C
cena
Guest
Why would Jesus be for polygamy but against remarrying after a divorce?
- Status
C
cena
Guest
Homosexual actions are condemned in the New Testament too.
The worship of the images was mentioned after it,
4 - Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
5 - Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:
C
cena
Guest
We still use the Ten Commandments, which is from the Old TestamentI don’t believe the Bible is the source of our rules, I understand that we take our rules as established by the Catholic Church and how they interpret those scriptures. My argument is with the people who are saying that what is moral never changes, from the beginning of time, until the end of time. maybe this is absolutely true in some transcendental way and I am sure that it is, but our ability to establish what that ultimate truth is, is incredibly limited by the time in which we live, the culture in which we live, the current level of scientific understanding etc… Truth may be eternal, but our understanding of what that truth is absolutely changes. People on this forum consistently keep stating that God’s law is eternal and unchanging and what is moral is always and forever moral, and then when someone points out absolutely atrocious conduct that was previously considered to be perfectly moral and acceptable which today is considered immoral and downright evil, they immediately respond that we can not apply today’s moral standards to an ancient culture much different that our culture today. Seriously, WTF? This is just craziness. I am in complete agreement, we can not apply todays moral standards to people then and we should not use ancient moral standards to determine what is moral today because what is considered moral and immoral by society is completely contingent upon our time and culture. I don’t know why I have to keep bringing this up.
You said that things like adultery, idolatry, etc. do not become moral in any circumstance, that diet laws can be changed, but then when I pointed out the different kinds of laws you said that was a modern invention. I don’t know how you view those changes. The Church has laws it can change (like fasting) and those it can’t (like stealing)
What is immoral is intrinsically evil and condemned over and over again by the apostles, Church fathers, Saints, etc. doesn’t cease being wrong
Why is homosexual actions in the category that is changed? How come idolatry wasn’t changed too? Didn’t you say they are all moral laws? Why can’t they all be changed? There is obviously a difference
C
cena
Guest
If you broke every single rule and repented with perfect contrition (sorry for offending God) with the desire to go to confession/baptism(not sure what the rule is on this)the second before you died you would end up going to heaven
And you can only be damned for disobeying it in a big way and never repenting (trying to change your ways, be sorry, etc.)
There have been many miracles (like Fatima and the hearings at Lourdes) that prove God’s existence and the truth of Catholicism
Hell is a place without God. There was a quote I saw that a damned man said he would go through 10,000 years of torture just to see a glimpse of God.
Purgatory has the same exact fire as hell, but the souls there don’t suffer as much because they know they will see God
If you really loved someone and they rejected you would you force them against their will for them to be in your presence for all eternity? Even if rejecting you and being apart from you caused them grief they don’t want to be in your presence, and forcing them to endure you for all eternity even though they hate you
He created us for heaven, but he also wants us to choose that place…and if you can choose great good there is the chance to choose great evil
Here’s how I see things. I see a society that mocks the very existence of God, the idea of God all the time and then they complain that they won’t get to be in his presence after showing no sign of wanting to. They don’t seem to want to think there even is a God.God put them into existence, keeps them in existence, continually tolerates their bad behavior to them a chance to repent and start over and they refuse to even try. I mean if someone did that to their parents they would be terrible, but if they do that to their creator it’s rational?! What?
I mean a lot of the rules keep us from hurting ourselves and others.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I just re-read the entire Bible, all the papal encyclicals, the writings of the Church Fathers and even Canon Law.
I can’t put my finger on anything that suggests mankind can expect a life without suffering.
Heck, even in America we are encouraged to “pursue” happiness…its not guaranteed.
I don’t know where people get this notion that God is supposed to make us “Happy”.
C
cena
Guest
He suffered too. He knew it before he became human and he knew it as he was living on earth. He was sweating blood praying he would not have to go through it. He became human, endured public ridicule from people he literally created, got betrayed by one of his closest followers/friends, he got sentenced to death for false accusations then when he was forced to carry the thing he was going to die on
Most of his other close followers/friends abandoned him to go into hiding, he was whipped, had to wear a crown of thorns, he was crucified which he means he died of suffocation, dehydration, etc.
And he died as people were mocking and torturing him
He didn’t have to do this. He could’ve just said a prayer and left. One prayer would have redeemed us. He chose to die and suffer to show how much he cares
These people choose to do really bad things, and not repent (be sorry) afterwards. They keep doing the really bad thing(s). God gives a lot of time and opportunities for starting over
F
frobert
Guest
Would a moral accounting other than the one you must as a Catholic adhere to satisfy you?
T
tomberg
Guest
Well I truly love you guys. Seriously you have provided me with nonstop intellectual exercise all day and I truly appreciate the civil participation which never degenerated into insults and name calling. Though I vehemently disagree with some of you, I think you are all intelligent, thoughtful and sincere people and I truly respect your opinions and have provided me a lot to think about. God bless you all.
R
Rau
Guest
The immorality is entirely a function of the behaviour of the participants, and the presence or absence of the legal accommodation changes nothing. Why is two spinsters sharing a house immoral. There is no presumption of erotic love, sex or anything of that nature.
Offering marriage changes the equation, for now the state is asked to recognise, authorise and endorse a same sex sexual relationship, for marriage is inherently sexual. Why on earth would it wish to do that?
B
BrassAnkles
Guest
To all my devout Catholic friends, trying to win a secular argument about marriage is taking two steps backwards. After all it was the first Christians who used Natural Law to win over the godless after which standard Christian principles have been used.
Therefore, using secular arguments now is raising the white flag to the godless and they know it. Rather, stand up for the Christian beliefs on which the US was founded so we can stop the spiritual bleeding and be blessed once again.
Therefore, using secular arguments now is raising the white flag to the godless and they know it. Rather, stand up for the Christian beliefs on which the US was founded so we can stop the spiritual bleeding and be blessed once again.
C
cena
Guest
I agree but I can cite the times homosexual acts were condemned in the New Testament but then the arguments about stuff not being brought up in the bible and so on will resurface.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Please don’t come to a Catholic Forum, where there are educated Catholics in dialogue with each other, and ask questions like the above.
If you haven’t heard of the Eternal Now, read up on it.
Then come back to a Catholic Forum armed with some education and pose some interesting questions.
Very Catholic, this.
And very logical,too.
You seem to understand the very basic concept of the Law of Non-Contradictions. Very good!
So the answer is: God is omniscient.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the Bible was ever put to writ, Ed.
And adultery was immoral even before the Ten Commandments were given to Moses.
The Bible reflects our morality, but our moral code does not come from a book, no matter how holy.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Excellent.
Some morality is objective and absolute, yes.
But not all. Some things are relative, to be sure.
I think where you are confused is making it an either/or option.
What makes Catholicism so formidable and difficult to refute is that so many things are both/and. Not either/or.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Nope. It is not the making of images, but rather the WORSHIP of images that is condemned.
I know you know this because you rather conveniently stopped at v4. Verse 5 says…
“You shall not worship them or serve them;”
THAT is what is the bad thing.
If making images were immoral, God wouldn’t have, just a few chapters later, commanded the making of images.
“You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. “Make one cherub at one end and one cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim of one piece with the mercy seat at its two ends. “The cherubim shall have their wings spread upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings and facing one another; the faces of the cherubim are to be turned toward the mercy seat–Exodus 25:18-20
P
PRmerger
Guest
Your wife ought to be so thankful you are here on the CAFs, able to dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You say morality cannot be based on religion. Okay, so what should morality be based upon, in your view?
I am asking you for an accounting of YOUR morality.
That shouldn’t be so difficult since you know for certain it shouldn’t be based on religion.
Go ahead, explain away. This is your chance to inform and instruct.
T
tomberg
Guest
The first Christians absolutely did not use Natural Law to win over anyone, they used a completely supernatural belief system about the coming end of the world. Almost all early christians believed the Jesus resurrection signaled the imminent end of the World. It is clear from Paul’s Epistles that the first Christian converts believed that Christ second coming would be in their lifetime.
Natural law was in fact a Pagan philosophy of law most fully developed in early Stoic Philosophy. Many Christian attribute Natural law to Aristotle (ALso a pagan) due to Thomas Acquinas using poor translations of Aristotle’s works. There is much dispute whether Aristotle actually believed in Natural law. St. Augustine was the first truly Christian proponent of the idea of Natural Law and this is 400 years after Christ. 400 years is quite a long time, for example our Country is just slightly older than 200 years old and I would not exactly call us Early Americans. So someone living 400 years after Jesus was not an early Christian, he is a late christian.
T
tomberg
Guest
I don’t think anyone is saying Morality should not be based upon Religion. You keep conflating two separate arguments. I have repeatedly stated that Church’s are free to develop whatever moral teachings they wish and to propagate those moral teachings. People in their personal capacity are free to base their morality on whatever Religious belief they want. You get zero argument from me here. What I am arguing against is that Civil Secular governments should be enacting laws based upon any Religions ideas of what is moral and what is not moral. Secular laws should not be based in exclusively religious ideas of morality. If you want to argue secular laws being derivative strictly from a Natural law perspective, that is fine, as long as the argument is not basing what it considers Natural as deriving from their particular Holy Book. What is Natural should be easily observable from Nature universally, without the need for any recourse to any particular Holy Book.
- Status