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

[larkin31]

NOW we’re going to get to my favorite part: proving God’s existence** from your belief that conscience must be obeyed**.

I have explicitly rejected what you write in bold here (twice now). Please stop ascribing to me what I deny directly. My “will” and my “conscience” and my “needs” are all separate things and at various times merit satisfaction. Conscience is not the ultimate authority, but an important one. There is no absolute “must” in serving it. As I have said before.

You should rather speak for yourself than for me.

 

[larkin31]

Wrong. Truth is neither limited nor transient. Our** perception of the truth** can be limited and maybe transient. Unfortunately.

Do you have any evidence for this, or any argument?

 

[PRmerger]

I have explicitly rejected what you write in bold here (twice now). Please stop ascribing to me what I deny directly. My “will” and my “conscience” and my “needs” are all separate things and at various times merit satisfaction. Conscience is not the ultimate authority, but an important one. There is no absolute “must” in serving it. As I have said before.

You should rather speak for yourself than for me.

I know you keep saying that you reject it, but, like the teenagers you referred to, you have not fully thought out the logical consequence of your argument.

YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ME ANY EXAMPLE of someone who is doing the right thing when he disobeys his conscience.

Until you can, then you–whether you admit it or not–believe that one’s conscience must always be obeyed if one is to be moral.

Also, if you are a moral person you know that you MUST do good and avoid evil. Another must.

Despite your protests to the contrary, you believe the above.

Now, you can keep saying otherwise, but if you can’t provide any evidence to support your argument, then your protests are vacuous.

 

[Cinette]

I am sure you are a lovely Catholic and for that I am sure you are very happy. I cannot be 100% Catholic for one reason I do not believe in a lot of what the CC teaches to be truth. I also have seen a lot of unkind Catholics here that make rude remarks towards people who do not agree with them, I have not seen this so much in the Parish I attend but here is a different story. So I am mostly Protestant and will always remain that way and see ya when Jesus comes back

*LOL - I said 11% instead of 11 years!

I once heard Tim Staples say “You should not reject Peter because of Judas” and I think that is what you are doing tweety. “I won’t be Catholic because they only serve tea after Mass whereas the Protestants serve tea and cake after services!”

As for not believing what the CC teaches to be truth! Well, why don’t you put that on the forum - start a thread and let’s see the response.

BTW I know plenty of Catholics who are not easy to like!

Cinette

 

[Cinette]

This is a great post and I agree with all of it. It also made me realize that in the time I’ve spent here at CAF, I have had some negative and positive experiences from both Catholics and Protestants and neither have affected my faith. I think it boils down to the person and not the denominations and the fact that you’ll get along with some people and with others you won’t, that’s life.

Sometimes, people like you better when they get to know you, sometimes, the more they know you, the less they like you because of ideological differences…what are yah gonna do?

I probably have as many Protestant friends here that I do Catholic. Jon is one of my favorite people here and he is Lutheran.

I spend nearly all of my time here at CAF, in the non-Catholic religions section, because I’ve been “beat-up” more by some Catholics here, than I have Protestants and I don’t like to debate Catholicism with Catholics.

The solution, is to be forgiving…“forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” and to obey the two most important Commandments, the second being love they neighbor as thyself but that’s sometimes easier said than done. I keep trying though… I’ll always be Catholic.

*I have a favourite Protestant on CAF. He is obnoxious and has insulted one of my favourite Catholics on the Forums and thinks Jesus is a Protestant - you name it - but I still like him very much. He is honest and loyal. I won’t mention his name but you all know him for sure.

God bless all
Cinette*

 

[tweetymom]

*LOL - I said 11% instead of 11 years!

I once heard Tim Staples say “You should not reject Peter because of Judas” and I think that is what you are doing tweety. “I won’t be Catholic because they only serve tea after Mass whereas the Protestants serve tea and cake after services!”

As for not believing what the CC teaches to be truth! Well, why don’t you put that on the forum - start a thread and let’s see the response.

BTW I know plenty of Catholics who are not easy to like!

Cinette

I respect you and the way you believe. The subject has been discussed and when you state your beliefs one is challenged and made fun of called all sort of names, accused of being a drunk.stupid, ignorant, a heretic, going to hell, etc.etc.etc. How do I know this? Because myself and others have been called these names. God Bless you in your journey with our Savior.

 

[Cinette]

I think you have got that wrong. Catholics know that their faith (not them, but their faith) is superior and there is nothing wrong with that. A person who knows that the earth revolves around the sun posseses superior knowledge to the one who still maintains that the earth is the centre of the universe. This is a mere acknowledgement of fact. Nothing wrong with that.

I wonder how you feel about the pagans and non-Christians. Do you think they are as enlightened as you? Do you think their religion is equal to yours?

When meeting them, would you say to them that everything is okay they do not have to believe in Jesus because what they believe is on par with what you believe? Or do you think to yourself that these people are misguided?
Aaah, but how do you know that it is indeed the Holy Spirit who guided you in your belief?

That is because you focus too much on the attitude. Focus on the arguments. That’s what most people who converted did. They did not look at the behaviour or attitude of Tom, Doris and Harry. They just looked at the teachings. They studied. Don’t let the bickering sidetrack you from pursuing the truth. That is just the devil distracting you from going after Truth. Seek truth.

*LOL! Its just like saying “I won’t marry Mary because her siblings Tom, Doris and Harry are obnoxious Catholics!” LOL!

Imagine we all go to Heaven and see a whole bunch of obnoxious Catholics there! Are we going to tell St Peter we’d rather not stay! :nope::extrahappy::crying:*

 

[larkin31]

I know you keep saying that you reject it, but, like the teenagers you referred to, you have not fully thought out the logical consequence of your argument.

YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ME ANY EXAMPLE of someone who is doing the right thing when he disobeys his conscience.

Until you can, then you–whether you admit it or not–believe that one’s conscience must always be obeyed if one is to be moral.

Also, if you are a moral person you know that you MUST do good and avoid evil. Another must.

Despite your protests to the contrary, you believe the above.

Now, you can keep saying otherwise, but if you can’t provide any evidence to support your argument, then your protests are vacuous.

Why are your unsupported claims exempt from your same “vacuous” condemnation? You’ve implied that I am like a teenager (which I am not), and “vacuous,” which I am not, and lacking self-awareness, which I do not.

You continually tell me what I believe despite my direct rejections of your summations. Your argument is, basically, “Unless you give me examples to the contrary, I say that you believe ‘X’…” Well, isn’t that a form of intellectual dishonesty and bullying? Why do you keep rejecting my own summaries of what I believe? It is really kind of weird.

I will repeat: I reject the idea of an absolute morality because no form of morality has been shown to exist outside of the thoughts of human minds. This, then, makes morality a “subjective” concept dependent on the minds and cultural contexts of those minds. This also explains why various human cultures and religions have expressed behavioral mores differently through history and geography.

And you called me “grouchy”…

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I deplore the killings of innocent people. I truly do. Don’t mistake my argument for subjectivity for indifference.

But you can’t tell someone, a nazi, that their actions are wrong because your “combinations” are not theirs. So while you may think that their actions are deplorable they are only, to you, that way because of your combinations. What makes you so special that people should be subject to your “combinations”? Answer, you’re not and they shouldn’t.

You all seem to be missing my point about subjective points of view being dependent on a “mind” and certain ideas not existing outside of a mind.

If they are dependant on the mind then the actions of Hitler and those of his ilk are not evil. In fact depending on someones “combinations” they may very well be considered good

Example: Germans blamed their government and the Jewish people for what they saw was a “back stabbing” during the peace Treaty of Versailles. Germans craved Lebensraum (living space) for the German folk. This was their “combinations” therefore the killing of Jews and Communist in the east provided them with Lebensraum in the east and revenge for WW1 ie it was good based your standard of their combinations. On top of that Nazis believed that Jews and Communist were sub-human so based on their “combinations” they were not only doing something good but they were not even killing people. :nope:

God bless

 

[larkin31]

But you can’t tell someone, a nazi, that their actions are wrong because your “combinations” are not theirs. So while you may think that their actions are deplorable they are only, to you, that way because of your combinations.
What makes you so special that people should be subject to your “combinations”?

If they are dependant on the mind then the actions of Hitler and those of his ilk are not evil. In fact depending on someones “combinations” they may very well be considered good

Example: Germans blamed their government and the Jewish people for what they saw was a “back stabbing” during the peace Treaty of Versailles. Germans craved Lebensraum (living space) for the German folk. This was their “combinations” therefore the killing of Jews and Communist in the east provided them with Lebensraum in the east and revenge for WW1 ie it was good based your standard of their combinations. On top of that Nazis believed that Jews and Communist were sub-human so based on their “combinations” they were not only doing something good but they were not even killing people. :nope:

God bless

Ethics and running a society is difficult, even with a dominant religion. No one said it would be easy.

What do you suggest instead?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Ethics and running a society is difficult, even with a dominant religion. No one said it would be easy.

What do you suggest instead?

It doesn’t matter what I suggest. Good and evil is outside my mind. That is what I have been telling you. I cannot make an evil (killing millions of people) a good because of my combinations (not thinking certain people are human and needing living space). The holocaust was evil. You have devised a way thay could be good.

larkin, do you believe the trials of Nuremberg were a good thing? Do you think that the war criminals of WW2 should have been and were rightly delt with?

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

Why are your unsupported claims exempt from your same “vacuous” condemnation? You’ve implied that I am like a teenager (which I am not), and “vacuous,” which I am not, and lacking self-awareness, which I do not.

<sigh!>
***You ***were the one who brought up the teenager thing (specifically, here)

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?

So either you think it’s fine to be compared to a teenager, or you don’t. But don’t bring it up then as if it’s a plus to be able to “change your mind” like a teenager.

However, as it is clearly insulting to you to be compared to a high school student I will refrain from doing so in the future.

You continually tell me what I believe despite my direct rejections of your summations.

So prove to me that your statement is true, that conscience is not always binding.

When? Where? How?

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t matter what I suggest. Good and evil is outside my mind. That is what I have been telling you. I cannot make an evil (killing millions of people) a good because of my combinations (not thinking certain people are human and needing living space). The holocaust was evil. You have devised a way thay could be good.

larkin, do you believe the trials of Nuremberg were a good thing? Do you think that the war criminals of WW2 should have been and were rightly delt with?

God bless

'zactly!

All moral persons–Larkin included–will agree that “it is always good to want to help” and “it is always bad to want to hurt”.

We all feel bound by some fundamental moral values, (unless you’re a Jeffrey Dahmer sociopath). Which is why even moral relativists can cry, “That isn’t fair!”, indicating that *they really do *subscribe to the existence of objectively real and universally binding moral principles. Otherwise, proclaiming, “that isn’t fair” as a moral judgment is as silly as saying, “that isn’t fair!” when someone proclaims, “I like chocolate!”. :whacky:

 

[larkin31]

So prove to me that your statement is true, that conscience is not always binding.

When? Where? How?

I don’t have to. You asserted that it IS. The onus is on you. I don’t claim that conscience is always binding, that one “must” follow it. I even already noted how Jesus tells us to follow authority, and render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. I agree, for the most part. Duty and lawfulness can trump conscience. I might even hurt someone in order to feed myself, despite the fact that it bother’s my conscience. But my need for survival trumps my conscience.

How can one call conscience binding when it is contradicted and violated so many times each day?

 

[larkin31]

'zactly!

All moral persons–Larkin included–will agree that “it is always good to want to help” and “it is always bad to want to hurt”.

No, no

I definitely say no to the “always” in both these claims. Parenting teaches one that neither of these is ALWAYS true.

 

[larkin31]

It doesn’t matter what I suggest. Good and evil is outside my mind.

Where?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Where?

Roman_Catholic:

larkin, do you believe the trials of Nuremberg were a good thing? Do you think that the war criminals of WW2 should have been and were rightly delt with?

Nurembery trials, right or wrong?

God bless

 

[larkin31]

It doesn’t matter what I suggest. Good and evil is outside my mind. That is what I have been telling you. I cannot make an evil (killing millions of people) a good because of my combinations (not thinking certain people are human and needing living space). The holocaust was evil. You have devised a way thay could be good.

larkin, do you believe the trials of Nuremberg were a good thing? Do you think that the war criminals of WW2 should have been and were rightly delt with?

God bless

Were any of God’s killings of many many persons in the Old Testament “good”?

 

[larkin31]

Nurembery trials, right or wrong?

God bless

I don’t know them real well, but I will trust that they were done properly and were right.

I think that you are missing my point, almost entirely. I may give up on you. I don’t deny that I have a value system. Of course I do! I just assert that value systems do not exist outside of brains that can think of them.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Were any of God’s killings of many many persons in the Old Testament “good”?

Well if good and evil were subjective anyone anywhere could justify any of their actions as good. See my example of the nazis a few posts back.

That is interesting though larkin, you cannot claim they were wrong. Agnostics always like to point to the “evils” of God (I did when I was agnostic) and yet turn around and say that evil isn’t real, that it is all subjective. They want their cake and to eat it too. They don’t want to believe that evil truly exists (and therefore good must exist) but at the same time want to believe that God (particullary the God Christians believe in) is evil. You cannot have it both ways either something can be absolutely evil or it is subjective and therefore you cannot say that whatever God has done was evil. You can say that you don’t like it based on your 20th-21st century morals and other “combinations” but you cannot say that anything was evil.

Now please:

Roman_Catholic:

larkin, do you believe the trials of Nuremberg were a good thing? Do you think that the war criminals of WW2 should have been and were rightly delt with?

God bless