P
Pup7
Guest
What’s your point? Seriously.
Does a person have to believe in literal burning hell to be Catholic
- Status
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
You’re not doing yourself any favours if you try and water down the Truth.
The idea that hell isn’t such a bad place is post-modern secular lie.
The idea that hell isn’t such a bad place is post-modern secular lie.
L
laylow
Guest
It’s sickening and wrong to defend something that is so obviously and blatantly imperfect. Sounds like an obvious steroid user denying they used when they gained 40 lbs of muscle and their head ballooned and they hit 70 homeruns.
And the faithful wonder why science is touted and defended. Because they admit they are wrong when they are! Anything less is a totalitarian state, it might as well be North Korea.
P
Pup7
Guest
Hmmm. Child abuse isn’t mentioned in the CCC. Prostitution isn’t in there. Guess by your logic those are okay too.
AWFUL lot about maintaining the dignity of the human person though. I guess by your book that doesn’t count, since it doesn’t enumerate every single possible situation on the earth.
That isn’t what doctrine is. Never has been and never will be.
Dear heart, I’m an RN and have been an RN for MANY years. I’m pretty well educated. I know science. I’m far more educated and far smarter than you’re thinking.
Don’t assume.
And go read the links I left to educate yourself.
AWFUL lot about maintaining the dignity of the human person though. I guess by your book that doesn’t count, since it doesn’t enumerate every single possible situation on the earth.
That isn’t what doctrine is. Never has been and never will be.
Dear heart, I’m an RN and have been an RN for MANY years. I’m pretty well educated. I know science. I’m far more educated and far smarter than you’re thinking.
Don’t assume.
And go read the links I left to educate yourself.
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
Nope. The logic is as follows: If scripture is the inerrant word of God, why would these inescapably important concepts be mysteriously omitted while eating certain types of foods, or resting on certain days, or descriptive narratives about how to treat your servants (to name a few off the top of my head) are emphasized with great importance and relevance?
The only logical conclusion is that the writing was a product of the time it was written, not a revelation of how humans were to proceed in caring for each other. As so, it needs to be treated as such.
Any other conclusion would have to be derived as a result of rational thinking being suspended due to fear-mongerish teaching and scare tactics.
P
Pup7
Guest
It’s not in the CCC now, either. None of it.Pup7:
Nope. The logic is as follows: If scripture is the inerrant word of God, why would these inescapably important concepts be mysteriously omitted while eating certain types of foods, or resting on certain days, or descriptive narratives about how to treat your servants (to name a few off the top of my head) are emphasized with great importance and relevance?
The only logical conclusion is that the writing was a product of the time it was written, not a revelation of how humans were to proceed in caring for each other. As so, it needs to be treated as such.
Any other conclusion would have to be derived as a result of rational thinking being suspended due to fear-mongerish teaching and scare tactics.
Still a product of the times?
More reading:
Library : Let My People Go: the Catholic Church and Slavery
Let My People Go: the Catholic Church and Slavery Mark Brumley examines the Catholic Church's attitude towards slavery, beginning with St. Paul, and argues that the Church contributed to the end of slavery in many places.
www.catholicculture.org
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xi...ments/hf_l-xiii_enc_05051888_in-plurimis.html
Pretty sure there’s a lot more out there. My Google search was a pretty long list.
Renounced, and not in doctrine - because that’s not where it goes. Not in this case.
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
THIS is an interesting sidebar
The Southern Baptists:
http://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_2/p_5.html
They actually came out and said slavery was wrong but it wasn’t a sin. They codified it.
That’s pretty awful. I’m sure they don’t feel that way now, but I don’t go around demanding they place it in their code of beliefs/doctrine on how to be Baptists.
The Southern Baptists:
http://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_2/p_5.html
They actually came out and said slavery was wrong but it wasn’t a sin. They codified it.
That’s pretty awful. I’m sure they don’t feel that way now, but I don’t go around demanding they place it in their code of beliefs/doctrine on how to be Baptists.
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
Sure, have it your way. (Maybe you can even get a Whopper!)
It the eloquent words of the late, great Christopher Hitchens, “You’ve been duped.”
Have a nice night. I’m going to have another beer and enjoy the rest of mine.
P
Pup7
Guest
As I figured. Didn’t have it my way.
Hard to argue when the truth is in front of you, I suppose.
Enjoy your beer. Don’t overdo it.
Hard to argue when the truth is in front of you, I suppose.
Enjoy your beer. Don’t overdo it.
A
AlNg
Guest
Because I think it should have been an essential teaching of any church to condemn human trafficking and the enslavement of innocent children and others.
A
AlNg
Guest
Was that similar to the teaching of the Catholic Church in the past? See post #104 (approximately) by laylow.
P
Pup7
Guest
Go read the links I posted on human trafficking. One is actually straight from the Vatican.
It’s not in the CCC, which was the conversation’s crux.
Neither is child abuse. Doesn’t make it okay, right, or endorsed by the Catholic Church.
It’s not in the CCC, which was the conversation’s crux.
Neither is child abuse. Doesn’t make it okay, right, or endorsed by the Catholic Church.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK. So, you recognize the internal consistency of the logic.
Fair enough.
Therefore I do not believe something like missing a mass would be a sufficient enough transgression against God to allow for eternal punishment.
So… let’s go back to “internal consistency of logic”. If God existed, would He be able to make such a rule?
Nah. I get it. You don’t believe.
I’ve never encountered a black hole, but I remain open-minded to them if I encounter them personally.
I disagree that the definition of agnosticism is “I cannot know”. Rather, the classic definition of agnosticism is “I do not know”, giving voice to the open-mindedness… right?
So… if God does exist, does He have the right to define the boundaries of moral human activity? And if so, from whence would the ‘discrimination’ of the acceptance of His existence arise?
L
laylow
Guest
Yes, but current evidence can show the existence, not relying on past stories.I’ve never encountered a black hole, but I remain open-minded to them if I encounter them personally.
I’ll give you that.
If he reveals the boundaries to me, I will believe them.So… if God does exist, does He have the right to define the boundaries of moral human activity? And if so, from whence would the ‘discrimination’ of the acceptance of His existence arise?
R
Rozellelily
Guest
This sounds to me like the concept of ignorance?
I think the CC states the culpability of sins can be lessened or removed all together due to psychological factors,duress or ignorance,
I’m referring more though the instance of a Church going (hypothetical) “granny” who for example divorced and remarries knowing that the Catholic Church says it’s a mortal sin but perhaps doesn’t agree with it,or another example may be an unmarried boyfriend and girlfriend sleeping together.
The Church states this is “fornication” and mortal sin even though they may not be sleeping around.
In reality though,in US,Australia, and European countries most boyfriend and girlfriend do sleep together, and don’t look at it the same way as the Catholic Church,so this would be an awful lot of people “going” to hell.
Burning literally in fire for sleeping with your boyfriend in a committed relationship seems a bit disproportionate punishment?
I think the CC states the culpability of sins can be lessened or removed all together due to psychological factors,duress or ignorance,
I’m referring more though the instance of a Church going (hypothetical) “granny” who for example divorced and remarries knowing that the Catholic Church says it’s a mortal sin but perhaps doesn’t agree with it,or another example may be an unmarried boyfriend and girlfriend sleeping together.
The Church states this is “fornication” and mortal sin even though they may not be sleeping around.
In reality though,in US,Australia, and European countries most boyfriend and girlfriend do sleep together, and don’t look at it the same way as the Catholic Church,so this would be an awful lot of people “going” to hell.
Burning literally in fire for sleeping with your boyfriend in a committed relationship seems a bit disproportionate punishment?
R
Rozellelily
Guest
The term “essential teaching” as referred to in Catholic Church doesn’t mean the same thing as an “essential act” in the Catholic Church.
Forget the term “essential” altogether and use the term “Infallible teaching” instead.
The Catholic Religion has certain specific teachings that are referred to as Infallible.
This means the church believes they are without errors and can’t be changed over time.
Apart from those Infallible teachings,other things that Popes or Saints say can be just personal opinion,can be wrong altogether,or can be relevant solely to those times they lived in and not relevant/applicable now.
The saints/Pope that condoned slavery in laylow posts thought that slavery was ok but what they thought was not an official Infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
Their opinion pro slavery may have been driven by many factors such as the wide acceptance of slavery in their day,or perhaps selfish reasons (they may have had a slave themselves),or perhaps just ignorance and belief that it was Gods will.
It can be helpful to keep in mind that we aren’t talking about people from today’s time with today’s awareness/enlightenment/intelligence.
They were in the Middle Ages when many people were illiterate,especially women.
Slavery (servitude against a persons will) is 100 % wrong under any circumstance.
Forget the term “essential” altogether and use the term “Infallible teaching” instead.
The Catholic Religion has certain specific teachings that are referred to as Infallible.
This means the church believes they are without errors and can’t be changed over time.
Apart from those Infallible teachings,other things that Popes or Saints say can be just personal opinion,can be wrong altogether,or can be relevant solely to those times they lived in and not relevant/applicable now.
The saints/Pope that condoned slavery in laylow posts thought that slavery was ok but what they thought was not an official Infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
Their opinion pro slavery may have been driven by many factors such as the wide acceptance of slavery in their day,or perhaps selfish reasons (they may have had a slave themselves),or perhaps just ignorance and belief that it was Gods will.
It can be helpful to keep in mind that we aren’t talking about people from today’s time with today’s awareness/enlightenment/intelligence.
They were in the Middle Ages when many people were illiterate,especially women.
Slavery (servitude against a persons will) is 100 % wrong under any circumstance.
Last edited:
R
Rozellelily
Guest
But isn’t it possible to not reject some of Gods good while rejecting God in his totality?
Eg:a person who is gay might value kindness and give to the homeless or fight against injustices such as the mistreatment of people etc but then on the other hand not accept God/Catholic Church teachings that they shouldn’t have a romantic partner.
Eg:a person who is gay might value kindness and give to the homeless or fight against injustices such as the mistreatment of people etc but then on the other hand not accept God/Catholic Church teachings that they shouldn’t have a romantic partner.
R
Rozellelily
Guest
It’s hard to grasp how it is freely chosen.
For example a person who gets a civil divorce and remarries but is unrepentant-are they really rejecting Gods love and choosing to be in fire for eternity if they accept the other majority of his ways/teachings?
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
That works in the context of the material universe, in terms of entities whose existence is within the universe, and whose existence persists within the universe. Are you claiming that these conditions apply to God – or even Jesus – in this context? If so, why?
If He exists, but chooses not to explicitly reveal these boundaries to you in the way that you demand that He reveal them, do the boundaries thereby not exist?
G
Gorgias
Guest
That’s why we, who aren’t omniscient, aren’t responsible for that judgment.
It depends on precisely the same conditions of mortal sin:
- first off, this is an objective situation of grave sin
- secondly, does the person know that it is a grave sin that they are committing?
- thirdly, is this person fully and freely choosing this course of action, fully knowing that it is grave sin?
See the internal logic here? The “OMG, that’s unjust!” claims tend to ignore that all the conditions of mortal sin need to be met to justify damnation. Pope Francis is doing a good job (IMHO) of pointing out the ways in which objective sin isn’t necessarily (from a subjective perspective) also mortal sin.
- Status