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

[1beleevr]

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

Oh well.

I have discovered that truth over the last fifteen months!

 

[PRmerger]

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.!"

Oh! I didn’t know that was the question. Well, yes, I did bring up the fact that this verse is clearly not to be accepted literally.

[sign1]Not a single Christian accepts it as literal.[/sign1]

And you wonder why I have avoided becoming a catholic all these years?

Actually, I don’t wonder. I get it. I see that there are sooo many misconceptions of Catholicism. If I thought Catholicism was about worshipping Mary, I wouldn’t be Catholic either. If I thought that a pope has to be sinless in order to be infallible, I wouldn’t be Catholic either. If I thought that the Bible just fell out of the sky, without any Church to infallibly declare that Hebrews is inspired but the Didache isn’t, I wouldn’t be Catholic either.

And I get that you see Scripture through your pastor’s interpretations, so when he says that Scripture says that Revelation refers to the end times, you accept that. And therefore you feel like you’re “following Scripture” when you don’t join the Catholic church, but really you’re following a fallible man’s interpretation of Scripture…

So, yes I get it, 1beleevr. I don’t have to wonder.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Oh well.

Huh.

I wonder why Larkin is talking about me after he made this post on another thread:

Why don’t you speak directly to me? Is that any less rude? The few times I have sniggered it has only been in reply to smug superiority. I otherwise am very sincere and serious here. But I won’t just take self-righteous accusations with a loving smile.

 

[larkin31]

Huh.

I wonder why Larkin is talking about me after he made this post on another thread:

I am infallibly fallible, with an absolute imperfectability! I believe that a statement can be partly true; a moral, partly applicable; Jesus’ sayings partly wise; a believer’s faith, partly crazy; the Bible, partly wrong; the presence of religion, partly beneficial to the world; the idea of God partly comforting.

 

[larkin31]

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.

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.

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.

PR, you skipped responding to this post entirely, where I laid out my sincere argument for why I claim what I claim. Do you have a response to this?

 

[PRmerger]

I am infallibly fallible, with an absolute imperfectability! I believe that a statement can be partly true; a moral, partly applicable; Jesus’ sayings partly wise; a believer’s faith, partly crazy; the Bible, partly wrong; the presence of religion, partly beneficial to the world; the idea of God partly comforting.

But, again, you really don’t believe your own paradigm. You believe that what you’re proclaiming above to be true.

If you don’t, why should we consider anything you say when you don’t even know yourself if you believe it?

 

[larkin31]

But, again, you really don’t believe your own paradigm. You believe that what you’re proclaiming above to be true.

If you don’t, why should we consider anything you say when you don’t even know yourself if you believe it?

Could you respond to my other post, please, which is more on the topic?

I don’t care about this topic; it is filler.

 

[PRmerger]

I am infallibly fallible, with an absolute imperfectability!

And, inexplicably, this sentence above makes me really like you even more, Larkin. :hug1:

I guess I respect your admitting you were caught.

Now the post talking about me as if I wasn’t in the room…not so much.

 

[PRmerger]

Could you respond to my other post, please, which is more on the topic?

I don’t care about this topic; it is filler.

Actually, I’m going to plead ennui right now. If you don’t care, I don’t really care either.

Maybe later.

 

[larkin31]

Actually, I’m going to plead ennui right now. If you don’t care, I don’t really care either.

Maybe later.

jeez

I answer honestly my full disclosure on why I think there is no objective morality, and you plead ennui? It’s actually a topic that matters, rather than banter with logical entrechats.

Let me know when you are ready.

 

[PRmerger]

jeez

I answer honestly my full disclosure on why I think there is no objective morality, and you plead ennui? It’s actually a topic that matters, rather than banter with logical entrechats.

Let me know when you are ready.

Oh, you’re KILLIN me, Larkin.

You get to plead ennui but you’re going to tell me “jeez” when I do the same?

I hope you’re going to say, “yeah, I know. It’s another thing I was hypocritical about.” and I’ll accept your acknowledgment.

 

[PRmerger]

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!

Stealing is taking what you have no right to.

A man who is starving in front of a banquet table overflowing with comestibles has every right to procure for himself that which will keep him alive. It’s his right. He is not stealing.

Addendum: There is no theft if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of good; clearly refusal to give food to a starving man is contrary to the universal destination of goods, and is contrary to reason. Any reasonable person can see that a starving man deserves food, and to withold it is gravely wrong. He has a right to that food.

 

[larkin31]

Oh, you’re KILLIN me, Larkin.

You get to plead ennui but you’re going to tell me “jeez” when I do the same?

I hope you’re going to say, “yeah, I know. It’s another thing I was hypocritical about.” and I’ll accept your acknowledgment.

Dude(ette),

We have hardly actually talked about this topic, and it is central.

I DO plead ennui when after what seems like endless banter about little definitional issues I just get bored.

So, my point isn’t that you SHOULD NOT plead this, but rather that this is a disappointing CASE to plead it within.

Capiche?

For instance here, you would rather try to expose hypocrisy on my part rather than actually discuss the topic (objective morality).

To help with this and shorten your investigation: I am a full sinner, only occasionally repentant, both humble about my shortcomings and arrogant about my intelligence. I will, in the next week, contradict myself, be rude a few times, and forget half of what I write. But when I write it, I mean it, and I am not here to score little points against Catholics. I am here to discover my way, which is primarily by finding contrasts in this case.

So, can we move on?

 

[PRmerger]

Dude(ette),

We have hardly actually talked about this topic, and it is central.

I DO plead ennui when after what seems like endless banter about little definitional issues I just get bored.

So, my point isn’t that you SHOULD NOT plead this, but rather that this is a disappointing CASE to plead it within.

Capiche?

For instance here, you would rather try to expose hypocrisy on my part rather than actually discuss the topic (objective morality).

To help with this and shorten your investigation: I am a full sinner, only occasionally repentant, both humble about my shortcomings and arrogant about my intelligence. I will, in the next week, contradict myself, be rude a few times, and forget half of what I write. But when I write it, I mean it, and I am not here to score little points against Catholics. I am here to discover my way, which is primarily by finding contrasts in this case.

So, can we move on?

Okay. Sheesh. I don’t know why I like you 'cause you’re kind of disrespectful and grouchy.

I’m watching The Office right now.

Be back in a minute.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t. But some societies have.

So, just to reiterate your position: it is society that determines whether something is moral or not.

Our society has declared slavery to be immoral; therefore you believe it is immoral because you live in this society.

Some societies believe that infanticide is moral.

So are you saying that infanticide is moral, in that society?

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.

Not sure what this means. Clearly morality has to come from one’s mind. God does not put out neon signs to say “infanticide is contrary to the dignity of the human person.”

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.

I can cite no evidence that a moral will has existed anywhere *outside *of a sentient mind. But I will provide an argument that the existence of a “sentient mind” that discerns morality (i.e. a conscience) supports the existence of God. Later.

 

[PRmerger]

To help with this and shorten your investigation: I am a full sinner, only occasionally repentant, both humble about my shortcomings and arrogant about my intelligence. I will, in the next week, contradict myself, be rude a few times, and forget half of what I write. But when I write it, I mean it, and I am not here to score little points against Catholics. I am here to discover my way, which is primarily by finding contrasts in this case.

So, can we move on?

Ok. So I really have a problem with this. How can one have a reasoned discourse with someone who will contradict himself?

 

[larkin31]

Ok. So I really have a problem with this. How can one have a reasoned discourse with someone who will contradict himself?

Maybe you can’t. But I could. I teach high school students. I am very practiced at having discussions with persons who change their minds, see things differently, or see a new side to a matter. Sometimes the same happens to me. I even say “thank you” when I change my mind!

Do you have a spouse?

 

[larkin31]

So, just to reiterate your position: it is society that determines whether something is moral or not.

Our society has declared slavery to be immoral; therefore you believe it is immoral because you live in this society.

No, not all individuals agree with the morals of their communities. This has always been the case.

Some societies believe that infanticide is moral.

So are you saying that infanticide is moral, in that society?

Yes. Unfortunately so.

I can cite no evidence that a moral will has existed anywhere *outside *of a sentient mind. But I will provide an argument that the existence of a “sentient mind” that discerns morality (i.e. a conscience) supports the existence of God. Later.

I look forward to that.

 

[1beleevr]

Oh! I didn’t know that was the question. Well, yes, I did bring up the fact that this verse is clearly not to be accepted literally.

[sign1]Not a single Christian accepts it as literal.[/sign1]

Actually, I don’t wonder. I get it. I see that there are sooo many misconceptions of Catholicism. If I thought Catholicism was about worshipping Mary, I wouldn’t be Catholic either. If I thought that a pope has to be sinless in order to be infallible, I wouldn’t be Catholic either. If I thought that the Bible just fell out of the sky, without any Church to infallibly declare that Hebrews is inspired but the Didache isn’t, I wouldn’t be Catholic either.

And I get that you see Scripture through your pastor’s interpretations, so when he says that Scripture says that Revelation refers to the end times, you accept that. And therefore you feel like you’re “following Scripture” when you don’t join the Catholic church, but really you’re following a fallible man’s interpretation of Scripture…

So, yes I get it, 1beleevr. I don’t have to wonder.

Once again you are wrong about me, my dear friend in Christ! The reason I have never converted is about attitude, not misconceptions! Almost every catholic that I know personally, displays an attitude of superiority and condescencion! They drop F-bombs on people, and call you an idiot if you don’t believe the way they do! I really believe that many on this forum are restrained only by forum rules and not charity! And you don’t know the first thing I believe, or whether it is my pastor’s interpretation or my understanding of things revealed to me by the Holy Spirit! At least weekly, one or more catholics help to solidify my decision to remain noncatholic! I havenothing personal against you, but sometimes you do come across as arrogant! I do not want this to be a hurtful issue, so I will abandon this all have sinned thing, with saying I believe(whether Paul said it or not) that ALL humans have sinned! I love you, my sister!

 

[Cinette]

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.

Please help me here. Was the book to which you refer anti-Protestant bashing? Or was it a book in which the writer critised Luther for something he said or did?

Please enlighten me.

Cinette