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

[larkin31]

Well helloo, thousands die in car crashes, accidents, disease, etc, etc. In the end God still is the one who decides when that life will end? How is that in anyway different?

He has every right to do as He pleases to His creation. If you were a programmer and you decide to terminate a program because you feel it is not working according to your plans, could that program complain at being terminated?

You know there is such a thing as Author’s rights. God is the great Author. He has all the rights.

As your question “Are the fetuses of sinners “weeds” worthy of destruction?”. Answer: Yes. They must be because God alone knows whether this or that “weed” ought to be destroyed.

You made an interesting choice of words there : ***worthy ***of destruction. Hmmm, you must think then that to be destroyed is a great priviledge that one needs to be worthy of.

My tone with “worthy” was meant to be ironic, of course. And I am not the one devaluing life by suggesting that genocide, as long as it is by God, is ok.

Can parents do with their “creations” what God can do with his? (ie, kill them when they do wrong).

 

[PRmerger]

. Can parents do with their “creations” what God can do with his? (ie, kill them when they do wrong).

haha, Larkin! This brings us full circle to the initial point of this discussion!

In YOUR paradigm–a morally relativistic one–yes, parents can do with their “creations” what God can do with his!

But in a theistic paradigm in which God exists, then, clearly to do what you suggest is morally evil.

For parents have not “created” their children in a world in which God exists. It’s only in your world of a non-existent God that this would be a possible paradigm.

 

[larkin31]

haha, Larkin! This brings us full circle to the initial point of this discussion!

In YOUR paradigm–a morally relativistic one–yes, parents can do with their “creations” what God can do with his!

But in a theistic paradigm in which God exists, then, clearly to do what you suggest is morally evil.

For parents have not “created” their children in a world in which God exists. It’s only in your world of a non-existent God that this would be a possible paradigm.

What is not relativistic about giving God a pass to do what he does not grant others a pass to do? In other words, the rule barring genocide or the killing of innocents does not apply to God. Which I find rather “relativistic” for a rule. The same way that stop signs don’t apply to all vehicles. The same way that intentional killing does not apply to all circumstances. The same way that adultery and incest are excused in the Bible as long as it is in service of God. The same way that Christians (most) do not follow all of the rules of the OT but just some of them, claiming that we are in a new era of understanding. I actually agree that we are in a new era, but I don’t argue that there is an objective morality and then make all sorts of apologetic arguments for why the rules don’t apply everywhere equally. Of course they don’t. I see no evidence that they ever have. Both religious justice and secular justice have both been, in the final analysis, relativistic enterprises despite their efforts to be as objective as possible.

 

[PRmerger]

What is not relativistic about giving God a pass to do what he does not grant others a pass to do?

Relativism means that you write the rules. Therefore, you can change them and are not bound by them.

Like when I play “pretend” with my 7yr old DD, who makes all the rules when we play. First she’ll say, “You have to step on these books laying on the floor 'cause the carpet is hot lava!” Then, suddenly, she’ll exempt herself and say, “But now I can step on the carpet 'cause the carpet is not hot lava anymore.”

That’s what relativism is. Playing pretend with the rules of morality.

Absolutism means that God writes the rules. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In other words, the rule barring genocide or the killing of innocents does not apply to God.

I can see that you did not read the article I suggested by Jimmy Akin.

I’ll post some of it here (bold mine)
Because all life is a gift from God, it is up to God to determine how much of that gift we receive. Whether he gives us a day or a century, it is his gift to give, and because it is a gift, it is not something we are owed. We therefore cannot claim that God is being unfair if he gives us one amount of this gift rather than another. In fact, he gives all of us an infinite amount of this gift because, once we are created, we will endure forever. After the resurrection, we will all–every one of us–have an infinite amount of physical life ahead of us. What we are discussing, therefore, is whether some of us receive an infinite amount of physical life plus a varying amount of finite physical life as well.

In some cases, such as a person who dies one day after conception, the person receives an infinite amount of physical life plus one day. In other cases, as with a person who lives for a century, the individual receives an infinite amount of physical life plus a hundred years.

From a mathematical point of view, these two gifts are indistinguishable. Infinity + 1 and infinity + 36,524 (the number of days in a century) are the same. In both cases, a person is given an unlimited (infinite) amount of life.

 

[PRmerger]

The same way that adultery and incest are excused in the Bible as long as it is in service of God.

God revealed himself to us slowly, in bits and shadows, until the fullness of his revelation: the Incarnation. When we were “infants”–paganistic tribal people–he slowly took us and led us out of “you take my cooking pot, I’ll kill your wife and children and goats”…to the revelation of “Love your neighbor”

So if adultery, incest, slavery, murder, genocide, etc etc etc were “excused” it would be like 1st grade teachers not making big red correction marks for spelling and grammar errors when the little ones are just learning to put thought to paper. Only later do the teachers tighten their reins, right?

 

[PRmerger]

but I don’t argue that there is an objective morality and then make all sorts of apologetic arguments for why the rules don’t apply everywhere equally. Of course they don’t. I see no evidence that they ever have.

Except for the absolute rule that a moral person must always, at all times, in all circumstances, obey his conscience.

There is no scenario in the world in which it would be moral for a person to think, “Ya know, after examining the situation, my conscience tells me to do “A” but the actual right thing to do is “B”, so I’m going to go with “B”, and that’s the moral thing!” :whacky:

 

[larkin31]

God revealed himself to us slowly, in bits and shadows, until the fullness of his revelation: the Incarnation. When we were “infants”–paganistic tribal people–he slowly took us and led us out of “you take my cooking pot, I’ll kill your wife and children and goats”…to the revelation of “Love your neighbor”

So if adultery, incest, slavery, murder, genocide, etc etc etc were “excused” it would be like 1st grade teachers not making big red correction marks for spelling and grammar errors when the little ones are just learning to put thought to paper. Only later do the teachers tighten their reins, right?

So the rules did change? That’s my only point. Christians do not follow all of the rules of the OT. I get accused of the same. Looks like we’re all cherry-pickers. I just don’t deny it.

 

[larkin31]

Except for the absolute rule that a moral person must always, at all times, in all circumstances, obey his conscience.

There is no scenario in the world in which it would be moral for a person to think, “Ya know, after examining the situation, my conscience tells me to do “A” but the actual right thing to do is “B”, so I’m going to go with “B”, and that’s the moral thing!” :whacky:

This is simply a definitional truism: “to follow one’s conscience is to follow one’s conscience”. I have no objection to this.

I have lost the point of why you are talking about this. Is it really just to say that “God” is the absolute that you believe in? I have no objection to persons believing in God as the absolute. I disagree with the evidence for said God, but I have no objection to the statement of faith.

 

[PRmerger]

This is simply a definitional truism: “to follow one’s conscience is to follow one’s conscience”. I have no objection to this.

Nope, Larkin. The absolute truism, again, is (this is getting quite tiresome :yawn: A moral person must always, at all times, in all circumstances, obey his conscience.

Or, to correct your nonsensical statement: “to follow one’s conscience is to -]follow one’s conscience/-] do the right thing, always, at all times, in all circumstances.”

Unless you can provide me with an example of a person being moral by disobeying his conscience.

I have lost the point of why you are talking about this. Is it really just to say that “God” is the absolute that you believe in? I have no objection to persons believing in God as the absolute. I disagree with the evidence for said God, but I have no objection to the statement of faith.

The entire point of this conversation is to demonstrate to you that that there are absolute moral truths.

(Remember, I had begged out due to ennui, and you pulled me back in)

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]

So the rules did change?

Nope.

Let’s say that I am working in an Emergency Unit and someone brings in a guy who was attacked by a wild animal. That’s all the medical providers need to know at this point. Later, as he recovers he’s able to tell us that the wild animal was a big black female bear. Later on we find that the mama bear had rabies and now the patient needs treatment for that.

See how the story has been refined, but not changed? The initial story: “a guy was attacked by a wild animal” is still true. But now we have more refined info.

Change would be: the guy was actually in a drunken knife fight at a bar.

From the Catechism: 66 The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

That’s my only point. Christians do not follow all of the rules of the OT. I get accused of the same. Looks like we’re all cherry-pickers. I just don’t deny it.

What makes you think that the Bible is a book whose primary purpose is to provide us with rules about morality?

 

[larkin31]

Nope, Larkin. The absolute truism, again, is (this is getting quite tiresome :yawn: A moral person must always, at all times, in all circumstances, obey his conscience.

Or, to correct your nonsensical statement: “to follow one’s conscience is to -]follow one’s conscience/-] do the right thing, always, at all times, in all circumstances.”

Unless you can provide me with an example of a person being moral by disobeying his conscience.

The entire point of this conversation is to demonstrate to you that that there are absolute moral truths.

(Remember, I had begged out due to ennui, and you pulled me back in)

ohhhh yes

well, I still disagree to a degree

to be “moral” depends on the eye of the beholder, no? I just mean to say that there is more than one frame of reference for determining what is “moral”. But for the most part, you are correct: being moral means following one;s conscience, but only from the individual’s point of view. Society might decide otherwise about the individual’s “moral” quality. That has been my point. Sometimes these moral frames are not in agreement.

So, I can’t tell from your reply: is God your moral absolute? Just curious.

 

[larkin31]

What makes you think that the Bible is a book whose primary purpose is to provide us with rules about morality?

I did not say it was “primary.” But it is part of its purpose, it seems to me.

Leviticus is full of cool stuff that is frequently ignored by Christians, and even by many Jews.

So, can we update the sexual morality codes at all? Or at least the ones that Jesus did not discuss? Like homosexuality?

ok ok

I am just teasing

sort of

 

[PRmerger]

ohhhh yes

well, I still disagree to a degree

Love you for saying that!

to be “moral” depends on the eye of the beholder, no? I just mean to say that there is more than one frame of reference for determining what is “moral”.

For something to be moral one has to
1)do the right thing
2)in the right way
3)for the right reason.

So, even if one is doing #1 and #2, but #3 is violated, then it is not a moral act.

Or, really, any permutation of the above.

But for the most part, you are correct: being moral means following one;s conscience, but only from the individual’s point of view.

For the most part? Ok, then!!! So here we go…

When would be an exception? What is a scenario when being moral means NOT following one’s conscience?

Society might decide otherwise about the individual’s “moral” quality. That has been my point.

I know you’ve been saying that. But your arguments supporting this disagree with you. If society decides something is moral, but we, as human beings with a rational mind, decide that we are going to rebel from this society’s moral code, then society has not been the moral authority.

So, I can’t tell from your reply: is God your moral absolute? Just curious

Yes, God is our moral absolute. But I believe that even those who do not “know” God can be moral. Scripture attests to this.

 

[larkin31]

I know you’ve been saying that. But your arguments supporting this disagree with you. If society decides something is moral, but we, as human beings with a rational mind, decide that we are going to rebel from this society’s moral code, then society has not been the moral authority.

Sure they have. Just not the final determiner. You seem to be assuming that one’s will is governed always and ultimately by one’s conscience. That seems contrary to behavior at obvious times.

Yes, God is our moral absolute. But I believe that even those who do not “know” God can be moral. Scripture attests to this.

Of course they can, whether scripture says so or not.

 

[PRmerger]

I did not say it was “primary.” But it is part of its purpose, it seems to me.

Leviticus is full of cool stuff that is frequently ignored by Christians, and even by many Jews.

So, can we update the sexual morality codes at all? Or at least the ones that Jesus did not discuss? Like homosexuality?

ok ok

I am just teasing

sort of

Perhaps if you were having a dialogue about the Bible and morality with a Sola Scriptura Christian (that is, someone who says, “I believe the Bible *alone *speaks for God” or “I believe in the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith”), then they might be stumped about your Leviticus reference.

However, you are dialoguing with a Catholic. We believe that God’s revelation lies with both Scripture *and *Tradition. So while Leviticus commands some funky things (don’t mix your seeds in the field; don’t wear linen and cotton or whatever), we know what’s binding and what’s not through the teachings of the Church.

So, homosexuality is not immoral simply because there’s a verse in Leviticus (or whatever) in Scripture. It’s immoral because of our understanding of natural law, our understanding of marriage and sexuality, as revealed to us by God to the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure they have. Just not the final determiner.

'zactly. Society is NOT the final determiner in what is moral. Otherwise we would not be able to dissent from society.

You seem to be assuming that one’s will is governed always and ultimately by one’s conscience. That seems contrary to behavior at obvious times.

No, no, no!

Where did the discussion turn to “one’s will”? We are not talking about what we “will”.

We are talking about how one determines whether a specific action is moral or not.

One’s “will” is a completely different concept altogether.

My “will” says I want to sleep in in the morning. My conscience tells me I ought to get up and get the DDs off to school.

Of course they can, whether scripture says so or not.

Yes. But I believe–and I’d love to discuss this with you…perhaps on another thread?–that no atheist/non-believer can be SAINTLY. An atheist can be moral. He can be a humanitarian.

But he cannot be moral in the way that, say, Maximilian Kolbe, was moral. He was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp (for being a Catholic), and when a young Jewish father was chosen to die, Kolbe stepped forward and said, “take me instead of him.”

And Kolbe suffered unspeakably because of this. Yet he died with a smile on his face, singing the Psalms, at peace.

Never heard of any atheists doing something that full of LOVE for a* complete stranger*.

 

[1beleevr]

*LOL! Don’t be surprised if the Holy Spirit has other ideas. He has been known to take people on journeys they never dreamed of.

God bless
Cinette*

He has taken me places I would have never gone myself; thank God

 

[Jimmy_B]

He has taken me places I would have never gone myself; thank God

Me too…

 

[Cinette]

Yes many protestants are converting to Catholicism. I used to be a Pentecostal but I had some bad experience in my church that was very overboard. They were so bad that I kind of became an agnostic and hated hearing about Jesus and the bible. If you brought up the subject I would walk into another room or shout obscenities I disliked it so much. Then I had a supernatural experience that I could not explain and it led me back. I have-not officially converted to Catholicism yet as I want to study it a lot more but I consider myself catholic as I believe basic catholic doctrine. My family was catholic but converted to Protestantism before i was born so its kind of like im coming home.

I just posted that list of alleged crimes of the church because an ex-Pentecostal I know their reasons for not being catholic well and almost all of them have no basis in reality but are propaganda which demonstrate a lack of understanding of catholic theology.

by the way where abouts in africa are you from?

*I live in Johannesburg - S Africa. Born in Mauritius (French) and lived 12 years in Mozambique (my husband’s country).

You can be both Charismatic and Catholic - take a look at another thread where this has been discussed

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=447172&goto=newpost*

I have benefitted from doing Life in the Spirit Seminars - it make me a better Catholic.

I am so grateful for the Catholic Church. It is the biggest thing in my life.

Blessings
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Hi there petal, long time no hear indeed! Have been too busy of late so gave up CAF for a while.

Nope I am not assuming. I am merely making an illustration. So humour me here. Tell me, do you think what a pagan believes is on par with what you believe? If you meet a pagan, hindu, etc, would you try to convert them to Christianity? If so, why would you do that? Wouldn’t that be because you believe that your faith is superior to theirs?

Would really like you to answer those questions.

Yes, some of us can be quite passionate at times. But that is neither here nor there. As I have stated before. Just concentrate on the arguments, and forget about the attitude. That in the end does not matter. The only thing that matters is the Truth.
Again, forget about the attitude, just concentrate on the points being raised.
Very well said! :clapping::clapping: You know what, even though I have been away from CAF I have thought about you and your dedication to Jesus, quite a lot. And I must say I really admire that.

What brought that about was a conversation I had with another Catholic who said she does not want to wear a cross or anything that will identify her as a Christian and I thought my! she is almost embarassed by it. And this whole thing started because inspite of the errors in their belief, I really admire the passion of those so called “Bible bashers” who risk ridicule for the sake of Christ.

The past few months I have been reading up on New Age and how it has been steadily encroaching into our parishes and into Catholic consciousness that I suddenly realized that I have more in common with Protestants who truly believe and love the Lord than these so called Catholics who have allowed their beliefs to be corrupted by Buddhist and Hindu influences. I mean, we have priests and nuns whose beliefs are more pantheistic than theistic.

And I thought of you and your ministry and your un-equivocal position on the Lordship of Christ and I thought now that is really something. So yes, kudos to you indeed.

Well not quite. The promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit is for the Church. But it does not mean that He abandons those outside of her. I think He continues to guide them and that continued guidance is to lead them back home to His one true Church.

Sadly, the attitude will remain. If one has an attitude, the attitude will remain regardless of their faith affiliation. That is why I keep saying, forget about the attitude. That is a fact of life. Just continue seeking after the truth. Concentrate on the arguments.

*Benedictus you are very wise - there are some really awful Catholics so yes, forget about the attitude and and stick to the truth. We will always have people who drive us around the bend - in the CC and everywhere else. When we talk about the truth let’s stick to the facts!

Cheers
Cinette*