Lost Catholic Faith

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

The difference is in the artificial and natural.

One is artificial and the other is natural.

So artificial things are evil and natural things are not?

Yes, when it goes against God’s purpose. Our body is holy, it is created for a purpose. And life is God’s and God alone.

 

[laylow]

Yes, when it goes against God’s purpose. Our body is holy, it is created for a purpose. And life is God’s and God alone.

So artificial things that go against god’s purpose or all artificial things are evil?

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben_J:

Yes, when it goes against God’s purpose. Our body is holy, it is created for a purpose. And life is God’s and God alone.

So artificial things that go against god’s purpose or all artificial things are evil?

It refers to artificial birth control. I thought we are talking about this.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I think that’s still true if you remove the word “religious”.

YOU ever seen a black hole or a quark or the plains of Mongolia? I certainly haven’t…

Yet we rationalists still presume they’re real. We have it on good authority. Like the devout Catholics claim

It’s slightly different when something holds true under the scrutiny of peer-reviewed studies and repeated experiments aimed at disproving it.

This is hijacking the thread, so my apologies.

But I don’t think so. I’ll see your peer reviewed study and match it with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s conferences where also Phd’ed men (and maybe a few women) will show up and all tell me roughly the same thing and rave about the latest systematic theology someone wrote.

You just have a different God. Like all devotees, you’re utterly convinced yours is better.

 

[laylow]

This is hijacking the thread, so my apologies.

But I don’t think so. I’ll see your peer reviewed study and match it with the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s conferences where also Phd’ed men (and maybe a few women) will show up and all tell me roughly the same thing and rave about the latest systematic theology someone wrote.

You just have a different God. Like all devotees, you’re utterly convinced yours is better.

Science, by it’s nature, is not devoted to anything…except possibly the search. It is always open and looking to find the answer. Science is the discovery of what is already true, just not known. It’s principle is strictly against the arrogant idea that truth is already known.

 

[laylow]

It refers to artificial birth control. I thought we are talking about this.

Deflection of the question does not qualify as answering it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Science, by it’s nature, is not devoted to anything…except possibly the search.

Yes, yes. “The Truth”. Just like any other religion on this planet.

It is always open and looking to find the answer.

Yes. Always seeking God. Sure.

Science is the discovery of what is already true, just not known.

Amen, brother.

Divine Revelation! For example, the CC would teach that the assumption has ALWAYS been true. It just wasn’t dogmatized until somewhat recently in Catholic history.

 

[Vonsalza]

laylow:
Clergy for Catholics:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Clergy for Secular Atheists:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

They both went to school for a very long time, have similarly credentialed peers and both swear that if you put in the time and devotion they have, you’ll verify their conclusions.

And, oddly, that usually proves true in both cases, with noted exceptions in either case.

 

[Reuben_J]

laylow:

Reuben_J:

Yes, when it goes against God’s purpose. Our body is holy, it is created for a purpose. And life is God’s and God alone.

So artificial things that go against god’s purpose or all artificial things are evil?

It refers to artificial birth control. I thought we are talking about this.

The Church teaches that artificial birth control (ABC) is evil (sin), while natural family planning (NFP) is acceptable.

The reason is that sexual union is sacred. It should be unitive and for procreation. Our body thus functions to do that. Artificial birth control interferes with the body function in procreation artificially, thus interfere in its purpose.

It does not mean that planning and spacing the family is not allowed, as long as it is a natural process by abstaining. Abstaining in sexual union is allowed.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

 

[laylow]

Yes, yes. “The Truth”. Just like any other religion on this planet.

Sure, whatever that means. Science admits there will always be more to learn.

Yes. Always seeking God. Sure.

Hard to seek something there is no evidence for.

Amen, brother.

Divine Revelation! For example, the CC would teach that the assumption has ALWAYS been true. It just wasn’t dogmatized until somewhat recently in Catholic history.

Ah, but religions claim to have information that others do not. Yet reality shows they are just discovering things as normal humans do. Nothing divine about that.

 

[laylow]

The Church teaches that artificial birth control (ABC) is evil (sin), while natural family planning (NFP) is acceptable.

The reason is that sexual union is sacred. It should be unitive and for procreation. Our body thus functions to do that. Artificial birth control interferes with the body function in procreation artificially, thus interfere in its purpose.

It does not mean that planning and spacing the family is not allowed, as long as it is a natural process by abstaining. Abstaining in sexual union is allowed.

Hope that helps.

God bless.

I know what the church teaches and I rightfully called out its flawed logic.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sure, whatever that means. Science admits there will always be more to learn.

Religious folks make the same statement about God. They really do.

Hard to seek something there is no evidence for.

Again ,you ever seen and personally verified the evidence for black holes, quarks and the plains of Mongolia? Probably not. You probably took it at someone’s word. They may have even had a white coat on - the secular miter.

Ah, but religions claim to have information that others do not.

They all claim that if you put in the time and work, you too can share in this secret knowledge.

Not so different, man.

 

[Reuben_J]

I thought you don’t know because you asked and I just explain.

I am happy you know this teaching. At least you disagree with the teaching and not what you think we teach.

Thanks.

 

[laylow]

Religious folks make the same statement about God. They really do.

Not really. They claim to know the mind of god. They claim know know that he cares what foods you eat, what days of the week you work and rest, who you sleep with and in what position, in which way to mutilate the genitals, etc.

Again ,you ever seen and personally verified the evidence for black holes, quarks and the plains of Mongolia? Probably not. You probably took it at someone’s word. They may have even had a white coat on - the secular miter.

The evidence presents itself over and over again. It is not a one time discovery.

They all claim that if you put in the time and work, you too can share in this secret knowledge.

Not so different, man.

??? Religion claims to tell you how to act because a book says so. The book never changes, therefore the ideas never do either.

 

[Vonsalza]

Not really.

Oh come now, that’s just an empty denial.

The evidence presents itself over and over again. It is not a one time discovery.

Cool. So like me, the answer for you is presumably “no”.

??? Religion claims to tell you how to act because a book says so. The book never changes, therefore the ideas never do either.

That’s quite a strawman you’ve made out of religion - particularly Catholicism where the bible is a product of the Church and not the other way around (which pretty soundly refutes your last claim here).

Any way. I’ve made my point. Thread resume-

 

[sonofbarry]

My faith just gradually vanished (in spite of working in a Catholic school). I looked at the priest one day and thought, “He only believes this because he was taught to believe it as a kid. So was I. What makes him stand up there in all manner of garments and say this stuff as if it’s a truth? It can only be unrelenting faith. There’s no evidence, not even the hint of any scholarship beyond the texts that only confirmed his faith anyway.”
So I have given up. There might be a spiritual realm, but the most likely end is the plain old death of which there is abundant proof.

 

[laylow]

That’s quite a strawman you’ve made out of religion - particularly Catholicism where the bible is a product of the Church and not the other way around (which pretty soundly refutes your last claim here).

OK, well I’m glad a Catholic finally agrees with me that the teachings change. Most Catholics hold to it dearly that is never does.

Of course it is obvious that we are no longer stoning adulterers or enslaving humans, etc.

What is dangerous is that the changes come much later than the secular majority. It is dangerous to hold on to the old beliefs of homosexuality and contraception but I’m sure the church will come around eventually. But at what cost?

 

[Vonsalza]

OK, well I’m glad a Catholic finally agrees with me that the teachings change.

Eh, some would argue my Catholicity at this point.

But they definitely change. Anthropologically, if it doesn’t the religion will die. No exceptions. Flex or get left in the detritus of history.

 

[laylow]

There might be a spiritual realm, but the most likely end is the plain old death of which there is abundant proof.

Which really isn’t that bad. I find it much more desirable than a celestial dictatorship

 

[laylow]

Eh, some would argue my Catholicity at this point.

But they definitely change. Anthropologically, if it doesn’t the religion will die. No exceptions. Flex or get left in the detritus of history.

I agree, but this diminishes the value of “the book” quite significantly.