I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[PRmerger]

Now, your paradigm states this is an opinion:
Stealing is wrong

We state it is an absolute truth.

For those who have not been following Larkin’s and my dialogue in another thread, we’ve already discussed the proverbial father “stealing” for his starving family. That is NOT stealing.

From Gaudium et Spes:

“If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others”

 

[larkin31]

Look, Larkin-not Frank, the point is that there are many, many absolute truths in life. Not everything is just an opinion.

You must see that now.

I don’t really see this. But I also do not really care. You may continue with your argument if you want, but I have no stake in this at all.

Where the discussion begins–and it could be quite interesting–is whether MORAL absolutes exist

Yes. And I am of the firm opinion that they do not.

Thus, you agree

-that this is an absolute truth:
Steak is not a vegetable.

Oh, golly. Sort of. I really don’t care. I thought that you were going to discuss morality.

Now, your paradigm states this is an opinion:
Stealing is wrong

What “paradigm”?

“Steak” to “stealing” to…?

Can you stay on one topic?

I KNOW that you claim that there are absolute truths in morality. I just see NO EVIDENCE of this. What can you point to to make your claim appear to be accurate? I would claim that morality only exists where there is a collection of at least semi-sentient beings capable of producing a common code for regulating behavior. No sentience; no morality. And since morality is thus dependent on sentience (a collection of minds), then therefore it is not absolute. Morality is not a physical law. It has never been measured in space, never been seen to travel through a vacuum, never been found among inanimate objects nor even among the dead corpses. As it is dependent on the presence of sentient beings, it is subjective, and determined by the collective will of those beings.

 

[pinay]

For those who have not been following Larkin’s and my dialogue in another thread, we’ve already discussed the proverbial father “stealing” for his starving family. That is NOT stealing.

From Gaudium et Spes:

“If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others”

Hello PRmerger… is this the conclusion you came to from the dialogue in another thread? Or is this your opinion on the matter?

Reason I ask is that it’s not right, in my humble opinion.

But then, I don’t know how this is relevant to the thread either. So, okay, I’m going to go back and sit down in my corner now…

 

[PRmerger]

I KNOW that you claim that there are absolute truths in morality.

Yup, and so do you.

Unless you think that it’s moral to enslave someone. Or to rape a child. Or to cheat on your taxes.

And since morality is thus dependent on sentience (a collection of minds), then therefore it is not absolute.

There is no evidence for that. A collection of minds has created a very immoral society–see Germany 1930s.

As it is dependent on the presence of sentient beings, it is subjective, and determined by the collective will of those beings.

Nuh-uh. No way. I will NEVER let the “collective will” tell me what’s moral. That’s the most ludicrious statement you’ve ever made. As if.

 

[PRmerger]

Hello PRmerger… is this the conclusion you came to from the dialogue in another thread? Or is this your opinion on the matter?

Reason I ask is that it’s not right, in my humble opinion.

But then, I don’t know how this is relevant to the thread either. So, okay, I’m going to go back and sit down in my corner now…

Not sure what you’re saying, pinay.

What’s not right?

 

[pinay]

Not sure what you’re saying, pinay.

What’s not right?

Oh sorry!

The bit about a father stealing for his sustenance being NOT stealing… and the quote “If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others”.

Those ones. Thanks!

 

[larkin31]

Unless you think that it’s moral to enslave someone. Or to rape a child. Or to cheat on your taxes.

I don’t. But some societies have. Even the Bible has permitted it. And only humans have an idea of “slavery.” Some animal species enslave other species. This is clearly an accepted part of their social frameworks and modes of survival. We also permit it.

There is no evidence for that. A collection of minds has created a very immoral society–see Germany 1930s.

What’s this have to do with whether morality is objective or not? I did not say that collective minds are ALWAYS moral (they are clearly NOT so). I said that the idea of morality comes only from the human mind.

Nuh-uh. No way. I will NEVER let the “collective will” tell me what’s moral. That’s the most ludicrious statement you’ve ever made. As if.

Again, you have missed my point. That you determine your morality is just as subjective as a community determining it–maybe even more so since you are just one mind.

Again, my claim is that there has been no evidence that a moral will has existed anywhere outside of the actions or words of sentient minds. Not in rocks, not in outer space, not in clouds, not in rivers. There is no objective repository of “morality,” and there is no objective evidence of a God engaging in any moral work on this planet or on any other celestial body.

 

[1beleevr]

You can’t have it both ways, 1beleevr. Either Paul LITERALLY meant ALL. Or he didn’t.

If he LITERALLY meant ALL, that includes Jesus.

OR

He* didn’t* mean it LITERALLY, in which case you can exclude Jesus. And Mary. And those who have Down Syndrome. And babies. (This, BTW, agrees with Scripture–just a few chapters later Paul writes about the unborn babies Esau and Jacob as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11)

First of all, let me congratulate you on your ability to twist people’s words:clapping:! In case you have forgotten, you initiated the argument that Paul wasn’t being literal My goodness, pr, by taking the position that you have, you leave the door wide open to include whomever we would like to, to the sinless list! How 'bout Ronald Reagan, or Mother Teresa, ot Ghandi. Could we say that they and countless others were sinless? I thought you would be able to figure out that Paul meant ALL of us wretched human beings. Trying to bolster your argument by saying,"but Paul didn’t say, except Jesus in scripture is ludicrous and beloew you; someone who is otherwise articulate, well versed, and intelligent! Were those who carried the Ark of the Covenant sinless? How 'out David, or Jonah? Nicodemus, or Zaccheus perhaps! I do understand your need to argue like this though, to strengthenyourargument about Mary(something that was neveraddressed in scripture).And at various places in the Bible(2Cor 5:21, Romans 5:19, Isaiah 53) it states that Christ was sinless!:tiphat:Hats off to you for your diligence though!

 

[Jimmy_B]

I believe that none of the priests you’ve encountered at various Masses have attacked Protestant figures. To say, however, that it is true that no Catholics have done so, would be absurd, as evidenced by the book referenced.

The Order of the Mass and the structure and flow of the Mass, prevents this from occurring. The only thing that really changes in any Mass, are the readings, based on a standardized Liturgy of the Word. Predetermined readings for Sundays and other special days throughout the Church’s liturgical year (Daily readings). There are three sets of readings assigned for that day. These readings are assigned to Liturgical Years A, B, and C. Years. There are also specific choices of hymns for specific days.

**

Liturgy of the Word

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Church has radically reformed the Liturgy of the Word, going back to the earliest tradition of three readings on Sundays and Holy Days:
First Reading from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), chosen to harmonize with the Gospel message indicating the unity and continuity of both Testaments.
(Note: The Psalm is a response to God’s Word and should be sung when possible)
Second Reading from a non Gospel New Testament. Depending on the season, the reading is taken from a letter (Epistle), from the Acts of the Apostles or the Book of Revelation. Although these readings are not consciously integrated with the Gospel reading, they speak of our concrete experience of living out the Gospel message.
Third Reading from a Gospel, the stories in which we meet Jesus, the heart of our faith.
**　
There also exists, Rubrics … or instructions for priests explaining, what they can and can not do, or say during a Mass. And there are Catholics who complain when a priests deviate from the standard Order of the Mass.

There is even a Book of Homilies, which are suggested homilies (sermons) for a particular set of liturgical readings, for that particular Mass.

Continued on next post -

 

[1beleevr]

Hi Jimmy B-

Good question. The answer is simple. I am a catholic christian. However, I am not a Roman Catholic Christian.

Mike

I don’t care what anybody calls me; I am just happy to be in Christ, picking up my cross every day and following Him! Serving my King is without a doubt, the greatest privilege I enjoy!

 

[Jimmy_B]

I believe that none of the priests you’ve encountered at various Masses have attacked Protestant figures. To say, however, that it is true that no Catholics have done so, would be absurd, as evidenced by the book referenced.

Continued from last post -

A Catholic Mass is not the free-for-all that one might see in some Protestant Church, not in the older Protestant Churches, which also have a Liturgical year, but many of the “newer” denominations, where a minister or preacher can “preach” or talk about, whatever they wants to.

Moreover, Catholic Masses are not like the “Catholic sermons” that one might see in a movie.

I am not the only Catholic who has gone an entire lifetime, where I have never heard a single negative thing said during a Mass, about another denomination, I have never met another Catholic that has and I never heard about this ever happening. That doesn’t mean that there hasn’t ever been an occasion were a priest may have deviate from the Order of the Mass but if they do they are wrong and acting in a way contrary to Catholic guidelines.

Many people, for many years have told lies and have told false stories about Catholicism… I think that this might be something inherent or “built-in-to” Protestantism… It’s the nature of Protestantism, to “protest” against the Catholic Church.

Catholicism is not Protestantism and is, therefore, not “protesting” any other denomination. This does however, seem like a common error, where Protestants view Catholicism through a Protestant lens and when this happens they are usually wrong.

We both know that there have always been people who have lied about Catholicism.

On the rare occasion where a priest deviates, in any way, during a Mass, someone complains about it.

No, it‘s not absurd… This just doesn‘t happen and I feel bad that you would even make a comment like this… It‘s just plain…false…

I hope your not confusing early Christian, historical event where the Church ahs addressed heresies with the Order of the Mass.

Finally, Catholic Apologists and Catholic forums like this are not Catholic Masses. Go to a Catholic Mass and then tell me where this is even an opportunity for a Priest to talk about another denominations… there isn’t! The Catholic Mass is not about the Church or the priest, or any other denomination; it is all about Jesus Christ.

 

[1beleevr]

*Have you noticed that it is anti-Catholics and the devil that attack the Catholic Church? Hmmm… They have written volumes against the Church. Has the Church or any of its faithful ever written a single book against non-Catholics? Full of lies and misconceptions? Ever?

What does this tell us?

God bless all
Cinette*

Okay, all of you on your high horses, come on down, class is beginning; It’s Not About You 101. Ther is as much animosity from catholics toward noncatholics, as there is the other way! Have you been in this forum long?

 

[1beleevr]

Unity exists in God right now, and in the Church He founded. He desired, and prayed for that unity. Or, are you suggesting that Jesus’ prayer was not effective?

The Apostles taught that we are to PRESERVE the unity in the bond of peace. Those that have departed from the unity established by them fail to preserve that unity. this unity is found in adherance to the doctrines believed and taught by the Apostles.

Any who wish to enter, or return to this perfect unity, the oneness of mind, are able to do so by moving into communion with the One Church founded by Christ.

Alas, but sadly, there exists disunity thoughout all churches, to one degree or another! To try and claim that it doesn’t in the catholic church would be an bald-faced lie! And ALL of Jesus’s prayers were effective Jesus promised(and kept it!), that He would send US an Advocate, to lead us into all Truth, and the Holy Spirit has, and still does!

 

[1beleevr]

Statements like this make you appear to be grossly ignorant of history and available ecclesiastical evidence.

I can see why it would be important for you to believe such myths, however, because if the Authority appointed by Christ does, in fact, exist, then you would have a moral obligation to submit to it.

To many of us, the claim of apostolic succession contained in one church, are grossly ignorant, and arrogant! Sorrry!

 

[PRmerger]

First of all, let me congratulate you on your ability to twist people’s words:clapping:!

Stop being sarcastic, 1beleevr. It’s the protest of the weak.

Besides, you’ve never stooped to that before; it’s beneath you and our discourse, brother.

 

[1beleevr]

I don’t get it, you don’t believe me???

Not entirely, no! Besides, it is usually the parishioners who badmouth(and I mean nastily), complete with F-bombs and all other religions!

 

[PRmerger]

First of all, let me congratulate you on your ability to twist people’s words:clapping:! In case you have forgotten, you initiated the argument that Paul wasn’t being literal My goodness, pr, by taking the position that you have, you leave the door wide open to include whomever we would like to, to the sinless list! How 'bout Ronald Reagan, or Mother Teresa, ot Ghandi. Could we say that they and countless others were sinless? I thought you would be able to figure out that Paul meant ALL of us wretched human beings. Trying to bolster your argument by saying,"but Paul didn’t say, except Jesus in scripture is ludicrous and beloew you; someone who is otherwise articulate, well versed, and intelligent! Were those who carried the Ark of the Covenant sinless? How 'out David, or Jonah? Nicodemus, or Zaccheus perhaps! I do understand your need to argue like this though, to strengthenyourargument about Mary(something that was neveraddressed in scripture).And at various places in the Bible(2Cor 5:21, Romans 5:19, Isaiah 53) it states that Christ was sinless!:tiphat:Hats off to you for your diligence though!

Can’t change the logic, 1beleevr.

Either ALL have sinned is literal. And that means ALL HAVE SINNED. Even Jesus. And little babies.

Or, it’s not literal.

You claim it’s literal. Therefore you believe Paul is saying Jesus sinned.

 

[1beleevr]

Oh sorry!

The bit about a father stealing for his sustenance being NOT stealing… and the quote “If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others”.

Those ones. Thanks!

I know that parents will do anything to feed or clothe their children, and most could probably overlook someone who did it once, and perhaps repaid the theft at a later date. But this could lead to bigger and more desperate crimes! The prisons are full of people who started out stealin something to feed their kids!

 

[1beleevr]

Can’t change the logic, 1beleevr.

Either ALL have sinned is literal. And that means ALL HAVE SINNED. Even Jesus. And little babies.

Or, it’s not literal.

You claim it’s literal. Therefore you believe Paul is saying Jesus sinned.

So, you can’t own up to the fact that you introduced the idea of whether Paul’s words were or were not literal, when he uttered,For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.!" Well, that’s typical; blame the other guy, Adam did when God asked him what happened! All humanshave sinned, in one way or another, there are no free rides! And do not insult my intelligence by making it sound like I am inferring that Jesus sinned, or little babies! You see, you keep adding people to the list; where does it end? And you wonder why I have avoided becoming a catholic all these years?

 

[larkin31]

So, you can’t own up to the fact that you introduced the idea of whether Paul’s words were or were not literal, when he uttered,For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.!" Well, that’s typical; blame the other guy, Adam did when God asked him what happened! All humanshave sinned, in one way or another, there are no free rides! And do not insult my intelligence by making it sound like I am inferring that Jesus sinned, or little babies! You see, you keep adding people to the list; where does it end? And you wonder why I have avoided becoming a catholic all these years?

PR likes to push either/or fallacies to logical deaths.

Oh well.