Todays secular Catholics believe tha God is only offended when some narrow minded bigot claims there is such a thing as sin.Are you getting at the point that God cannot get offended because He is outside of time and is unchanging and that instead a better way of phrasing it is that we do things that are offensive to God? Or are you getting at something completly different?
The literal existence of Noah or a literal flood (and thereās proof enough of a widespread flood around the right time the like of which has never been seen before or since in Earthās history) is beside the point. The Bible is Godās word, as a Catholic you must believe that. Everything that it contains is there for a reason - as a spiritual lesson if not a historical one. You must believe that as a Catholic. Its spiritual lessons about the nature of God are absolute truth, you must believe that as a Catholic. What is the spiritual lesson of these episodes? That God gets OFFENDED at sin, and punishes us FOR THAT REASON, among others of course. You MUST believe that - as a Catholic.
He is getting married to his boyfriend? Or did he find a girlfriend? You are not required to attend, and I think he would understand. If he respects you as a friend, he will understand. Of course, if you want to send somesort of gift thatās entirely up to you. If you are a practicing Catholic, it would be morally wrong for you to attend because the Church does not recognize same-sex marriage. It is one thing to attend functions of sinners and tax collectors; itās quite another to endorse such functions by your presence.
LilyM. if you want to belive in Noahs ark. Go right ahead. If thatās what makes you happy. But maybe you could flog that particular dead horse on another thread. The Bible was not written by God and sent down to earth in pdf format. Itās a collection of peopleās subjective experiences of Christās life.
And your authority to make this pronouncement is based onā¦?
Rather its a parable or an actual event, it is not important, it is the word of God. Thats what counts. Everything in the bible isnt about this word or that, or this story or that, the main objective is What is God telling us. What is he teaching us. Thats the point. We must obey him.
Chirst was on Noahs ark? Was he the pilot or did he have to clean the stables?
the bible may have been written by man, but it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that is catholic doctrine, man is not the author of the bible, he is just a tool,
Oh myāthis is so well saidāgreat post!
I would at least broaden things Thornfra. I believe that God indwells all humans and to the extent that we access that power within us, we can speak truth about our existence and God. In other words there is something to be sad for āinspirationā and thus something to be said for the fact that much of the bible is truth in terms of the underlying statements. I would agree that the various writers, most unknown were attempting to envision God as he appeared to them. Sometimes i worry that later revisionists and scribes and redactors might not have been true to the originals, but I think there was a sincere attempt to explain God and Christ as experienced by each writer.
No I really donāt see the difference. There are people here who wonāt frequent stores who support gay rights or sell contraceptions because they take the ācondoningā that far. I can only conclude that you feel that your father is an ongoing unrepentent fornicator ( I mean no disrespect of course, since I would not take this stance in the first place.) Are you not placing your seal of approval on his sin by frequenting his home when he knows of your beliefs and you know of them? Perhaps itās my failing, but I honestly donāt see a difference, just a splitting of hairs for convenience.
you miss my point completely. I was merely alluding to the fact that in the end, it IS your interpretation. You can claim it is Church teaching, but Iām finding it very hard given your example of your family to find anyone in Church authority who agrees that it should be applied so rigidly. Truth is of course not subject to majority rule and by no means can anyone simply interpret for themselves.
You know Iāve been chastised by a couple of people for saying certain behavior suggests homophobic reaction. THat was supposed to ādampenā the discussion by calling names, although aimed at no one in particular. Same for ultra orthodox. I was questioned about āultraā But somehow its okay to call some āsecular Catholicsā? I know of no such category in the Church, nor Cafeteria or any of the other pejorative terms used by some to demark those they disagree with.
You most certainly can refrain from using labels.
He knows that I donāt consider his marriage valid. How am I placing my āseal of approvalā on his marriage by having supper in his home? Iām not celebrating his marriage by going to his home for a meal. I AM celebrating his marriage by attending his wedding.
I agree that I think it is your failing.
Did you not read the articles at Jimmy Akinās blog? He agrees with me, and given that he is the director of apologetics for Catholic Answers, I would say that he would count as āChurch authority.ā Also, our priest, who is a very holy and learned man, agrees with me.
Luckily, the Churchās isnāt, because the Church has been granted the charism of infallibility by the Holy Spirit.
As I said in my post above ā one is a commonplace event that has no special meaning attached to it other than to spend time together as a family, and one is a function whose sole purpose is to celebrate and bless a union. Thereās a huge difference. By attending a gay wedding, you are sending the message, āI approve of this union.ā At the very least, that creates scandal.
Did you doubt that your family loved you in spite of not attending your wedding? Did you fail to realise that it was BECAUSE they loved you and feared for your soul that they didnāt attend? Would you not have taken their attendance as tacit acceptance of your wedding, if not warm approval? Finally, I bet for sure it made you think about what you were doing to an exent that you wouldnāt have done had they attended.
