I'm Catholic, Ask Me Anything (for non-Catholics)

[Gab123]

“What” is sin is defined by God. There cannot be a anything “sinful” unless God decides it to be sinful.

Sin is incompatible with God, much like error is incompatible with Truth.

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God they suffered the consequences of their actions. Much like if you innocently drink poison, the poison will affect you regardless if you didn’t intend to get poisoned. Your mother can tell you to not take heroin, but if you choose to use heroin, you are only hurting yourself.

I would suggest you read the passages in Genesis and then study the catechism of the Catholic Church The catechism explains the Scriptures. First study what and why the Church teaches what it does; there are plenty of resources. If not then it will take years of somebody to come along and spoon-feed you while you are arguing every points that require long answers; instead go study first. Here is a good place to start:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[guanophore]

God does not need to create everyone, and then select the virtuous to be with him, and send the rest into eternal damnation.

Definitely not, and we do not believe He does. He loves every soul He creates, and desires that they all be with Him in eternity.

He knows who WOULD be virtuous and who would “miss the mark”. So he could have decided to create the “would-be-virtuous” directly into heaven, and could have decided NOT to create the rest. God could freely choose this simplified method.

Yes, but He wanted us to “freely choose” to be with Him. There is no true love without true choice.

A small child is incapable of NOT loving. And there is nothing as satisfying as the love of your small child.

Since you recognize this, then you should understand why God wanted us to choose to be with Him, or not.

Chasing them out of his presence and cursing them is not the sign of forgiveness.

He chased them out of the Garden, but did not abandon them. Giving children consequences for their actions is not unloving. What do you think would be an adequate “sign of forgiveness”? God did not take away any of the privileges He gave them at creation. Mankind has still filled the earth and subdued it (much to the dismay of many of us environmentalists.)

If you could see that a child about to fall into a crevasse, would you not prevent it?

This is exactly what He did! To prevent them from eating from the tree of eternal life while they were separated from Him by sin, he drove them out of the garden so that they could have an opportunity for redemption.

Or if it was too late, but you could restore the child back to life, would that not be the loving thing to do?

[It may. It is a mystery sometimes why God allows death to some to certain persons.]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/07/americas/canada-bus-crash/index.html

Blind acceptance does not justify the method.

I don’t see what one thing has to do with the other. If a child is told not to do something, they don’t need to know all the details of “why” in order to obey. Failure to do so indicates a heart of rebellion, allowing curiosity to overcome obedience.

 

[guanophore]

That is the attitude of those who prefer blind obedience, who “check in” their reason into the cloak room before entering the church. I don’t think that God gave us the ability to reason, and then demand to suspend it and blindly accept everything.

I agree, and clearly, God gave us reason so we could use it. We ought to do so. However, there are some matters that are beyond our reasoning ability, or what we can “know” at the present time. We can choose to obey God in these matters, trusting that He has our best interests in mind, or rebel against Him.

We could not know the vast deluge of sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are now becoming resistant to treatment, but the rampant disregard of His commandments around human sexual behavior have been devastating.

Really it seems you have having a trust issue, and you don’t really have a concept of God that you can trust “like a little child”. This kind of trust does not have to function without reason, it just means when our reason reaches it’s limit, we can rest in His arms that all will be well.

 

[Sophia]

This is a false premise.

Justice is when you get what you deserve (either reward or punishment).
Mercy is when you don’t get a deserved punishment.
Grace is when you get an undeserved reward.

Elementary logic, my friend.

 

[YoungApologist3]

St. Thomas Aquinas says that, though it was not strictly necessary for Christ to be crucified (or even for any redemptive act to have taken place), it is suitable that God did so, and also suitable that He specifically was crucified.

 

[guanophore]

This is a false premise.

Justice is when you get what you deserve (either reward or punishment).

Mercy is when you don’t get a deserved punishment.

Grace is when you get an undeserved reward.

Elementary logic, my friend.

You are saying that God cannot be both Just an Merciful. This is a false premise.

That for example, comes from “tradition”, rather than the Bible?

No, it is in the Bible.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Those seem more like connotations.

 

[guanophore]

I mean the word “Catholic”

Yes. Actually, St. Luke used the words to describe “the Church throughout all”, and by the end of the first century, it had become a proper noun, rather than an adjective.

Acts 9:31
31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samar′ia had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

The Church throughout all = ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης = ekklesia kath holos = catholic church

 

[Reuben_J]

That is wrong definition of justice of God. His justice is always tempered with mercy and love, sometimes which we do not deserve. God is just only in accordance to his justice, not human justice.

 

[EricaS]

Hi sorry I’m new here and this might be a silly question because I’m still trying to figure out Christianity, and if I add a little too much detail please let me know and I’ll try to shorten questions in the future.
My question is:
Are all actions/behaviors that do not lead you closer to God considered sins?
Background:
I was listening to Father Mike Schmitz do an interview (video should put you a few seconds before interview starts) with Andrew Klavan and if you are familiar with Father Mike it was just the same stuff he talks about with same sex attraction on his youtube videos or the Catholic Answers podcast. A few days later Andrew Klavan replied (again off by a few seconds sorry) to Father Mikes argument from the end of the show where he said that like any sin the church won’t affirm the behavior. In Mr Klavans response he doesn’t understand why things that are not at what he calls the center(which I’m assuming means closest to the Truth or best way to be in this case) are considered bad or sins.

Where I’m currently at in my thought process:
I’m trying to process this myself and so far I think it makes sense for something like same sex sexual acts to be considered a sin because they take you further away from the best possible version (the most Christ-like version I guess you could say) of yourself you could possibly be. From my understanding this isn’t considered any more immoral than someone who commits other sexual sins, ie pre-marital sex, divorce, adultery etc, they are all on the same level just different ways you can cut yourself off from God because the acts are not good(my understanding my be incorrect). I don’t see anything wrong with behaviors that pull people further away from God being considered sins, since the belief in God/ the existence of good, evil and Truth are all personal ones. Please let me know if I’m misinterpreting the Christian take on sin here or anything else for that matter, sorry this was kind of long. Thanks!

 

[guanophore]

Are all actions/behaviors that do not lead you closer to God considered sins?

Technically the term “sin” means “missing the mark” as in hitting the bullseye. So yes, whenever we miss the mark, we are outside of God’s plan for us. But that does not mean everything is a “sin”. Sin is wrongdoing.

I think it makes sense for something like same sex sexual acts to be considered a sin because they take you further away from the best possible version (the most Christ-like version I guess you could say) of yourself you could possibly be.

Yes! This is what it means to "miss the mark’.

this isn’t considered any more immoral than someone who commits other sexual sins, ie pre-marital sex, divorce, adultery etc, they are all on the same level just different ways you can cut yourself off from God because the acts are not good(my understanding my be incorrect).

Yes.

the belief in God/ the existence of good, evil and Truth are all personal ones

The difference for us is that we believe God has revealed to us what is good, evil and Truth, and therefore, we do not use our “personal ones”, but the definitions He has revealed.

Please let me know

So far so good!

 

[EricaS]

Thank you that was a great response! I had no idea the sins meaning was going to be so simple/straight forward.

 

[EricaS]

Sorry can I ask one more question? If sin is so simple, missing the mark, or acts that take you further away from Gods plan, then why do so many people (specifically Christians) feel the need (like Mr Klavan does) to defend sinful actions as being acceptable, or suggest they should be accepted by the church?

 

[Struggling1]

Who’s the one that didn’t die for what they believed in?

 

[Gab123]

All the apostles died martyrs with violent deaths except the apostle John, who passed away in Patmos in his old age. Judas committed suicide; Matthias, who replaced Judas, was stoned to death.

 

[Reuben_J]

I am not so sure about your question and until someone can answer it better, I just fill in for a while.

I just want to clarify that sinful action is a sin. However, there are things that we do that do not bring us closer to God but in fact can bring us farther away from Him - these may not be necessary all of them are sins. Sorry for the language if the grammar/sentence is not nice. For example, gambling can bring us away from God but it is not necessarily a sin. Engaging in same sex act can bring us away from God and it is a sin, as same sex act is decreed by the Church as sin.

There are Catholics that defend sins and they are wrong on that account. Period.

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry can I ask one more question? If sin is so simple, missing the mark, or acts that take you further away from Gods plan, then why do so many people (specifically Christians) feel the need (like Mr Klavan does) to defend sinful actions as being acceptable, or suggest they should be accepted by the church?

Many modern Americans are not well spiritually formed. They have not read their bibles and do not understand what it means to be a disciple of Christ. They are far too influenced by modern culture.

1 Timothy 4
4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,

The conscience can become seared, as with a hot iron.

 

[Sophia]

That is wrong definition of justice of God. His justice is always tempered with mercy and love, sometimes which we do not deserve. God is just only in accordance to his justice, not human justice.

Justice is an abstract concept. Its meaning is: “you get what you deserve, either reward or punishment”. There is no “human” justice and a separate “divine” justice. Just like there is no “human” logic and “military” logic, except in the old joke. If justice is tempered with mercy, it ceases to be justice. Just try to go around in your church and present those three definitions. I predict that everyone will joyfully agree with them.

 

[JanetF]

Sorry can I ask one more question? If sin is so simple, missing the mark, or acts that take you further away from Gods plan, then why do so many people (specifically Christians) feel the need (like Mr Klavan does) to defend sinful actions as being acceptable, or suggest they should be accepted by the church?

Different person answering this time, but I think it’s So that they can justify continuing to partake in those sins.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Isn’t human justice, and in particular legal justice (in the U.S.) often tempered with mercy as in instances of mitigating circumstances? That is, if the mitigating circumstances (mercy) were disallowed, the so-called justice dispensed might NOT in fact be just but instead excessive punishment. The reverse might also be true in that sometimes punishment is meted out which EXCEEDS the severity of the crime (exacerbating circumstances) for the purpose of setting an example or avoiding a dangerous precedent. This is still regarded as justice, however.