T
thistle
Guest
Do you believe in mortal sin and Hell?
- Status
S
solarwind23
Guest
Other women perhaps want to make a different choice, but cannot within the Catholic structure unless they have “just reasons” whatever that means.
I don’t think babies destroy life. Babies are wonderful and essential to our survival. Without babies life would be destroyed, literally.
BUT, too many babies can destroy life. Too much of anything can destroy life.
Only 2 women have been doctors of the Church. Which is great, but this is still a tiny proportion.
As far as I know nuns are not a part of the clergy, they do not hear confessions, do not administer sacraments, do not become bishops, do not become cardinals, do not elect new popes, do not make “infallible” doctrine. They’re really organizations of holy women who take the same vows and live in a community trying to serve God by prayer or good works or whatever it is that they do.
Not at all. Men and women are equally important in marriage and all other aspects of life. The family is not evil and should not be done away with. Talk about projecting your views onto me!
Families are great. I think families do far better without a hierarchy of celibate men watching their every move.
As far as submitting to each other, maybe that’s what the liberal theologians say now. But I advise you to read Paul, there is no mutual submission there. Women should submit, obey, and be quiet, men should love their wives on the other hand. All the power to Paul, by the way, I am not going to criticize him for being a part of the very sexist culture he grew up in and lived in. That he told men to love their wives is a great thing.
You have heard, but have you listened? Feminists aren’t evil. They’re the ones who fought for women to have the vote, to participate in society, to be treated equally under the law. What’s so bad about that idea?
Maybe an insane fringe wants to destroy the family. Most women are feminists nowadays, and most of them want to have a family with a man and raise children. Many men are also feminists and want the same thing.
R
ReformedCatholic
Guest
Did we read the same post? Do you notice that the reaction to a criticism that women do not share an equal role or importance in the church is met with a label such as “feminist?” It’s a fact. No women priests, bishops, popes. No leaders, or decision-makers. No policy-makers or doctrine-drivers. A few doctors, some nuns (subordinate to the priests). It’s patriarchal, no doubt. No getting around it.
S
solarwind23
Guest
That a governing body has survived and that its past happens to be filled with censorship, persecution of “heretics” (i.e. those who disagree), control of lands and the people living in them. Didn’t the pope use to have his own army?
Didn’t Constantine make Catholicism the official religion of Rome? Didn’t Roman emperors enforce orthodoxy with force? Is it really so surprising that it has survived for so long?
The number of Catholics in places where the Church has lost its power is declining, and those who are Catholics aren’t exactly “orthodox.”
Plus, have you noticed how the Orthodox, the Protestants, and countless others throughout history left the Church? Maybe Roman power and Inquistion helped them to enforce orthodoxy, but no longer.
I’ve read that if things continue at present rates the majority of Americans will be secular by mid 21st century.
R
ReformedCatholic
Guest
I do, but my conceptualization of it is different from what I understand to be more traditional teachings.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
According to the Orthodox, the Orthodox did not leave the Church – Orthodoxy is the Church.
S
solarwind23
Guest
Exaclty, the original poster of that should analyze himself and his beliefs. This seems to be an almost instinctive response among Catholics to any suggestion that the Church excludes women. And it’s always the same one, with those same points, even if what I said had very little to do with them.
I want to destroy the family and exclude men from family?!
!!!
That’s just crazy. I don’t think that at all.
But this type of reaction is a great way to prevent Catholics from actually considering the way their Church is built critically. Immediately identify a completely legitimate criticism of the almost total lack of participation of women in leadership, critical decision making positions etc. with people who allegedly want to destroy the family.
Sorry, but I don’t want to destroy the family and I don’t think men are unimportant. The role of men as involved fathers is critical to the development of children. The role of women as involved mothers is also criticial. Without children society will die. A good society depends on good families. Families are the fundamental units of society. That’s what I think.
I also think that women should be involved in leadership positions inside the Catholic Church. I think they should be bishops, cardinals, popes. I think they should publish encyclicals, call councils, develop doctrine. I think they should be able to speak infallibly and contribute to the Church’s teachings.
I think the Church will be all the better for it. As it stands it looks like a for-men-by-men “no girls allowed” boys club to me, and to many others as well.
S
solarwind23
Guest
Ahimsa said:
Curious, are you Orthodox by any chance?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
No, but if I were Christian, I would most likely be Orthodox (or Episcopalian).
M
melbourne_guy
Guest
lol How do you know this, have you ever been there?
D
DreadVandal
Guest
Read Romans chapter 9. What I find interesting is that this is St. Paul’s view and he doesn’t try to defend God. He simply says: Who are you to question? That is the biblical view. God is Lord of heaven and earth, blessing and destruction, life and death. God says in Scripture, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will harden whom I will harden.”
D
DreadVandal
Guest
If there could be any pain or sadness in heaven then it wouldn’t be heaven. Here is Aquinas on the issue:
Do the blessed rejoice in the sufferings of the damned?
newadvent.org/summa/509403.htm
S
solarwind23
Guest
That St. Paul was obedient and uncritical of God doesn’t tell me much. Some Muslims who read the Quran literally and don’t question join Bin Laden. Some fundamentalist Mormon women obediently accept that polygamy is what God wants. Uncritical acceptance is what allows those sects to persevere. But you and I, being outside those sects, immediately see how unjust they are on a fundamental level and how if they have anything to do with God, then that God is not worthy of our time.
If God says “I am all powerful and will do whatever I want, it’s not your place to question” that’s all well and good, but he can’t at the same time claim to be good and loving and compassionate. More than anything, if people are tortured for an eternity for relatively small crimes such as remarriage after being left by spouse then this God cannot claim to be just.
If such a God exists he is all powerful and can do whatever he wants, but a God like this is not worthy of worship or love. He can only compel people to follow him through fear.
Not everyone will have the courage to reject such a God, but I see it far more noble and worthy to reject a ruthless, unjust dictator than obey him to avoid hell.
I can’t ever see myself respecting or loving such a God, fearing, yes, lacking the courage to oppose and obeying out of fear, yes, but loving, appreciating, being grateful etc. No way!
R
richbansha
Guest
I kinda like to give God more credit for love and mercy than he usually gets.
It is my view that if God does not love Satan as much as anyone, the dual nature of Jesus included, then there is no God. To believe in an omnipotent and omnicient God who does not, necessarily and logically leads to a belief that God created beings for the very purpose of torturing them. I utterly reject that.
God created all because as Gen 1:25 says “… God saw it was good.” (KJV yes but I prefer to quote it if I can because it is more commonly known and is superior as a piece of literature to other translations.) Anyway, since I do not presume to critique his creation with my imperfect understanding, I simply take his word for it that what he created is good, including the fallen angels. I don’t understand why this would be so, but I wasn’t foreman on that job and had no part in the planning.
Heaven, Hell and Purgatory exist. I take it for granted. What purposes they serve are beyond me. That people go to those places is also a given but can we be really sure what happens after they get there? We all heard about fire. Jesus also implies ice “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.” When someone gets burned his teeth don’t chatter. Imagery always a possibility, what do we really know? We know eternal separation from God. That is all we can really say for certain.
We are taught that from some sins and some conditions like being in Hell that there is no repentance. That means that there will be some stubborn evil diehards down in Hell. What it does not mean and what scripture never says is that there is no mercy. God, to be God as we understand him, will have mercy on them. No, I do not call an everlasting, invitation only, barbeque a form of mercy as some on this thread have tried to do. There are only two possibilities worthy of a merciful God, eventual extinction of the soul or eventual salvation of the soul. I hope for the latter. Somehow, I just can’t get my head around the idea that having a hotdog on Good Friday, no matter how deliberate, merits excrutiating pain and suffering beyond time itself.
Eternal torment? Eternal Separation from God? Maybe, but what happens when eternity is over? Eternity WILL in fact end you know. I Cor. 15 tells us about that. God will be all in all. There will be no more hell, no more heaven, no more Jesus either. God will be all that exists. I am comfortable with that. It does not explain the why of creation, but it does get God off the hook for being a sadistic monster.
It is my view that if God does not love Satan as much as anyone, the dual nature of Jesus included, then there is no God. To believe in an omnipotent and omnicient God who does not, necessarily and logically leads to a belief that God created beings for the very purpose of torturing them. I utterly reject that.
God created all because as Gen 1:25 says “… God saw it was good.” (KJV yes but I prefer to quote it if I can because it is more commonly known and is superior as a piece of literature to other translations.) Anyway, since I do not presume to critique his creation with my imperfect understanding, I simply take his word for it that what he created is good, including the fallen angels. I don’t understand why this would be so, but I wasn’t foreman on that job and had no part in the planning.
Heaven, Hell and Purgatory exist. I take it for granted. What purposes they serve are beyond me. That people go to those places is also a given but can we be really sure what happens after they get there? We all heard about fire. Jesus also implies ice “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.” When someone gets burned his teeth don’t chatter. Imagery always a possibility, what do we really know? We know eternal separation from God. That is all we can really say for certain.
We are taught that from some sins and some conditions like being in Hell that there is no repentance. That means that there will be some stubborn evil diehards down in Hell. What it does not mean and what scripture never says is that there is no mercy. God, to be God as we understand him, will have mercy on them. No, I do not call an everlasting, invitation only, barbeque a form of mercy as some on this thread have tried to do. There are only two possibilities worthy of a merciful God, eventual extinction of the soul or eventual salvation of the soul. I hope for the latter. Somehow, I just can’t get my head around the idea that having a hotdog on Good Friday, no matter how deliberate, merits excrutiating pain and suffering beyond time itself.
Eternal torment? Eternal Separation from God? Maybe, but what happens when eternity is over? Eternity WILL in fact end you know. I Cor. 15 tells us about that. God will be all in all. There will be no more hell, no more heaven, no more Jesus either. God will be all that exists. I am comfortable with that. It does not explain the why of creation, but it does get God off the hook for being a sadistic monster.
R
ReformedCatholic
Guest
Sounds like Paul dodged the question!
R
ReformedCatholic
Guest
Okay, so which is his position? The replies sound like double-talk and non-sense to me. Perhaps they could be “interpreted?”
P
petra
Guest
Life on earth for those who reject God includes a certain degree of graces and blessings by virtue of the fact that they share an environment with people who love God. A complete absence of God is exactly what hell is. Given that fact, it is going to be a much different environment and experience than life on earth. I’ve heard the saying that this earth is the only hell Christians will ever see, and the only heaven non-Christians will ever see.
D
DreadVandal
Guest
Aquinas’ position begins with “I answer that…” The replies to objections are also his position.
Aquinas first gives the contrary position in a series of objections; then cites an oppositing position to that “On the Contrary,” then he gives his own position which is usually that of the “on the contrary” though not always precisely the same.
D
DreadVandal
Guest
Paul didn’t dodge the question. Paul asserted the absolute sovereignty of God. Such is the Jewish view.
P
Pryority7
Guest
That would be quite a nice way of handling sin, would it?
The fact is that that is not what the human soul is made for. We were made to be in Heaven. Our individual choices in this life and this life alone determines the permanent state of our souls for eternity. Heaven is not a rehabilitation center for the morally evil. Earth is. What you’re describing is what can potentially happen in the heart of evil people NOW while they are here. The closest thing after death that can be akin to what you described here is purgatory, and even that is for the saved only. Scripture is clear: there is no second chance after death. (Hebrews 9:27). The Hell that awaits the unsaved is the Hell they have chosen in this life. A willful rejection of Love and all that Love is (God) is the essence of damnation. Death removes the last contact to change that, for the soul is in a permanent state after death. The state of salvation or damnation. Our choices are now. Our looking at what we’ve done are now (and perhaps in purgatory). But to think that a Hitler or a Stalin can be changed after they die…nope.
- Status