Hypothetical: Non-Theist despite evidence

[JohnMichaels]

Help me understand the logic here. You thought the arguments presented were bad, so you fell back to appealing to spiritual experience?

But the spiritual experience has no bearing on the thought experiment? You are not affirming that you know that God thinks your moral compass is right?

It’s not that you’re understanding is off, it’s that I’m trying to explain the totality of the thread & be brief, it’s difficult.
Not bad arguments, some were good. But most didn’t address the heart of the matter, literally. This is alot about how I feel mixed with how I think. This is serious business, it’s not a light matter you know, the eternal soul.

I’m suppose to believe God loves everyone unconditionally, with lots of conditions. I’m finding this concept, and always have, unbelievable hard to reconcile in my mind. Speaking of my mind, I really wanna get into that but first, the second section of bold text:

It has no bearing other than I made it up. I am affirming it, in this exercise. Which is hypothetical. In this debate I am playing a character. I’m not really a deist, so I’d have to be acting, no?
Now, I’ve had many debates with theists that just fall back to “Well, I believe it, so it’s true”
In fact, you’re telling me that in a very matter of fact way. But somehow, I cannot claim the same…it’s odd

Now, onto the important part

Man’s end is to be ordered towards truth, ie. to recognize the truth (about himself, as well as God) and to direct his will toward it. Sin is just acting in opposition to truth (and since it is a function of intellect and will, it damages the part of the soul which Catholics, or Thomists specifically, hold to be immaterial and eternal). What I am saying here is that the damage done to our soul necessitates that those in a state of mortal sin cannot spend eternity with God.

How can man be ordered towards truth without using intellect?
A function of opposition to truth is intellect? blown away…

You are brought to tears now, or you would be brought to tears if they were true?

Some of the beliefs held by the Church, literally move me to tears when I take the time to think about all that it entails. Am I allowed to be a member of the church with such feelings inside, or would I need to reconsile such issues? How? Ask God? I’m being told I can do no such thing :crying:

Your statement does piggyback on a then-unstated standard (humanism).

So it is not the fact that you can’t follow what you consider wrong; that is not any basis for morality. It’s that you believe humanism is the correct morality, and you think God would agree with you. (Please correct me if I’m wrong. I am just trying to figure out what exactly you’re claiming.)

I never said I was a pure humanist, or that I followed everything in what I linked you.
In truth, I read only the first line.

perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively

And then I said unto you, that isn’t a bad place to start

It isn’t, either. But you are asking me to carve out morality. When did I claim perfection? I know, you’re taking me at my overall. That if I don’t feel it’s right, it’s immediately wrong. What about if someone else says it’s right, how do I know…etc etc I get it.

I deeply apologize for my haste in stating my position

 

[JRKH]

You’re right, I only said I objected. You could have then replied “Ok cool”
But you did not, I think you understood the exercise

You are wrong here -
In your OP you wrote…
"I’ll argue that I’d still not wish to follow the Catholic dogma. Based solely on my objections with (at a minimum) my current understanding of a few of the teachings.
I would live as I live now & on judgement day I’d say “This is what I thought was right”
To which I responded
“Fair enough, and you will be justly and fairly judged by the Almighty.”
So - my “Fair enough” = your "OK cool.

As for understanding the exercise…I believed the idea was to discuss not “defend”. Defense implies attack. If you say I should be defending…then that must mean you are attacking…Why should this be?
Far better to present and discuss than to attack and defend.
Of course present and discuss requires a certain level of respect for each other, and I must be honest…I have not gotten the impression that you respect me very much at all. And, as time has gone on, I have not been able to build much respect for you.

Please forgive me for saying this, but many of your replies read as rather immature and reactionary. Instead of taking a reply as a whole and trying to understand that totality of what the writer is trying to communicate, you take a piece of it and you “react” to that piece - outside of the whole.
You say that there is much in Catholicism that you agree with - but you refuse to share any of that - so that we can gain a better understanding of each other and build some common ground upon which to stand.

Now - I will admit that some of this might be my own fault. I am neither a debater or an apologist. Maybe I just don’t understand how these kinds of things are suppose to work. If that is the case, I apologize.
If that is the case - then it is better that I step back and let others, who are better trained in such things, continue the … Whatever this is…

Peace
James

 

[prodigalson2011]

You don’t get to be mad because I’m playing by your rules, you know

I’m not mad at all. But you are not playing by “my rules” by any stretch of the imagination. Now, are you ever going to address my arguments in whole?

 

[prodigalson2011]

What you aren’t getting is in my view, God’s love is unconditional. In reality. No prerequisites.

As it is in the view of myself as well as the Catholic Church. I think it’s you who’s not getting something here.

God disagrees with some of the things I do, and hey maybe even I disagree with some of the things God does.

God, by definition, is omnipotent and omniscient. If you accept his existence, for this exercise, then you accept those definitions. Given that, you can’t say “God disagrees with you,” as though he’s just an old buddy with a fallible human mind whose opinion holds no more weight than yours.

But I love him, & he loves me. This goes without question. It is unconditional.

The truth is that, yes, He loves you perfectly and unconditionally. But for most of us, our love for God, or anyone else for that matter, is far from perfect. If you deny that, well…

That makes a lot of sense doesn’t it.

With the exception of the above critiques, sure.

The alternative, does not. At least not to me. & you’ve done nothing but present to me why it should be making sense,

I specifically said “God loves all people regardless of their behavior.” You need to pay more attention to your opponent’s arguments.

other than your version of God says so.& the authoritative church says so, with these conditions in mind (then you list)

That is a bold-faced lie. I have presented several thoroughly reasoned arguments to the contrary, and you have not responded to a single one of them. Do you want a debate or not?

I am absolutely puzzled at how you can view the game as rigged. It’s only fair if I allow your ways to be right, and unquestioned? man…that’s hardcore

Do you even think about what you say before you post? Do you give your opponent’s posts any thought? Because it certainly doesn’t seem like it. I can’t even begin to tell you how disrespected I feel when I put as much effort into an argument as I have and all I get in return is flippant, illogical replies filled with condescension and outright lies.

I didn’t say anything about “my way.” My arguments do not assume the correctness of my position; they are not circular. I have not made a single argument from authority. I have presented a logical case for my position. You have not, and that’s the point. It is you who has repeatedly stated that this argument is about your feelings, which have no logical basis, which means you assume the truth of your argument before you even make it. That is a circular argument and it’s completely fallacious and, consequently, utterly useless in a debate.

The point is that, by your methods, whatever you “hypothesize” is the standard by which all arguments are judged. Not reason, not logic. Your imaginary “God told me so.” That “method of argument,” if you can even call it as such, is outlandishly fallacious to the point of being embarrassing. You need to actually engage the arguments as presented to you in a logical, detached way. Responding to a logical argument with, “Well I hypothetically prayed to God and He said I was right,” is a) ridiculous and b) insulting to my intelligence.

All that said, I would like to comment on the following:

It’s not that you’re understanding is off, it’s that I’m trying to explain the totality of the thread & be brief, it’s difficult.
Not bad arguments, some were good. But most didn’t address the heart of the matter, literally. This is alot about how I feel mixed with how I think. This is serious business, it’s not a light matter you know, the eternal soul.

And that renders your argument null. Feelings have no place in a logical discussion.

I’m suppose to believe God loves everyone unconditionally, with lots of conditions.

No, you are not. No one has said that to you. That is a product of either a) your own misunderstanding or b) your failure to fully engage the arguments presented to you and try to understand them.

How can man be ordered towards truth without using intellect?
A function of opposition to truth is intellect? blown away…

I’m blown away by your self-contradiction. No one has said that man can be ordered towards truth without intellect. But the only person here who has repeatedly admitted to basing their argument on their feelings is you, so if anyone here is refusing to make an intellectual engagement here, it’s you.

 

[JohnMichaels]

You are wrong here -
In your OP you wrote…
"I’ll argue that I’d still not wish to follow the Catholic dogma. Based solely on my objections with (at a minimum) my current understanding of a few of the teachings.
I would live as I live now & on judgement day I’d say “This is what I thought was right”
To which I responded
“Fair enough, and you will be justly and fairly judged by the Almighty.”
So - my “Fair enough” = your "OK cool.

I don’t think that makes me wrong, you just used different words to say the same thing.
It’s an irrelevant point.

As for understanding the exercise…I believed the idea was to discuss not “defend”. Defense implies attack. If you say I should be defending…then that must mean you are attacking…Why should this be?
Far better to present and discuss than to attack and defend.
Of course present and discuss requires a certain level of respect for each other, and I must be honest…I have not gotten the impression that you respect me very much at all. And, as time has gone on, I have not been able to build much respect for you.

I’m sorry to hear you feel this way. I used defend because I make no mistake I come into the conversation with a biased. How can I not? I feel the way I feel about the issues. Inside. I can change the verbiage, but I doubt I could take the emotion out of it completely.
My point to creating this thread was to understand why you think differently than I do. (not just you personally)
I was not judging you for your replies to me. I disagreed with some points but overall I though you were actually heading in the right direction, just got snagged using a word in a wrong place.
I surely didn’t find myself thinking how little respect I held for you based on your opinions.

Please forgive me for saying this, but many of your replies read as rather immature and reactionary. Instead of taking a reply as a whole and trying to understand that totality of what the writer is trying to communicate, you take a piece of it and you “react” to that piece - outside of the whole.
You say that there is much in Catholicism that you agree with - but you refuse to share any of that - so that we can gain a better understanding of each other and build some common ground upon which to stand.

Well, I asked if you wanted to know controversial things I agree with, or just normal agreement? Love your neighbor, don’t kill, don’t lie, There is a foundation I can get behind, but then it swerves off into corruption, and in my opinion exclusion and denoucing of fellow human beings. This I cannot accept. All you told me is why God wants me to accept it, not why I should feel okay about it

If that is the case - then it is better that I step back and let others, who are better trained in such things, continue the … Whatever this is…

Peace
James

You don’t have to take my word for it, but I did appreciate your involvement. You did provide a great amount of information for me to reflect on.

Cheers

 

[prodigalson2011]

Pay close attention now, I’m gonna slow it down. You really need to understand the words, so I’ll help you

You are really cracking me up. I understand the words just fine. You don’t.

Lets start with

(insert your partial definition of deist here)

Clearly, I observed his existence. So, Why again would I then not pray to God? I’d need his guidance in choosing the correct path to follow, no?

Did you not just read what I wrote? “Deists” reject a personal God. They believe God set the universe in motion and left it to its own devices. He has no interest in human beings and He certainly doesn’t answer prayers. That is the textbook definition of deism.

Both deists and theists believe that God’s can be known through reason alone.

But theists, additionally, believe that God is a personal God. If you believe God listens to and answers your prayers, you are a theist. Period. You need to understand the words you use if you’re going to argue about them.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Why not? I’m not saying he exempts ALL sin, just in the matters in which I prayed for answers. So then, why wouldn’t he reveal to me answers to questions I have of a serious nature, if I prayed to him in search of truth?
it’s one thing if you claim he wouldn’t speak to me at all, than when you determine what he would or wouldn’t tell me. Please, elaborate.

Because God doesn’t contradict Himself. Have you ever studied natural law?

You didn’t get the joke

If it was meant as a stab at me, then it’s terribly misdirected.

 

[JohnMichaels]

I hope you don’t mind my interjecting here, but this particular post called out to me.

In your previous thread, I suggested that you shouldn’t allow your feelings to get in the way of the search for truth. But here that is exactly what you have done. You “feel” abstinence leads to higher divorce. Unfortunately, the numbers prove you dead wrong. The fact is that there is a demonstrable increase in the likelihood for divorce with every premarital sexual partner one has, even if it’s only one and that one is the same person you married. Numerous studies have confirmed that fact:

Kahn and London, 1991: Data from the National Survey of Family Growth indicate that “women who are sexually active prior to marriage faced considerably higher risk of marital disruption than women who were virgin brides.” These scholars explain that even when controlling for various differentials between virginal and non-virginal groups – such as socio-economics, family background as well as attitudinal and value differences – “non-virgins still face a much higher risk of divorce than virgins.”.

And you asked “I’m not mad at all. But you are not playing by “my rules” by any stretch of the imagination. Now, are you ever going to address my arguments in whole?”

I assume you meant this post. I didn’t intelligently respond to this, because I can easily do the same thing - and did. But my links are “misleading”

Here are some more, if you really wanna take feelings out of it and just get into other people’s studies.

indianexpress.com/news/abstinence-from-sex-can-be-ground-for-divorce-sc/918/
*“It may be mental such as indifference and frigidity towards the wife, denial of company to her, hatred and abhorrence for wife or physical like acts of violence and abstinence from sexual intercourse without reasonable cause,” *

dailytexanonline.com/content/conservative-christians-divorce-more-study-says
Factors that lead to high rates of divorce among Christians are the prohibition of sex before marriage leading to marriage at an earlier age and teachings against abortion and birth control, which lead to “shotgun weddings,”

skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/07/09/correlations/

unless you were referring to another post I did not address in it’s entirety. Sorry you felt ignored

 

[JohnMichaels]

Did you not just read what I wrote? “Deists” reject a personal God. They believe God set the universe in motion and left it to its own devices. He has no interest in human beings and He certainly doesn’t answer prayers.

Yup, but per this exercise it wouldn’t be limited to just a deists belief, because there was a revealing. I did not mean it on an individual level, like he spoke to everyone. Like revealed. Like, something global. I can’t come up with something, but the debate isn’t really resting on the how
In this, we don’t even know if God has doctrine he wants us to follow. We assume, sure, but which one is right? this make a deist a theist, no?
The title is Deist despite evidence, the evidence is mere existence.

Its entirely possible something slipped up to cause all this confusion, but expected this and acted accordingly

Any concerns to the rules? Maybe something to add, something that you see that might get in the way down the line?

What did I miss? That I shouldn’t be allowed to speak to God?

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think that makes me wrong, you just used different words to say the same thing.
It’s an irrelevant point.

This makes no sense…

I’m sorry to hear you feel this way. I used defend because I make no mistake I come into the conversation with a biased. How can I not? I feel the way I feel about the issues. Inside. I can change the verbiage, but I doubt I could take the emotion out of it completely.
My point to creating this thread was to understand why you think differently than I do. (not just you personally)
Your responses do not indicate to me an effort to try to understand.

I was not judging you for your replies to me. I disagreed with some points but overall I though you were actually heading in the right direction, just got snagged using a word in a wrong place.

Well - now perhaps you will recognize that in such conversations, word usage is important for clarity as well as charity.

I surely didn’t find myself thinking how little respect I held for you based on your opinions.

Yet this is what comes across.

Well, I asked if you wanted to know controversial things I agree with, or just normal agreement? Love your neighbor, don’t kill, don’t lie, There is a foundation I can get behind,

Fair enough.

but then it swerves off into corruption, and in my opinion exclusion and denouncing of fellow human beings. This I cannot accept.

1. Corruption is not a teaching. Corruption is an action taken by sinful humans.
2. As already pointed out, the teachings of the Catholic Church, as expressed in the Catechism as well as the documents of Vatican II does not denounce their fellow human beings.

All you told me is why God wants me to accept it, not why I should feel okay about it

The simple answer to this question is that you should except it because the one you love more than anything else wants you to accept it. And that Love - that desire to please should be sufficient for you to feel OK about it.
Of course - this gets into the deeper issues of Loving God and our desire to submit our Wills to Him - to be one with Him.

You don’t have to take my word for it, but I did appreciate your involvement. You did provide a great amount of information for me to reflect on.

In this I am glad.

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

1. Corruption is not a teaching. Corruption is an action taken by sinful humans.
2. As already pointed out, the teachings of the Catholic Church, as expressed in the Catechism as well as the documents of Vatican II does not denounce their fellow human beings.

1. The Church’s efforts in cleansing itself of the corrupt human’s within it’s ranks is lacking. In fact, the Church comforts & protects these corrupt individuals.
2. That’s a nice loophole. The Church is intolerant of some human beings. If said individuals act according to who they are, as opposed to the way they’re told…well, you can dress it up in different ways, but at the end it IS still an exclusion by the Church. Not by God, God loves them. The Church rejects them.

The simple answer to this question is that you should except it because the one you love more than anything else wants you to accept it. And that Love - that desire to please should be sufficient for you to feel OK about it.
Of course - this gets into the deeper issues of Loving God and our desire to submit our Wills to Him - to be one with Him.

You’ve given an excellent explanation of how to accept it. I get that part, no issues. Who am I to tell God he is wrong? The mere concept is silly
But It is NOT sufficient to feel OK about it. Just isn’t. If I feel it’s wrong, I feel it’s wrong. In my heart. Can I force myself to follow this, with these feelings?
Is that even acceptable? How does that work?

 

[davidv]

1. The Church’s efforts in cleansing itself of the corrupt human’s within it’s ranks is lacking. In fact, the Church comforts & protects these corrupt individuals.

Invalid and uncharitable unsupported innuendo.

1. That’s a nice loophole. The Church is intolerant of some human beings.

False. It is intolerant of sin.

If said individuals act according to who they are, as opposed to the way they’re told…well, you can dress it up in different ways, but at the end it IS still an exclusion by the Church. Not by God, God loves them. The Church rejects them.

Another false and unsupported claim.

You’ve given an excellent explanation of how to accept it. I get that part, no issues. Who am I to tell God he is wrong? The mere concept is silly
But It is NOT sufficient to feel OK about it. Just isn’t. If I feel it’s wrong, I feel it’s wrong. In my heart. Can I force myself to follow this, with these feelings?
Is that even acceptable? How does that work?

 

[JohnMichaels]

Invalid and uncharitable unsupported innuendo.(1)

False. It is intolerant of sin.(2)

Another false and unsupported claim. (3)

Bernard Law
phrase it however you’d like…results are the same
Which part?

 

[JohnMichaels]

I wanna take this to an issue I’m on the fence about
Abortion

On one hand, it is a life. Arguing it’s ok to abort early in a pregnancy and not ok late in a pregnancy, is to me somehow implying that age determines the value of that life. I disagree
Furthermore, would that mean an unborn life is less valuable than a someone counted by the census? It’s an argument the left makes that doesn’t really mesh. How can we put people first, & advocate killing unborn people? ehhh

On the other hand, there is rape. But, that child isn’t a rapist.
What if it’s a product of incest rape, and the child is underage? Or a step-father or something?
Or underage period. No possible means of self-support
& of course the underlying feeling I’ve always had that, by what right as a man do I have to tell a woman what to do with her body?

SOOOO difficult…

What say the Church?

 

[JRKH]

That’s a nice loophole. The Church is intolerant of some human beings. If said individuals act according to who they are, as opposed to the way they’re told…well, you can dress it up in different ways, but at the end it IS still an exclusion by the Church. Not by God, God loves them. The Church rejects them.

Not so…The Church still loves them too. That doesn’t always mean that every individual in the Church acts properly loving toward them…that is a matter of personal sin…but the Church continues to love them and teaches us to love them too.
In this discussion - The idea is to deal with Church teaching. It is unfair to say that “the Church excludes” or “the Church is intolerant” when such things can be found nowhere in Church teaching.
It might be perfectly fair to say that “some Catholics are intolerant”…as I say, that speaks to personal sin…but the Catholic Church i.e. the teachings of the Church is what is being discussed here.

As to the matter of individuals acting, as you say, “according to who they are, as opposed to the way they’re told…it IS still an exclusion by the Church”, consider this.

When a person self identifies as something, they are identifying themselves with all that the title embodies. Being a member of an organization - and identifying yourself as a member of that organization - indicates that you agree with the principles, rules, etc associated with said membership.
Now If one acts in a way that is contrary to that organization…the organization has a perfect right to inform the person that they are in violation and, if necessary, take action against them - even to the point of expulsion. This is true of every organization from the Rotary club, to the boy scouts, to religious groups.

The Church is composed of people who self identify as Catholic. No one makes them self identify as Catholic. If they do not wish to abide by the teachings of the Church then they really should do what you have done…set themselves apart from it.
Then they can do whatever they like. Free will remember?

You’ve given an excellent explanation of how to accept it. I get that part, no issues. Who am I to tell God he is wrong? The mere concept is silly

This is humility.

But It is NOT sufficient to feel OK about it. Just isn’t. If I feel it’s wrong, I feel it’s wrong. In my heart. Can I force myself to follow this, with these feelings?
Is that even acceptable? How does that work?

This is why I brought up the larger issue of authority. Yes - one CAN force oneself to follow this or that teaching if one has confidence that the Church has the proper authority. This takes humility. (A lot of humility - which might explain why I was away from the Church for 35 years.)

Then - over time and with humble study and prayer one begins to see how the various teachings of the 2000 year old Church hand together so beautifully. Even if one is not entirely convicted on a given point, one can see that these things are not arbitrary, or a tangled mess or contradictory, but in reality are well thought out, cohesive and consistent.

So this is how it works.

Now whether you personally can do this or not, I cannot answer.

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

This is humility.

I read it all, I’ll need time to think it over. Just wanted to comment on this
That is reality. I never said I thought God was wrong, only that I wouldn’t imagine God would make such demands, The regulations of the Church seem to be just that, man-made laws. This is my contention, anyway
However, if I were to be wrong, I’d sign up today. God tells me “No, this is how I feel, you had it backwards” Well, I’m shining the Pope’s shoes.
That isn’t humility, it’s common sense.

 

[JRKH]

I read it all, I’ll need time to think it over.

Take your time…

Just wanted to comment on this
That is reality. I never said I thought God was wrong, only that I wouldn’t imagine God would make such demands, The regulations of the Church seem to be just that, man-made laws. This is my contention, anyway

Understood…and I can sympathize with that view point - having held a similar one at one time.

However, if I were to be wrong, I’d sign up today. God tells me “No, this is how I feel, you had it backwards” Well, I’m shining the Pope’s shoes.
That isn’t humility, it’s common sense.

This part I don’t understand…

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

This part I don’t understand…

Well, if it’s right the consequence is real too. I can shove my feelings aside with a gun to my head, or flame at my feet. However this exercise doesn’t require I consider that genuine, or at least allows me consideration of alternatives.
I was only saying IF I were to find out its validity, common sense dictates someone not be disobedient in the face of eternal suffering

(I was kind of talking outside the parameters of the hypothetical, when I said that).

 

[prodigalson2011]

And you asked “I’m not mad at all. But you are not playing by “my rules” by any stretch of the imagination. Now, are you ever going to address my arguments in whole?”

I assume you meant this post. I didn’t intelligently respond to this, because I can easily do the same thing - and did. But my links are “misleading”

The link to which you were referring only showed population growth on a global scale. You were attempting to argue that there was no demonstrable correlation between gay marriage and the dissolution of families/falling birth rates. The fact of the matter is that in countries where gay marriage is accepted, the correlation is there. You cannot use a global statistic to disprove a local claim. That population growth is coming from more traditional societies who do not accept “modern progressive values.”

Here are some more, if you really wanna take feelings out of it and just get into other people’s studies.

indianexpress.com/news/abstinence-from-sex-can-be-ground-for-divorce-sc/918/
*“It may be mental such as indifference and frigidity towards the wife, denial of company to her, hatred and abhorrence for wife or physical like acts of violence and abstinence from sexual intercourse without reasonable cause,” *

This study has nothing to do with the debate at hand. It is addressing abstinence after, or rather during marriage; not before. It would behoove you to read your sources.

dailytexanonline.com/content/conservative-christians-divorce-more-study-says
Factors that lead to high rates of divorce among Christians are the prohibition of sex before marriage leading to marriage at an earlier age and teachings against abortion and birth control, which lead to “shotgun weddings,”

A few important points to consider:

a) this study specifically deals with Southern Protestants, whose views on human sexuality are markedly different from Catholic teaching.
b) simply calling oneself a Christian does not mean that one is particularly passionate and devout in their faith. Many people are simply “cultural Christians” and do what is expected of them without really thinking about it. Their ignorance and impassivity is no reflection on Christian teaching itself.

Further, I can find no link to the study itself, and the only place it has ever been referenced appears to be here and a few other blogs (mainly gay activist websites.) Her methodology is not available for review, and the quotes cited qualify as little more than conjecture on their own.

Moreover, and more importantly, going back to the difference between Catholics and other Christian denominations, is this: another study, cited on Richard Dawkins’ website of all places, says the following:

"According to a Barna Research Group report, fundamentalist Christians have the highest divorce rate, followed by Jews and Baptists,” Westerfield writes. "The godless are tied with Catholics and Lutherans for the lowest divorce rate."

Note the comment from the Catholic priest at the very bottom of the article you linked here. The Catholic Church has a much more comprehensive and intellectually coherent view and teaching of marriage and sexuality than most (if not all) American fundamentalist sects, which undoubtedly accounts for the difference. Citing a study on Protestants will not work for arguing against a Catholic position.

skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/07/09/correlations/

This is not really a scientific study, but an opinion piece based on a study. Moreover, I am arguing for the orthodox Catholic position, not that of the religious fundamentalism of much of the Bible belt.

The way the Catholic Church approaches sex education and abstinence is markedly different from that of most Protestants. I would argue that the reason for the failure of American “abstinence only” education programs is that any program of sexual education which promotes abstinence but embraces contraception (within marriage) is doomed to failure from the beginning. Christian denominations that accept contraception but reject premarital sex and homosexual activity are inherently hypocritical, in my honest opinion. Morally, there is not much difference between contraceptive sex and homosexual activity. Whether the contraception comes in natural forms (coitus interruptus, oral sex, etc.) or artificial forms (condoms, pills, etc.), it still removes the sexual act from its full meaning and makes it all about pleasure. Yet virtually every form of Christianity besides Catholicism accepts contraception. I can’t blame anyone for finding that hypocritical and unfair.

The idea that marriage gives one free license to do whatever one wants sexually while the rest of the world (homosexuals, single people, etc.) just have to do without is one that I find spurious, pharisaical and completely illogical. And I think teens are smart enough to see that. The problem is that they’re not getting the full picture. The full picture, as regards the teaching of abstinence, is provided by the Catholic Church’s teaching on chastity; a teaching from which not even married couples are excluded.

For just that reason, many young Catholics today are absolutely enamored of Blessed Pope John Paul II for his “Theology of the Body,” which is without a doubt the most comprehensive, compassionate, well-reasoned, thoroughly explained and, most importantly, empowering exposition on human sexuality from a Christian perspective ever penned.

unless you were referring to another post I did not address in it’s entirety. Sorry you felt ignored

I believe there were a few. I’ll go back and look.

 

[polytropos]

I’m suppose to believe God loves everyone unconditionally, with lots of conditions. I’m finding this concept, and always have, unbelievable hard to reconcile in my mind.

I would not really think of morality as “conditions” for God’s love. God loves us whether we are more or less moral or not.

I understand morality in Thomistic terms, ie. what is moral for us is not moral because it was commanded by God but is inherent in what we are as human beings (though the Ten Commandments, for instance, remind us of what is moral, and we get a perfect example of morality in Jesus). Worshiping God, for instance, isn’t good for us just because God told us to. Our worship cannot actually improve God. But it is good to worship God because He is the ultimate truth, and human beings, as rational animals.

Now, I’ve had many debates with theists that just fall back to “Well, I believe it, so it’s true”
In fact, you’re telling me that in a very matter of fact way. But somehow, I cannot claim the same…it’s odd

Hmm, I didn’t think I’d made such an appeal.

How can man be ordered towards truth without using intellect?
A function of opposition to truth is intellect? blown away…

I’m saying that the function of the intellect is to know truth and to direct the will towards it. We can be right or wrong about what is true. Sin is when we misapprehend truth and direct our will towards it.

Some of the beliefs held by the Church, literally move me to tears when I take the time to think about all that it entails. Am I allowed to be a member of the church with such feelings inside, or would I need to reconsile such issues? How? Ask God? I’m being told I can do no such thing :crying:

Well, there are positions that a Catholic is supposed to hold. But one is also supposed to obey one’s conscience. You are certainly allowed to be a member of the Church if you hold some opinions that are at odds with its teachings - but then you should try to resolve those differences of opinion, through study and through prayer. I would agree with JRKH that it requires a lot of humility to submit to Church authority.

I never said I was a pure humanist, or that I followed everything in what I linked you.
In truth, I read only the first line.

And then I said unto you, that isn’t a bad place to start

I don’t think humanism is a bad starting point. But it is a pretty broad category which does not preclude religion.

 

[polytropos]

On one hand, it is a life. Arguing it’s ok to abort early in a pregnancy and not ok late in a pregnancy, is to me somehow implying that age determines the value of that life. I disagree
Furthermore, would that mean an unborn life is less valuable than a someone counted by the census? It’s an argument the left makes that doesn’t really mesh. How can we put people first, & advocate killing unborn people? ehhh

I agree. Before I returned to the Church I was mostly pro-choice, but what largely led me to reconsider Catholicism was that I could not bring myself to support abortion (for a few years of my atheism, at least). It essentially amounts to the claim that certain people are permitted to kill certain other people who are not guilty in any way. Historically, deprivations of a group’s rights are typically justified by defining the group as less than human, which is what advocates of abortion do. Some say that abortion prevents poverty and starvation - but that would require that, in general, we would agree that it is OK to kill to prevent poverty - or that we need to preserve the resources of the world for future generations, while we simultaneously kill the future generations.

(The abortion industry is also fairly corrupt. “Family planning” was initially conceived to target racial minorities. Planned Parenthood representatives unilaterally advocate for abortion, although they allege to help women come to their own decision. Abortion advocates lobby against requiring people to see ultrasounds. Why? Because when people see ultrasounds, they realize that there is a life growing inside of them, and decide not to shell out the cash for an abortion. Ultrasounds provide information which is of course required for people to make informed “choices.”)

Sorry for the brief rant!

On the other hand, there is rape. But, that child isn’t a rapist.
What if it’s a product of incest rape, and the child is underage? Or a step-father or something?
Or underage period. No possible means of self-support
…
What say the Church?

Indeed, the child isn’t a rapist. It’s slightly ironic that we give the children who are the result of rape and incest the death penalty, but not the rapist.

Rape and incest are definitely tough cases. The Church’s position is that evil cannot be committed so that good can come of it - we cannot kill another child because of a violent sexual crime. God often does make good come out of evil, I think, and the birth of a child seems to be the sort of case where that is very possible.

& of course the underlying feeling I’ve always had that, by what right as a man do I have to tell a woman what to do with her body?

This was my position for a while. But it isn’t really just a matter of a woman and her body. She is making a decision about someone else’s body as well.

And while you are not a woman, you once were a fetus. And if you had been aborted, you would now be dead. It seems like you have the right to empathize.