As you may or may not know, from reading my past blog and comments, I'm a practicing Catholic. Whether I'm happy about that or not, I'm not so sure yet, but I know that I do go to church every Sunday, I do believe in God, and I do believe in the New Testament and most of the conservative Christian social views. Other than that, I'm lost.
Personally, I think that the Catholic church does nothing but brainwash it's parishioners into believing this because "they have to" or because "it's the Christian thing to do" or because "that's what the church believes". My entire life, that's been the excuse for EVERYTHING that my parents have ever said to me and that's been their rebuttal for every argument I've presented to them. It's the biggest pet peeve I could ever have.
Why should you be shunned from the Catholic church because you sleep around or because you're homosexual? Isn't the Catholic church supposed to accept everyone who has a relationship with God no matter what? What kind of image are they sending out there when they're shunning away people that don't believe in what they believe in? That's the opposite of acceptance if you ask me.
No one, and I mean no one in the Catholic church makes their own opinions on anything. We are pro-life because that's what Catholics do. We are homophobic because that's what we are taught is moral. But who can tell me what my morals are? Only I have the power to establish those, but ever since I was six and in Catholic school I've been brainwashed with Catholic values and opinions that aren't my own and I haven't had the proper time or information to form MY OWN opinion on.
I'm just so frustrated because no one seems to be able to break away from the mold that Catholicism shoves its members into. I want to be able to go into church and say, I'm pro-death penalty because I did all of the research I could, I debated it out, and I'm following what I feel is right in MY heart. I mean, how is religion going to better anyone if the pews on Sunday are just filled with robotic teenagers being told what to say and think and what not to say and think?
It's complete and total brainwashing if you ask me. I can't speak for other religions, but I can speak for Catholicism. And once I'm eighteen, and not obligated to attend church every Sunday, I'm seriously considering finding a new religion that accepts MY opinions and MY morals because I think they're the right ones.
I don't need to be programmed by some old guy in Rome anymore.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Very well written. When I was a kid and attended church with my grandparents on the odd occasion (they were Baptist) it was the same thing there. Asking questions was taboo, we were simply supposed to accept that "it just was/is/did/didn't/couldn't/wouldn't/will/etc." Very annoying and amongst the top reasons I realized I was in no way shape nor form Christian. I imagine though (and this doesn't really help, I'll admit... actually makes it worse) that these things are done because "they've always been done that way." Catholicism is all about tradition.
Good luck whatever you decide.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
"May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back. May the warm rays of the sun fall upon your home."
One of the worst things about modern Christianity is that it has lost focus on acceptance, love and tolerance and become a power-hungry, intolerant hate machine. There are good Christians out there who can have a reasonable discussion and think freely without recriminations, but they're few and far between. Good luck on your quest of finding what you really believe.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
THere are moral actions that are called intrinsic evils. For instance, abortion is always wrogn in all situations, except maybe by double effect, when the life of the mother is at stake.
Fornication is always wrong, and therefore homosexual unions are always wrong. The sexual act is meant for marriage, and the chance for the procreation must be in the act.
The catholic church is not homophobic. In the CCC it tells us to love the homosexual as a person, but not condone what they do.
With regard to the death penalty, the church teaches that it is wrong because we have the ability to incarcerate folks for the rest of their natural life.
The church would allow the death penalty in situations where there is no way to keep teh person from rendering harm to society. If the nation feels that a person could be harmful to their society even from behind bars, than they can execute them.
In other teachings such as "Just War Theory," conditions are given, but it is really up to you to decide whether or not the conditions are met.
There are legitimate moral and philisophical reasons for what the church teaches that goes beyond the bible and tradition, and if one researched the subject extensively they would agree with the Catholic position.
I will stop here because I have to go back to class.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
What you just said proves the point. You said that abortion is always wrong- why? You give no arguments. You say that homosexuality is wrong-why? Because some old people on another continent think that it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage and, conviniently, marrige is between a man and a woman. Well, why is it wrong to have sex out of marriage? Further more, your claim of nonreligious reasons for what the church teaches is nonsensical. Of course the reasons are religious, if they weren't religious why would religion teach them.
You could say that the reason homosexuality is wrong is because it stops the creation of life, but the argument doesn't make sense. If you're naturally attracted to someone of your own sex, why would you decide to engage in fornication with a member of the opposite sex, regardless of whether or not you're allowed to marry.
In response to the initial point, I don't think there ever was a time when Catholicism, or any major religion, was particulaly tolerant of people with other beleifs. The reson, in my opinion, being the weakness of religion's argument, which is completely self-supporting. (We say Jesus is the lord and here's the proof, the Bible!) If they were open to other's opinions, organized religion would not last long.
O ye of little faith
must i waste time typing
okay heres the quick version
i never said homosexually is wrong. read correctly. homosexual fornication is wrong because
1.God made Andam (man) and Eve (woman) to be together. Woman is man's helpmate, his other half. Further more the purpose of sex preocreation. Excuse if i'm wrong but but a wee-wee up a mans behind won't make a baby. Read LEVITICUS in the Old Testament.
(here's a sidenote- in homosexual fornication only one side gets pleaure at a time. in heterosexual its both)
Why is it wrong to have sex out of marriage?
let's ask people of ALL religions shall we?
1. Lust. You want the person for pleasure therefore you are using them. It's a selfish act. It's all about giving pleasure to your self.
2. You may love your honeybunch (today) but since there is no hardcore commitment that will be taken seriously (b/c you can't bail out as easily in marriage since divorce involves pprwork) who's to say that person won't dump you tomorrow?
3. Emotional baggage. How many women give in for emaotional reasons? then when the man doesnt respond in the way she needs she falls into depression or confusion, etc etc, It marks them.
4. Consequences
babies born out of wedlock. children need families whther you choose to believe or not.
STDs...you won't know 100% if the person is telling you hey guess what i have this and that. who does that? at least when youre married you can be more certain they want the best for you
5. Here's my reason for waiting-
I want to experience something completely new on my wedding night. I won't want to compare my husband with any past partners. I want to give myself to him only as a gift. (Don't men love virgins?)and IF I COULD WAIT SO LONG, WHICH IS NOT EASY AT ALL, I'LL KNOW IN THE FUTURE I'LL BE CAPPABLE OF ANYTHING I SET MY MIND TO.
"If you're naturally attracted to someone of your own sex, why would you decide to engage in fornication with a member of the opposite sex, regardless of whether or not you're allowed to marry."
- if you are attracted to ppl of the same sex, then you really shouldn't marry someone of the opposite that is just wrong.
Homosexuals along with ANY unmarried person is supposed to live in celibacy.
Why? It's God's law. Since the time of ancient Judaism. And who are we to argue with God's commandmets? He knows all He sees all so who knows what is best
All Catholic principles are based on the Bible. THAT is the answer to all your questions.
If you cannot understand the Bible and the basic principles of all religions and understand the basics human psychology than you cannot understand any religion.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
If you do not have faith, then you will live the rest of your life bitterly as a cynic
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
1. Lust. You want the person for pleasure therefore you are using them. It's a selfish act. It's all about giving pleasure to your self.
Sex usually involves two partners that come together for a shared experience. Not dominating another person for sexual gratification.
2. You may love your honeybunch (today) but since there is no hardcore commitment that will be taken seriously (b/c you can't bail out as easily in marriage since divorce involves pprwork) who's to say that person won't dump you tomorrow?
If you're talking about religious marriage then there isn't necessarily any paperwork. You can get married in a church and never register with the state. The way it reads it sounds like you're saying there is no such thing as true love.
3. Emotional baggage. How many women give in for emaotional reasons? then when the man doesnt respond in the way she needs she falls into depression or confusion, etc etc, It marks them.
That's a rather dim view of women. Women can't make sound choices and are governed solely by their emotions?
4. Consequences
babies born out of wedlock. children need families whther you choose to believe or not. STDs...you won't know 100% if the person is telling you hey guess what i have this and that. who does that? at least when youre married you can be more certain they want the best for you
It is widely accepted that children simply need people who love them. That's what a family is. You can have a mom and a dad but if they don't love you what difference does it make? Aside from that, condoms are a reliable way to prevent conception. And contrary to Catholic propaganda, the majority of the population does not carry STDs nor are there masses of people lying to their partners just to have sex.
1.God made Andam (man) and Eve (woman) to be together. Woman is man's helpmate, his other half. Further more the purpose of sex preocreation. Excuse if i'm wrong but but a wee-wee up a mans behind won't make a baby. Read LEVITICUS in the Old Testament.
Show me the commandment that says homosexuality is wrong. I must have missed it. I have read Leviticus however and 19:19 says "You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material." Why isn't everyone up in arms about farmers or Abercrombie and Fitch?
All the girl wants to do is be able to make up her own mind. I'd think cherry-picking of the bible by so-called faithful has a lot to do with that.
because A&F wasnt it the bible. j/k
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
First of all, I'm not your sweetheart and find that rather rude. Second, I know which verse it is. My point was, people love to point at Leviticus and claim homosexuality is wrong while ignoring what's on the next page. Hence the term cherry-picking.
i call everyone sweetheart, dont feel special. its a term of endearment. jeez louise
poor victoria. sorry, hun. i caused such a uproar. at least you get blog points ;)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
It just sounds like you're talking down to people.
no i meant it kindly
<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3_<3
People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.
Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless....
Mother Theresa of Calc
Okay, let me start with your argument about homosexuality. That you just said that only one person recieves pleasures is WRONG. Maybe you should ask someone who engages in such activity first.
About premarital sex, there are many reasons for engaging in it. People may not agree with the institution of marriage. It is an institution because it has rules and regulations which are put into effect by society, religions, and the government. I know quite a few people that are in love, but no want to conform to the rigid roles which are often attached with being married. I love my boyfriend, and we were both virgins when we had sex for the first time three years ago. That doesn't seem like an unstable relationship to me. All of my friends which have decided to lose their virginity have not regreted it. I feel that the act of sex brings me and my boyfriend closer together. And it would be just as hard to break up with him now than it would be if we were married. Your argument about how it is harder to break up if you are married because of paperwork is completely irrelevant. The divorce rate is so high these days, that do you really see a difference between a couple who divorces and had kids or one who breaks up and was never married? If you get divorced, isn't that adultry as well?
And with STDs, a spouse can just as easily be cheating on their significant other whether or not they are in a relationship. Your answer to this lies in contraceptives. You don't believe in those either, but where in the bible does it say that they are bad? Nowhere, you just interpret it differently than I do.
And you are right, babies do need families. But why do they need a family with two parents, one male and one female? I was raised by a single mother, and I turned out pretty well. 3.83 in a good university, and I plan to go to law school afterwards. Homosexuals should have the right to have families as well. Most of them want to have children. Do you think it is better for a child to be shipped around from foster home to foster home and then kicked out when they are eighteen than live with two homosexual parents? I think not.
The fact of the matter is, sex is a union between two people who love each other. Gender doesn't matter, and marital status doesn't matter. Until someone shows me somewhere in the bible where God specifically says that homosexuality is bad, not just point to Adam and Eve, I believe that he loves everyone equally. I honestly believe that God would rather people be in a loving relationship that all alone and depressed because they feel their community would reject them if they were in a homosexual relationship.
You are right. I took that our of common lgic. i don't know that homosexuals both get pleasure AT THE SAME TIME. I feel uncomfortable asking ppl about the details of their sex pratcies.
Yes divorce is terribly high now a days. it's sad. but what can i do.
Actually according to Jesus, you are committing adultry in divorce. because you move on, naturally, and you are meant to be together forever and make that vow. i don't remeber the passage, but if you want it let me know.
yes a spouse can pass std's. of course. it's sad. but it's not as common as in unmarried couples, who are lieable to cheat more.
i know nt all ppl are raised by both parents. and i applaud your mother for her dedication to you. in your heart of hearts have you ever at least once wanted a father? despite everything? just wondering. i'm not saying to offend your mother's raising you.
foster homes are a sad thing b/c the children are never allowed to become attached to foster parents which is why they get shiiped around. and though they could find a home with homosexuals, who's to say that this couple won't become separated just like a heterosexual couple would?
True sex is about union. it is a wonderful gift from God, and it is my hope people don't let that gift be given freely, carelessly, taken for granted. if it wasnt wonderful then human existence would have stopped long ago.
p.s. :
Leviticus 18
The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 " 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
In Genesis 19,
A man named Lot had two male guests at his house. A crowd of men pounded on his door begging him to let them have sex with the men. The Lord sent an angel to blind these men, needless to say the Lord destroyed the city of Sodom, infamous for the Sodomites (aka practicing homosexuals)
alrighty i'm out. too much computer for one day.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
Can you back up your facts with anything besides opinion and biased analyzation of scripture?
Without the bible, there is no Christianity. If you can't accept this, and if you can't understand why Christians frequently refer to the bible, it's not in your place to mock them.
Let me know when you can back up your facts with anything besides opinion and biased analyzation of scripture.
I understand why people refer to it. I don't understand why the conversation has to stop there. The bible, after all, was not written by Jesus Christ.
I'm not mocking anyone. You got your little jab in though. Yet another person resulting to personal attacks to make their point.
If you can understand that, and if you understand religion in its entirety, then you should also understand by now that having a conversation with a Christian will be useless.
Your comments sure are confusing. I can't tell what position you are taking.
Anyway, I think not being able to have civil conversation about religion is a huge problem. I don't see why it has to be something that divides us.
Everyone's opinions are biased. The question is why.
We disagree with you because we don't accept blind faith as evidence for truth and when you take away blind faith, there's nothing else.
You beleive what you beleive because it is in the Bible. It is in the bible, therefore it is true. Talk about brain washing.
Further more, the whole point of god is that god's existance can not be proved because it must be based on faith. Therefore, a faithful person can easily say 'go find proof' with the knowledge that the others arguments, no matter how probable can't be 100% conclusive. Here's my challenge- you find proof for god's existance that isn't based on the bible!
You are right. I took that our of common lgic. i don't know that homosexuals both get pleasure AT THE SAME TIME. I feel uncomfortable asking ppl about the details of their sex pratcies.
Yes divorce is terribly high now a days. it's sad. but what can i do.
Actually according to Jesus, you are committing adultry in divorce. because you move on, naturally, and you are meant to be together forever and make that vow. i don't remeber the passage, but if you want it let me know.
yes a spouse can pass std's. of course. it's sad. but it's not as common as in unmarried couples, who are lieable to cheat more.
i know nt all ppl are raised by both parents. and i applaud your mother for her dedication to you. in your heart of hearts have you ever at least once wanted a father? despite everything? just wondering. i'm not saying to offend your mother's raising you.
foster homes are a sad thing b/c the children are never allowed to become attached to foster parents which is why they get shiiped around. and though they could find a home with homosexuals, who's to say that this couple won't become separated just like a heterosexual couple would?
True sex is about union. it is a wonderful gift from God, and it is my hope people don't let that gift be given freely, carelessly, taken for granted. if it wasnt wonderful then human existence would have stopped long ago.
p.s. :
Leviticus 18
The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.
'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 " 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
In Genesis 19,
A man named Lot had two male guests at his house. A crowd of men pounded on his door begging him to let them have sex with the men. The Lord sent an angel to blind these men, needless to say the Lord destroyed the city of Sodom, infamous for the Sodomites (aka practicing homosexuals)
alrighty i'm out. too much computer for one day.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
First, thanks for all the fuel your feeding me here.
Next- this post is wonderful. First you said, to be brief and completely accurate: basically everything I said is based soley on what I beleive to be right.
Then you show what makes you beleive you're right. THE BIBLE.
In the passage you recall the story of the israelites going to Canaan. What is really said is this. Don't be like Egyptians. Don't be like Cannanites. Why- they don't follow my rules. Therefore you are totaly justified in kicking the Canaanites out of their home and taking it for yourselves.
Also, the evil sodomites. That is a story which shows great virtue. Lot says to them. Don't take these visitors. Here- rape my daughters. Absolutely lovely. Further more, as the writer of the Torah ('god', Moses, some random guy), obviously disliked homosexuality, it can't be surprising that he made them evil. A good look around today shows that they are nothing of the sort.
You know, the story of Sodom is a bit confusing. Yes, the men wanted to have sex with the angels. But they also wanted to rape the angels, despite Lot's insistence that they not. Could it possibly be that they were destroyed because they wanted to rape the angels, thus not showing proper hospitality?
~C
Visit my blog.
Why is sex outside of marriage wrong? It is God's law. In other words someone, my parents, a priest, etc. told me that my whole life and I followed blindly.
That was my sarcastic remark.
Here is my not so quick version.
Homosexual fornication is wrong, not homosexuality. Hmm, lets think about this. Why? Because they are not allowed to marry. Why? Because it's a sin. Why? Because God said. According to who? The Pope, rabbi, etc., etc., etc. Why is it a sin? Because they don't procreate. The answer- let them live unmarried and be celibate because unmarried people should be celibate. That's a great way to make more babies.
Summary
It is wrong for homosexuals to participate in intercourse because homosexual intercourse does not produce babies. Therefore they should be celibate and still not have any babies. Instead of- let them marry and do whatever they want.
(Not that I think sexual relations out of marriage are sinful)
Now, what is the argument supported by- the bible! It is an argument that can only be proven by itself.
God created Adam and Eve so that they could be togeather and then, because god creates everything, god created homosexuals for no reason at all. What a convinving argument.
Moving along- Why is sex outside of marrige wrong?
Because it is based on lust. This will be ignored because it is so rediculous.
Love today, not tomorrow-I'm about to say something shocking. This is true. Love can fade. (of course it can still fade in marriage although you seem to think that paperwork and lawyers will make love everlasting) The point- it is a sin because it can be hard on people when they break up.
How noble. We all know religions always want people to feel good.
STD's- Here's a thought- GET TESTED if you want to be in a sexual relationship with somebody.
I happen to beleive that children brought up in a good enviornment can turn out fine despite the number of parents. You just offer a fact, I don't beleive.
Your reason is fine. Wait. Good for you. Don't tell other people what to do.
"All Catholic principles are based on the Bible. THAT is the answer to all your questions.
If you cannot understand the Bible and the basic principles of all religions and understand the basics human psychology than you cannot understand any religion."
Oh my. What an aming argument. How skilfully you just proved the point of religious brainwashing. I applaud you.
Lets analyze this statement, shall we?
It is in the bible, therefore it is true. Very nice. Who says the bible is true? god. What says that god says the bible is true? The bible. What is the source that says god exits? The bible and, obviously the people who wrote it. (People who wrote it includes the societies of the people who wrote it.)
Next up- can't understand the Bible, can't undertand religion. I read the Bible. I think that it is an interesting read, but don't see why I should beleive any of it.
And you maybe just might want to check with the psychologists before you go around using psychology to support religion. It doesn't. There is very persuasive evidence (Definition- facts that back up a claim. e.g.) supporting arguments that morals have evolved out of a biological pack instinct. I assume that you are talking about morals, because there is nothing else that psychology could even begin to use to make an argument for religion.
One last thing, thanks for calling me "O ye of little faith" :)
What? How did we find out that morals have evolved out of a biological pack instinct? Evolutionary psychology, that's what. There's nothing else psychological about religion? WHAT?!!
Do you know the point of psychology at all?
Other than being a psycotic idea, what is psycological about religion?
Also, I said nothing about anything that could be reffered to as Evolutinary Psycology.
Lastly, I said that there are very good arguments that morals are an off shoot of a pack instinct.
psy·chol·o·gy /saɪˈkɒlədʒi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-kol-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies. 1. the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.
2. the science of human and animal behavior.
3. the sum or characteristics of the mental states and processes of a person or class of persons, or of the mental states and processes involved in a field of activity: the psychology of a soldier; the psychology of politics.
4. mental ploys or strategy: He used psychology on his parents to get a larger allowance.
> (here's a sidenote- in homosexual fornication only one
> side gets pleaure at a time. in heterosexual its both)
Whoever told you this was doing it wrong...lol.
percivale
Deleted by author.
I don't think you understand my point. I'm COMPLETELY aware that the Catholic church takes solid stands on issues like the ones you mentioned such as homosexuality, abortion, and the death penalty. I'm saying that the Catholic church FORCES those opinions on you and doesn't let a parishioner pick their own side based on their own research and beliefs. But trust me, I know very well that the Catholic church takes a stand. It's just sometimes silent during mass or public life.
VERONICA!
I apologize, but it seems as if the debate has gotten off the topic that you brought up. But, hey, you're getting reads.
You cannot make claim to info you assume to be true.
1. The Catholic Chucrch DOES NOT shun any homosexuals. Rather in the Catechism it says that they should be treated as brothers and sisters eqaully and if anything with more love
2. You definitely cannot be shunned for sleeping around. It is regarded as a sin (sin of lust, sleep of covetnous) but you will not be shunned!
"I mean no one in the Catholic church makes their own opinions on anything."
**You are not "made" to agree 100% wirth everything.
You have to understand one thing: The Church is headed by whom? Cardinals ARCHBISHOPS, ETC. They have studied theology for over 8 years... plus i think they pray a whole lot more often than you do..so when they give you an interpretation of a biblical passage its be/c they understand it with more depth and want to explain. of course things could be interpretted in more than one way, but they are giving you one of those interpretaions!
We are pro-life because that's what Catholics do.
**NO we are pro-life because we belive abortion is murder, because we believe we are NOT God to make decisions about who's life to take
We are homophobic because that's what we are taught is moral.
The Catholic Churcvh is not homophobic. They are simply against the act of sexual immorality. Not just in homosexuals but in ANYBODY
Get your facts straight before making such claims
besides it's takcy and unclassy to talk bad about something you are a part of
http://www.progressiveu.org/202514-catholics
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
"besides it's takcy and unclassy to talk bad about something you are a part of"
You just made her point by telling her to shut up and act like a good Catholic. If more people like vsecreti0711 had enough guts to take a step back and take a hard look at their religion the world would be a better place.
i'm not complainging about the religion. i'm just explaining it. i would never talk bad about it, even if i can't agree with everything. Oh excuse me for not seeing more negativity than the good there could be in it. i prefer to focus on goodness, because no matter where you go or what you are a part of, nothing will be perfect. i know this, i'm a religious studies major. no religion is perfect becasue human interpretation will never be perfect. that's just the fact of the matter. i am only explaining Catholic doctrine to miss victoria.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
How can you study religion without looking at all aspects?
all aspects of what? religions? it all has core principles
unless you include atheism as a religion
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
How can you study a religion without looking at it in it's entirety? The good and the bad.
plenty of people readily look at the bad and ignore the good. People like us are here just to balance that =)
Obviously, I am being included as one of these people who ignore the good and focus only on the bad.
This is completely untrue.
I look at the good and the bad and see that the bad outweighs the good.
Excuse me, atheism IS a religion, and it DOES have principles. Look it up. Do some REAL research other than what is spoon fed to you at church.
After you do, maybe you won't be so quick as to throw such bold words around (and insults to anyone who may happen to be atheist AND reading this blog).
> atheism IS a religion,
I am sorry, but no, it isn't. By definition, a religion is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural" (Webster). People often like to CALL atheism a religion, in an attempt to hold those who profess to be atheists are saying, but in reality atheism is a LACK of religion (or more precisely a lack of belief in "god" or the supernatural).
percivale
True, Athiesm is not a religion. However, being athiest does not mean that you don't have moral beleifs that you try to follow.
Thomas Jefferson said this...
"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
re·li·gion
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
They have beliefs about the universe and they also have a moral code. the only thing atheism lacks is observances and a superhuman agency. So this only means its a DIFFERENT KIND of religion. It doesn't mean it's not one period.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
4. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience
a·the·ism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
you see, religion is simply set out by a group of people who have a certain set of beliefs.
I, myself, went to dictionary.com for these definitions, but i also peered in Webster to see if the definitions clashed....and found that in your citing of the definition you forgot to mention these:
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
the only definition I failed to mention was one reffering to the sole practice of nuns and monks because there are plenty of religions that don't have practicing nuns or monks, but i don't believe those religions (such as Christianity) are less deserving of being called a religion do you?
The reason that words have more than one defintion is that words have different meanings, depending on the context in which they are used. In the context of THIS discussion, religion is a belief based on faith in a supernatural force, while atheism is a belief based on reason that rejects that belief due to (among other things) the lack of any objective evidence that would lead to a belief in such a supernatural force.
percivale
I didn't realize that we were picking and choosing which definitions we could and couldn't use. It wasn't dictated anywhere, but I guess if YOU'RE dictating it (rather than maybe admitting that you made a mistake/false argument), then thats the way it will have to be. And since this thread doesn't even belong to you it is completely your place to do so.
It never occurred to me that a person who was supposed to be considered as progressive would limit themselves to only one definition of a word. Nor did it occur to me that they would dictate such in a conversation in an attempt to make a valid argument.
I'm sorry. I don't mean to sound rude, but it bothers me to argue with someone whom I was not even making a comment to. I made this comment in response to Faithhope who has been making fairly close-minded comments all throughout this thread. I felt it was something he/she needed to hear so in the future he/she would be careful about what comments and statements he/she may be making to other people in the future. Because he/she WON'T always be commenting in THIS conversation. So definitions that are simply customized to fit into your opinion won't help in an outside conversation he/she may be faced with in the future.
Part of being progressive is opening your mind and trying to help others do the same. You do this in order to hopefully try and one day reach a unified understanding. And the only way we are going to reach that point is if we start to accept and understand each other. And the only way to do THAT is going to be through seeing in others what we see in ourselves. And the only way THAT is going to happen is if we wipe away all bias and prejudice that creates false views about one another.
> I didn't realize that we were picking and choosing which
> definitions we could and couldn't use. It wasn't dictated
> anywhere, but I guess if YOU'RE dictating it (rather than
> maybe admitting that you made a mistake/false argument),
> then thats the way it will have to be. And since this
> thread doesn't even belong to you it is completely your
> place to do so.
You can use whatever definitions you choose. I am simply warning you that if that choice includes definitions that are not contextually relevant to the issue at hand, you may appear to be unintelligent, or at least uniformed about what we are discussing.
> It never occurred to me that a person who was supposed to
> be considered as progressive would limit themselves to only
> one definition of a word. Nor did it occur to me that they
> would dictate such in a conversation in an attempt to make
> a valid argument.
I wasn't aware that "progressive" was a synonym for "imprecise."
> I'm sorry. I don't mean to sound rude,
Don't lie. Yes, you did. But, I'm okay with that.
> but it bothers me to argue with someone whom I was not even
> making a comment to.
The difference between a blog and an e-mail is that in an e-mail, only the recipient has the opportunity to read it and respond.
> I made this comment in response to Faithhope who has
> been making fairly close-minded comments all throughout
> this thread. I felt it was something he/she needed to hear
> so in the future he/she would be careful about what
> comments and statements he/she may be making to other
> people in the future. Because he/she WON'T always be
> commenting in THIS conversation. So definitions that are
> simply customized to fit into your opinion won't help in an
> outside conversation he/she may be faced with in the future.
In order to find the correct defintion for any word, you have to consider the context in which it was used. It seemed to me that you were clouding the issue. Perhaps I misread your post, and if that was the case I apologize.
> Part of being progressive is opening your mind and trying
> to help others do the same. You do this in order to
> hopefully try and one day reach a unified understanding.
You can never have a "unified understanding" on an issue without a consistent comprehension of the relevant language and terminology.
> And the only way we are going to reach that point is if we
> start to accept and understand each other. And the only way
> to do THAT is going to be through seeing in others what we
> see in ourselves. And the only way THAT is going to happen
> is if we wipe away all bias and prejudice that creates
> false views about one another.
I agree. But the only way to change a false view is to confront that view with a view that is PROVEABLY correct. I always welcome the comments of anyone who can prove to me that a view that I have is false. Being proved wrong is one of the greatest gifts that one can receive.
percivale
I understand that, contextually, Faithope was using a certain definition of religion to encompass anything that holds core values, and I was simply putting a red flag before her: most Atheists (and I mean real ones, not the whiny emo kids who think it's cool to think God doesn't exist) would start an unneeded argument.
At its core, Atheism does indeed have core beliefs: namely, the non-existence of anything supernatural, but you'll find that there is agreement on other topics. However, Atheism has become a rather popular fad, where most "followers" are not, in fact, Atheist but Gnostic in some way...or don't fall into either category, since they don't know what they believe. The same can be said of many of the world's major religions, Christianity included, since many of "God's Followers" live lives contrary to the messages apparent in the Bible (I scolded one in another blog for spouting crap about Christians rising up and battling non-believers in His Glory...such hypocrisy).
If you were to gather a convention for world-wide Christians, you would find little agreement on any number of trivial/profound topics, same as any gathering of believers. Atheism is no different, and for that reason I wished to point out that it can just as easily be considered a religion: not because of internal disagreement, but because of the existence of core beliefs.
Connotations are powerful, but dangerous when used in debate. Don't insult those who are wary of that because they look at all of them.
I am sorry, but I do not think that you understand the "beliefs" of atheism very well at all. There are two primary "schools" of atheistic thought.
A "strong" atheist is someone who denies the existence of supernatural beings and forces. The position of a "stong" atheist is (in the context of this discussion) that "god does not exist." This is a form of "positive" belief, and is actually subject to many of the same foibles that undermine the credibility of religious belief, and is thus subject to many of the same criticisms.
A "weak" atheist is someone who instead has a non-belief in supernatural beings and forces, and for any of a number of reasons remains unconvinced that a postive belief (either in or against the existence of "god") is not logically warranted.
I fall into the latter camp, as I do not deny that "god" exists, but merely that I have never seen any evidence that would lead me to a positive belief in such a being. Thus, for the same reasons that I don't spend much time worrying about "bigfoot" when I go camping, so too do I set aside worries about "god" as I go about my daily life.
In BOTH cases, however, it is still inaccurate at the definitional level to equate "atheism" and "religion," since the term "religion" specifically (and in the current context) relies on a postiive belief in supernatural beings and forces, and neither strong nor weak atheism shares such a belief.
percivale
...my point, however: Atheism is a religion in the sense that it holds core principles...as FaithHope was first to deny with her comment:
[quote]all aspects of what? religions? it all has core principles
unless you include atheism as a religion[/quote]
In my eyes, you're not Atheist at all, but a Gnostic of some kind (I'm a little hazy on the differences between Ignostic and Agnostic, perhaps you know and could explain). A Christian who believes everything in Christianity except that Jesus is the son of God and humanity's savior is not a Christian: they'd be closer to Jewish. This, however, is arguing semantics and besides my point.
FaithHope mentioned that atheism didn't have core principles, and using that definiton (one of which I gave to you) I corrected her logic. Nothing more. This isn't even a matter of right versus wrong, since it's a matter of common understanding.
Anyway, respond if you'd like, but I won't talk on this topic anymore: the boxes are becoming too skinny ;)
I will post my full response in a fresh thread below...
percivale
P.S. I'm not finished studying so... i still have more "aspects" to get thru. and what is your take on religion, pray tell? it's a fascinatinf subject isnt it
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
The Catholic church does not shun homosexuals- they just can't participate in behavior that is biologically natural to them. The reason-......It's immoral...Why is it immoral...Because some bunch of Byzantene era beurocrats liked that passsage and decided to put it in the bible.
You won't be shunned for sleeping around- Nope, you'll just be a social pariah! Not at all shunned, you'll just be blamed for sins of lust and talked about nastily behind your back.
Of course you don't have to agree with everything!- But you see, people who pray more than you make up the rules so they obviously know more. So go ahead, don't agree, but when you burn in Hell, don't say you weren't warned!
Aborthion is murder- Why, because Catholic theology states that a person is alive from the moment of conception. Ignoring the fact that it doesn't have a brain or anything.
Not homophobic- Hey, you homosexual person, why don't you go to a rehab center where you'll be taught how to be heterosexual. Not at all homophobic.
Well, you really have your facts straight.
Sweatheart, i am not speaking of my own opinions. understand me correctly.
Homosexual sex is not only morally correct because the Bible says so (it is refered to as sodomy in the Bible) but because it has no worthy function. It wasn't God's intention otherwise animals would be homosexual too, and to my knowledge i have never seen two bulls getting it on.
If you're talked about while sleeping around...oh well. Gossip is wrong too. I think the church undertands human weakness. hello is not the entirety of the church run by humans? you are not a pariah. you are simply human, a human who gave into temptation. God is to judge, not the church.
I did not say they make the rules b/c they pray more. i meant a person who prays more studies the bible more and has inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
No one on Earth, not even the angels themselves, can decide who goes to hell or who doesn't. That is solely up to God. God has set up His laws to help understand some of these things.
" Hey, you homosexual person, why don't you go to a rehab center where you'll be taught how to be heterosexual"
--that is so wrong to say.
whether i have my facts straight or not, i see your have you opinions biasness straight
let me ask you though, no offense intended, why are you so intent on stating all this if you obviously don't share the faith? what is your motive? and does that make you happy? seriously. you seemed angered.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study
Please don't mistake debate for anger. Just because you aren't prepared to critically analyze your beliefs doesn't mean others aren't.
ew are serious... horny little bastards lol
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
lol, yeah.
in my bio class soph year, the teacher showed us this video of all these chimpanzees and monkeys having homosexual sex for pleasure.
although interesting, i was a bit grossed out to watch it.
course, i wouldn't want to watch chimpanzee sex of any kind, whether it be hetero- or homosexual...
And I guarantee you that I have read more philisophical arguements than you ever will. I have criticaly analyzed my faith, but you have not analyzed your lack thereof.
Ever read any: Augustine, Aquinas, Moore, Anselm, Plato, Descates, Hobbes, Kant, Sartre, Machiavelli, Mills, Marx, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton.....
Do you know the difference between: ethical nihilism, ethical pragmatism, utility, and existentialism?
Do you know the ontological proof for God's exsitence?
Do you know what Pascal's wager is?
Ever read anything, or are you just basing your beliefs on whatever some marxist professor told you.
I have and do question various parts of my faith, but in the end I choose to take Pascal up on his wager.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
That sort of response, while terribly arrogant and self-serving, is what I'm used to these conversations turning to. You have to attack someones character to make your point. Not a very Christian thing to do.
Pascals wager is if God is out there, you lose by not beleiving, so you may as well beleive. This argument doesn't offer any proof of God's existance and is essentially meaningless.
The ontological proofs are, as far as I'm concerned, a bunch of random musings that can only be justified by a pre-existing faith in God.
It's as if you answered all his questions right you would win! Something tells me that all you'd win is another test though.
> And I guarantee you that I have read more philisophical
> arguements than you ever will. I have criticaly analyzed my
> faith, but you have not analyzed your lack thereof.
I am an atheist, and I will take that bet. I have read quite a few of your blogs to date, Ransom, and I have to say that your claims of being well-read are not supported by what I have seen.
> Ever read any: Augustine, Aquinas, Moore, Anselm, Plato,
> Descates, Hobbes, Kant, Sartre, Machiavelli, Mills, Marx,
> C.S. Lewis, Chesterton.....
Yes.
> Do you know the difference between: ethical nihilism,
> ethical pragmatism, utility, and existentialism?
Yes.
> Do you know the ontological proof for God's exsitence?
I know of several arguments that CLAIM to be "proofs," but which ultimately fail to meet that standard upon close examination.
> Do you know what Pascal's wager is?
I know that "the wager" isn't a particularly convincing argument, which could explain why Pascal never published the work in which it is found.
> Ever read anything, or are you just basing your beliefs on
> whatever some marxist professor told you.
LOL...marxists? You really take the cake, dude.
> I have and do question various parts of my faith, but in
> the end I choose to take Pascal up on his wager.
If this is true then your belief is disingenous. The reason the wager fails to be convincing is that it doesn't provide any actual evidence to support belief over non-belief. Accepting the wager is just a way to "hedge your bet," and is really a pretty poor expression of the "faith" that your religion (as far as I have seen) claims to require.
percivale
" Hey, you homosexual person, why don't you go to a rehab center where you'll be taught how to be heterosexual"
I think it highly unfair to take that out of context. It was perfectly clear that I was refrring to the Churches view on homosexuality. These clinics, I am disgusted to say, do exist.
(new subject)
Why does god have the right to condemn me to a pit of eternal suffering. Who died and made god ruler of the Universe. Oh, that's right, he started out ruler of the Universe, because he always existed, even before the Universe existed and he didn't come from anywhere and isn't going anywhere and...(I hope the point is understood.)
Next up
Everyone is biased in some ways. I accept that. You said you accepted that. However, I will accept I was wrong if someone can prove me wrong. I don't see why religious matters shouldn't be subject to that bit of logic.
No, I am not Catholic, but I talk about it because it is something I am interested in.
Finally, the whole angry thing. I very much enjoy this. I love a good argument. Or a bad one, if it's weird enough and I am very happy.
And the title of the post "Offensive?" was a mistake. I am not offended by your beleifs although I disagree with them.
"besides it's takcy and unclassy to talk bad about something you are a part of"
And it is senseless to ignore when something is wrong simply because "you are part of it."
Question for you: Would you ignore if say your place of employment were discriminating or engaging in practices to jeopardize the health/safety of employees simply because you were a part of the company? If you would, you're just as guilty. If you wouldn't, well wouldn't that be tacky and unclassy?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
"May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back. May the warm rays of the sun fall upon your home."
You say that your Cardinals and Bishops give only one way of interpreting the Bible, but are you really allowed to interpret it any different? I am just as close to God as any Priest, Pastor, or Pope. And I am allowed to look at the Bible, interpret it, and make my own decisions.
yes we are allowed to interpret our wown way. and congrats for being close to God.
i said that priests may understand context a bit since they are in seminary at least 8 yrs...if one semester of old testament or new testament could give you so much insight, what would 8 yrs do?
but continue to read. it's a good book.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Solomon
I don't know what church you go to, but in my church, couples that engage in premarital sexual relations ARE indeed shunned. And why is premarital sex sin? Because the priests can't get any so no one else can?
Yes, I know I'm not meant to agree with everything, but if I don't, the Catholic chruch says, sorry I can't help you. And yes, the heads of the Catholic church are very well-educated and respected and I never said I doubted that or disrespected them, but they have never been married or had to deal with the temptations of sex and love and lust. They don't understand those feelings and those are the most universal feelings today. They don't need to worrying about paying rent or having an avid social life. They always have a home and friends in the church, so it's easy for them to say don't have sex, because they never had to fight off temptation. (You would hope not if they're that strongly attached to God).
And don't ever accuse me of how often I pray. I pray every morning, every night, and before every meal. I never said I didn't have faith. But I have confusions and opinions and doubts and questions and I'm allowed to vent them.
And I can talk bad about anything I want to that I'm a part of. At least I'm not making false accusations.
VERONICA!
I'm sorry that couples are shunned in your church. I am also Catholic, but that does not happen in my church. I should know, too, b/c one of my brothers even has a baby boy and he's not married.
I'm very glad of that, too, b/c I believe judging is not something we should do. I don't think it is my place to form such an opinion on someone else; that is for God only.
Sometimes I feel saddened by the way Catholics present themselves. We often give other ppl bad impressions of ourselves, by acting in a false way but relating it to our religion. How often do ppl misinterpret their religion and act accordingly? Unfortunately, I do not think enough Catholics know their religion well enough.
You guys are arguing ethics when first one must decide on their metaphysical beliefs. Also, one must decide whether ethics are absolute or relative.
The Catholic Church has reason for their teachings, and they have been gone over many times.
Homosexual sex is condemned because it is not conducive to life. For heterosex to be licit it must also be open to life. Catholic doctrine is against birth control.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
What about those heterosexual couples who cannot have children or who do not wish to have children? Should they be denied the right to get married as well?
Ethics are often enfluenced by surroundings. However, basic moral principles do exist regardless. Actually, religion is a great distorter of the core principles.
Oh and what is the value of an education that teaches you to blindly obey and not think for yourself?
Have you ever complained about "cherry-picking" Christians? Have you ever complained about how plenty of people call themselves Christian when they have the exact opposite beliefs? Have you ever gone to one Protestant church where everyone was happy joy joy and gone to another Protestant church and felt like you were going to a funeral? Have you ever wondered why Christians fight among themselves? Did you ever wonder what the f*ck is up with Christianity as a whole?
Well, Catholicism wants to prevent that kind of questions, so they "brainwash" everyone who's Catholic to have the same belief. Guess that doesn't stop the flow of complaints. I'm so sad that you have to wait until you're 18 to leave the Catholic Church. Most Catholics never darken the church doorstep after they hit puberty. They return only to get married or to have their first child baptized.
Of course. One- this assumes that your right and other Christians are wrong. 2- it looks at diversity as being bad. 3- the answer to an argument is to stop people from thinking independently.
what ever happened to the fact that we are all sinners and that's why God wants to love us? No person is allowed to cast judgement on another and i think you have full right to enraged at the fact that the Catholic church is shunning people. It's not right and worst of all it goes against the God they serve. It plainly says