solution.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many catholics who believe in and practice the core doctrines of the church but think the church's views on birth control, sex before marriage, adultary etc are just social conventions and the idea they're important in a religous sense is risable.
chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But WHY why do they choose to keep the core beliefs, but throw out other things that are inconvenient? Do you really think it's a coincidence?

It has become all too obvious that in this day and age people are not going to abstain from sex until they get married. Period. It's just not gonna happen. Now those Catholics have two choices... 1. They can disown family members who choose this practice and say they can't be Catholic, or 2. They can look the other way and say, "Well, I guess it's really not THAT big of a deal", and move on. And that's part of my point...

If the church rejected all who engage in premarital sex, or those who use contraception, they would have no congregation left. So they've been forced to become somewhat tolerant of it. This has made it much easier for many Catholics to say, "Well I still believe in the CORE beliefs... I just don't believe in all of it". What they're really saying is, "Don't ask me to refrain from premarital sex, because I won't. And if you make it a requirement, then I guess I'm not Catholic".

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But WHY why do they choose to keep the core beliefs, but throw out other things that are inconvenient? Do you really think it's a coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not as simple as convenience. ts to do with what people think is important. Many non-homosexuals don't believe homosexuality is a sin. On the other hand many non-christians believe advocating mass murder is very bad.

[ QUOTE ]
If the church rejected all who engage in premarital sex, or those who use contraception, they would have no congregation left. So they've been forced to become somewhat tolerant of it. This has made it much easier for many Catholics to say, "Well I still believe in the CORE beliefs... I just don't believe in all of it". What they're really saying is, "Don't ask me to refrain from premarital sex, because I won't. And if you make it a requirement, then I guess I'm not Catholic".

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is mistaken although its the way the catholic authoraties and BluffThis see things. The church is the sum of the people who attend (and possibly god). If they try to decree that people who have pre-marital sex or commit adultary or homosexual acts ... cannot attend they will simply be ignored. If they try to enforce it through force the they risk being overthrown - either way the church will continue.

chez

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If you want to belong to a glorifies social club and can ignore the wonky guidelines with a clear conscience, have at it.

What "glorified social club" would that be that you think I belong to?

The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations?

The Libertarian Party?

2+2?

On the other hand, maybe you could figure out how to reply to the right person!!! /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[pilliwinks]

The issue of orthodoxy has been a thorny one for ever. Do you let anyone in (because you want everyone to benefit from the truth), at the risk that they will lead many astray?

Personally, I'd say the OP is a great asset to the Catholic church, and the more people you can persuade to see things your way, the better. The fact that you disagree with some in authority should not surprise you. That it is on issues so peripheral as ethics makes life easy for you. If you disputed their opinion on the crucifixion, I'd be saying you need to make some hard choices!

The religious authorities in Jesus' time gave him a lot of stick about ethics - his main response was: it's not the point. Yes you need to live righteously, but if that is all you are aiming for, you have missed the whole point. What does all the law and prophets come down to...? Just do that, and all the rest will take care of itself.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
chez,

I'm not going to play your semantics game…

[/ QUOTE ]

chez,

Funny how you got Bluff and NotReady confused before. Here Bluff is actually sounding like NR.

No offense intended towards Bluff nor NR; I just lol while reading this thread.

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chez,

I'm not going to play your semantics game…

[/ QUOTE ]

chez,

Funny how you got Bluff and NotReady confused before. Here Bluff is actually sounding like NR.

No offense intended towards Bluff nor NR; I just lol while reading this thread.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
My memory fails me. When did I confuse them?

In my mind they seem quite distinct.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chez,

I'm not going to play your semantics game…

[/ QUOTE ]

chez,

Funny how you got Bluff and NotReady confused before. Here Bluff is actually sounding like NR.

No offense intended towards Bluff nor NR; I just lol while reading this thread.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
My memory fails me. When did I confuse them?

In my mind they seem quite distinct.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironically, I just confused you with Lestat. In this very thread he got the two confused.

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chez,

I'm not going to play your semantics game…

[/ QUOTE ]

chez,

Funny how you got Bluff and NotReady confused before. Here Bluff is actually sounding like NR.

No offense intended towards Bluff nor NR; I just lol while reading this thread.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
My memory fails me. When did I confuse them?

In my mind they seem quite distinct.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ironically, I just confused you with Lestat. In this very thread he got the two confused.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Yes you need to live righteously, but if that is all you are aiming for, you have missed the whole point. </font>

Serious question: So what IS the point?

[KeysrSoze]

[ QUOTE ]


On the other hand, maybe you could figure out how to reply to the right person!!! /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I want to do that when the Quick Reply option so easy? Leave me alone before I discommodate you.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would I want to do that when the Quick Reply option so easy?

[/ QUOTE ]

To make it easier for everyone else?

[godBoy]

If you believe in who Jesus was and what he did, you are a christian.
But believing In Him is believing in what he thought to be true.

People who have created a set of religious beliefs from what they think to be right are in a dangerous place..
If at 2 years of age I believed I knew the truth and constructed a set of beliefs that I stood by my whole life, I might just worship santa claus..

My point is, no-one knows the full extent of truth and they shouldn't expect to. Jesus said the true path was narrow and few find it.. Don't expect you know the absolute truth about sex, homosexuality.. but rather examine it and test it and seek the truth whatever that may be.

Jesus believed what the scriptures said, to be a obedient follower of christ then you also need to adopt his beliefs.. Not blindly, without questioning them but with a level-head and desire to know the truth.

[MidGe]

godBoy!

You are back! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

At least you got something intelligent to say. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[ QUOTE ]
People who have created a set of religious beliefs from what they think to be right are in a dangerous place..

[/ QUOTE ]

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe in who Jesus was and what he did, you are a christian.
But believing In Him is believing in what he thought to be true.
[..]Don't expect you know the absolute truth about sex, homosexuality.. but rather examine it and test it and seek the truth whatever that may be.

Jesus believed what the scriptures said, to be a obedient follower of christ then you also need to adopt his beliefs.. Not blindly, without questioning them but with a level-head and desire to know the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Godboy,
What if a level-head and desire to know the truth leads you to believe that parts of the bible are wrong? If you become convinced that parts of the viewpoints in the bible are immoral or/and wrong, what then?

On another note: how is it possible to know what Jesus thought was true? Why should we accept the teachings of anyone besides the words attributed to Jesus?

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Yes you need to live righteously, but if that is all you are aiming for, you have missed the whole point. </font>

Serious question: So what IS the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not the first to ask that one! How about Mark 12:

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'There is no commandment greater than these."

32"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."

[Lestat]

Interesting...

But then why do you suppose so many Catholics support war? War is the opposite of loving your neighbor like you'd love yourself, isn't it?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting...

But then why do you suppose so many Catholics support war? War is the opposite of loving your neighbor like you'd love yourself, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not christain. Seems clear that catholic (and other denominations) does not imply christian.

This is not true of all (possibly most catholics) but that's the point we were discussing earlier. Many catholic will simply ignore the church if it condones a war they think unchristian.

chez

[pilliwinks]

To a point, I'd have to agree, chez.

But there is the slight subtlety of wishing that others would do to you what you need rather than what you want. If I am rabid, I need sedation, but I want to bite you. The Christian should sedate me. Loving me means violating my desires and dignity. Where there is absolutely no alternative, loving me may even mean giving me a bullet.

Hence the reluctance, but eventual determination of many Christians to join WWII.

I hasten to add that this in no way justifies Christian warmongers/crusaders etc, who IMHO have shown what they really believe by their actions.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To a point, I'd have to agree, chez.

But there is the slight subtlety of wishing that others would do to you what you need rather than what you want. If I am rabid, I need sedation, but I want to bite you. The Christian should sedate me. Loving me means violating my desires and dignity. Where there is absolutely no alternative, loving me may even mean giving me a bullet.

Hence the reluctance, but eventual determination of many Christians to join WWII.

I hasten to add that this in no way justifies Christian warmongers/crusaders etc, who IMHO have shown what they really believe by their actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with you. Even the secular pacifists prominant in England at the time recognised that WWII had to be fought. If christ says different then I would disagree with him but that's no problem for me as I don't worship him - just happen to agree with his general ethical approach.

Its a long way from there to advocating wars purely on fear and calculations which value 'them' less than 'us'.

chez

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting...

But then why do you suppose so many Catholics support war? War is the opposite of loving your neighbor like you'd love yourself, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not christain. Seems clear that catholic (and other denominations) does not imply christian.

This is not true of all (possibly most catholics) but that's the point we were discussing earlier. Many catholic will simply ignore the church if it condones a war they think unchristian.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to see that anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well. Is your robe and hood back from the cleaners yet?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting...

But then why do you suppose so many Catholics support war? War is the opposite of loving your neighbor like you'd love yourself, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not christain. Seems clear that catholic (and other denominations) does not imply christian.

This is not true of all (possibly most catholics) but that's the point we were discussing earlier. Many catholic will simply ignore the church if it condones a war they think unchristian.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to see that anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well. Is your robe and hood back from the cleaners yet?

[/ QUOTE ]
ahh paranoia at work. Despite the thread being about catholics I took the care to point out my post was not aimed particularly at catholics.

I also excluded some (possibly most) catholics.

Get a grip

chez

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

They're not christain. Seems clear that catholic (and other denominations) does not imply christian

I try to be polite in these threads, but this crap is precisely why religion is a negative force. "he's not a *real* Christian (or Muslim or Hindu)".

I'm sorry. People who believe in this mythical "god" thing are just delusional control freaks.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
They're not christain. Seems clear that catholic (and other denominations) does not imply christian

I try to be polite in these threads, but this crap is precisely why religion is a negative force. "he's not a *real* Christian (or Muslim or Hindu)".

I'm sorry. People who believe in this mythical "god" thing are just delusional control freaks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.

and how did god get into this conversation /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting...

But then why do you suppose so many Catholics support war? War is the opposite of loving your neighbor like you'd love yourself, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not christain. Seems clear that catholic (and other denominations) does not imply christian.

This is not true of all (possibly most catholics) but that's the point we were discussing earlier. Many catholic will simply ignore the church if it condones a war they think unchristian.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to see that anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well. Is your robe and hood back from the cleaners yet?

[/ QUOTE ]
ahh paranoia at work. Despite the thread being about catholics I took the care to point out my post was not aimed particularly at catholics.

I also excluded some (possibly most) catholics.

Get a grip

chez

[/ QUOTE ]



chez,

You are the one who needs to get a grip. As a non-christian you can't define what it is or is not to be a christian. Non-christians love to make strawmen out of their notions of what it means to be a christian.

And regarding war, in my notorious nuke Iran thread started by Hopey in response to something I posted in the politics forum, I gave the conditions given by the church to determine whether a war is just or not.

The meaning of the commandment not to kill, has always been taken by mainstream jews and christians to be not to murder. Thus all killing is not murder, and one certainly has the right to self-defense, as do nations.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You are the one who needs to get a grip. As a non-christian you can't define what it is or is not to be a christian. Non-christians love to make strawmen out of their notions of what it means to be a christian.

[/ QUOTE ] Nah. a christian is someone who lives according to the teachings of christ (or something like that). If you mean something different then fine but leave christ out of it.

Its possible to belong to a church and not follow the treachings of christ and hence belonging to the church does not imply being christian.

Understanding that is simple logic and does not require being christian or not.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

That's the teachings of Christ as interpreted properly by Christians, not by non-Christians.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the teachings of Christ as interpreted properly by Christians, not by non-Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really, that's a very silly argument.

You can't logically defend being a christian by arguments that rely on you being a chrsitian in the first place.

chez

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting...

But then why do you suppose so many Catholics support war? War is the opposite of loving your neighbor like you'd love yourself, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not christain. Seems clear that catholic (and other denominations) does not imply christian.

This is not true of all (possibly most catholics) but that's the point we were discussing earlier. Many catholic will simply ignore the church if it condones a war they think unchristian.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to see that anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well. Is your robe and hood back from the cleaners yet?

[/ QUOTE ]
ahh paranoia at work. Despite the thread being about catholics I took the care to point out my post was not aimed particularly at catholics.

I also excluded some (possibly most) catholics.

Get a grip

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, it's possible you didn't mean it in the way I took it, but you have to realize that there is a rather nasty strain of anti-Catholicism in American history that asserts Catholics are not Christians. Beware before you toss that accusation around.

Also, just because someone doesn't live up to Christian ideals doesn't mean they aren't a Christian, just that they aren't perfect. Possibly even a hypocrite, but being a Christian is pretty much a self-defining ideal, and if someone says they're trying to live up to the ideal, I'll believe them, even if they don't come close.

Man, I can't believe I'm defending Christians and Catholics.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
And regarding war, in my notorious nuke Iran thread started by Hopey in response to something I posted in the politics forum, I gave the conditions given by the church to determine whether a war is just or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I still have a hard time believing that the pope would be pro-nuclear holocaust.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting...

But then why do you suppose so many Catholics support war? War is the opposite of loving your neighbor like you'd love yourself, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not christain. Seems clear that catholic (and other denominations) does not imply christian.

This is not true of all (possibly most catholics) but that's the point we were discussing earlier. Many catholic will simply ignore the church if it condones a war they think unchristian.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to see that anti-Catholic bigotry is alive and well. Is your robe and hood back from the cleaners yet?

[/ QUOTE ]
ahh paranoia at work. Despite the thread being about catholics I took the care to point out my post was not aimed particularly at catholics.

I also excluded some (possibly most) catholics.

Get a grip

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, it's possible you didn't mean it in the way I took it, but you have to realize that there is a rather nasty strain of anti-Catholicism in American history that asserts Catholics are not Christians. Beware before you toss that accusation around.

Also, just because someone doesn't live up to Christian ideals doesn't mean they aren't a Christian, just that they aren't perfect. Possibly even a hypocrite, but being a Christian is pretty much a self-defining ideal, and if someone says they're trying to live up to the ideal, I'll believe them, even if they don't come close.

Man, I can't believe I'm defending Christians and Catholics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough, I was unaware of any american 'catholics aren't christian' sensitivity. I'm really not having a go at catholics or any other church, just some people.

I agree that if people are trying to live up to an ideal then that's enough and even some hypocrisy is okay but my point is they some people who call themselves christian are not making any attempt to live a up to a christian ideal (meaning trying to live as christ taught), rather they are attempting to live to some religous ideal that does not require attempting to live according to christs teachings.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the teachings of Christ as interpreted properly by Christians, not by non-Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really, that's a very silly argument.

You can't logically defend being a christian by arguments that rely on you being a chrsitian in the first place.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


The Bible obviously has been interpreted differently on many issues by Christians themsleves, as the plethora of denominations. But it is important to be able to intrepret an individual passage correctly, to do so not only accurately via translations, but also within the context of the whole Bible. But of course non-Christians, especially those antagonistic to Christianity, thrive on pointing out apparent contradictions by taking out of context an individual passage, the same way some denominations do themselves.

And the bottom line is that you and other non-christians look at Christianity as a set of rules, in addition to a belief in a supreme being. But in any organization or group who gets to interpret those rules? Why of course the group itself, not outsiders. Would the UK let the US Supreme Court interpret an internal legal issue for it? No. And neither are we Christians going to let you or others interpret our "rules" and beliefs in order to set up strawmen and pretend that they have any validity.

But you can keep trying.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
And the bottom line is that you and other non-christians look at Christianity as a set of rules,

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't view christianity as a set of rules. I do include some people who call themselves christian to be in the set of non-christians.

what would christ have to say about it?

chez

[pilliwinks]

I suspect he says Matthew 7:

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> If I am rabid, I need sedation, but I want to bite you. The Christian should sedate me. </font>

<font color="blue">Where there is absolutely no alternative, loving me may even mean giving me a bullet. </font> <font color="blue"> </font>

Then why do you suppose that when there is no alternative, Christians are so opposed to suicide or assisted suicide?

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> If I am rabid, I need sedation, but I want to bite you. The Christian should sedate me. </font>

<font color="blue">Where there is absolutely no alternative, loving me may even mean giving me a bullet. </font> <font color="blue"> </font>

Then why do you suppose that when there is no alternative, Christians are so opposed to suicide or assisted suicide?

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a key difference, and I hope you don't mind me answering for him (though I'm certainly not Christian), but in the "rabid" example the person in question is a threat to harm another. With suicide, that's rarely the case, and it's an attempt to escape a sort of "earthly" suffering.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Then why do you suppose that when there is no alternative, Christians are so opposed to suicide or assisted suicide?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am on chez side here. I know of some christians that do not oppose it.

[pilliwinks]

Like me.

I'm as keen as anyone to help suicidal people to realise what a gift they're throwing away, but in terms of ending unbearable and unfixable suffering, I am comfortable with assisted suicide (as terminal pain-relief).

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
What if a level-head and desire to know the truth leads you to believe that parts of the bible are wrong? If you become convinced that parts of the viewpoints in the bible are immoral or/and wrong, what then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd question God directly and ask Him to show me the real truth in what is written. It's quite possible that my interpretation of many doctrines/verses is incorrect. If he was silent and I couldn't find an answer after a thorough search I would have to put it in the mystery basket.. It wouldn't make my whole faith useless, I'd accept not to know that particular truth.

[ QUOTE ]
On another note: how is it possible to know what Jesus thought was true?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen a great change take place in the born-again christians who I trust, I attribute this to Jesus personally coming and changing them as is widely written about him. I can learn his will because of the accounts in the gospels and the 'sense' of right and wrong that is ever-growing in me.

Why should we accept the teachings of anyone besides the words attributed to Jesus?

We'll lots of people have good ideas, but the character of Jesus is certainly a good model to follow IMO.

[godBoy]

I'm glad you agree.. There truly is time and a place for everything.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I am comfortable with assisted suicide (as terminal pain-relief).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how, as the pope is vehemently opposed to it.

Are you saying that you don't trust the pope's knowledge and/or authority?

[Lestat]

I took them as seperate statements. 1. Rabid = Sedating and 2. Loving me sometimes means giving me a bullet.

[pilliwinks]

Sorry, I should have made that clear - I'm no Catholic. I'm a happy clappy Bappy as far as church attendance goes, which fortunately allows me a good deal of latitude in what I believe (at least in my part of the world).

So no, I don't accept the pope's authority, however I do respect the decision of those who make that choice. I accept and obey the authority of my boss and the police while disagreeing with their opinions and actions in many cases. I expect most Catholics disagree with the pope and/or their local priest about a whole bunch of things, including what football team is best. This is no reason to abandon ship.

Of course if the pope decides that anyone who privately agrees with euthanasia should be excommunicated, that would be different...