Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[Betterave]

Actually, no.

It doesn’t matter WHAT any given religion teaches, if the ultimate source of those teachings is humans basically making stuff up as they go. As I outlined, there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why early humans concluded that promiscuous behavior was frowned upon by the almighty, because it was assumed the earthly consequences were punishments from on high, and given the nature of their knowledge and technology, I suppose I can’t blame them to jumping to conclusions like that.

However, for ANY religion to gain credibility to me, regardless of what they teach, they’ll need to convince me that God himself is the source of those lessons, a proposition which I find extremely unlikely.

If you wrote me a note, and tell me that God told you to tell me to get rid of my fish-tank, you’ll pardon me if I don’t just take your word for it.

1. It seems that you have failed to comprehend the structure of my very simple argument.
2. Therefore it seems that you are not very good at comprehending and evaluating argumentative claims.
3. Therefore it seems that you have little reason for thinking that your own argumentative claims, referring to what you *believe *to be “perfectly reasonable explanations,” *are *actually referring to perfectly reasonable explanations.

You may not see the truth of 1), and I can explain that for you later, but first: do you understand the structure of this argument? Can you see that it is valid?

 

[Seeker2010]

1. It seems that you have failed to comprehend the structure of my very simple argument.

I understood your argument perfectly. However, as previously stated, because I believe that your religion is teaching things that at their core, were simply made up by man, it doesn’t matter whether or not I have a good understanding of what those teachings are. I have even less understanding of Islam than I do of Christianity, but I reject it for the same reasons, because at it’s core, the teachings originated from a man.

That you find the teachings of the church credible, and founded by God is fine. I do not, and have to date seen no evidence to sway me otherwise. Indeed, the evidence available tends to indicate that much of what is claimed to be words of God is NOT, for if Genesis were written by an all knowing, infallible creator, it would not contain information that is demonstrably false.

If God is going to torture me for all of eternity for doubting the veracity of men who lived, literally, thousands of years ago, then he is not the loving God that I believe exists.

 

[edwest2]

Rvalin:

I was about to say, “That is very true!” when suddenly I realized that the jury is still out on whether or not homosexuality is a “choice”.

Now, to be clear, the Catholic church does not hate, dis-love, dis-care, whatever, homosexuals. The church cares that they do not engage in sinful practices. It is no different than in heterosexual marriages. The pair cannot engage in SEX unless there is the “potential of,” and they are “open to,” life.

And, Larkin just exposed homosexuality for what it is. “Homosexuality is simply sex between consenting adults.” Is that “Love?”

God bless,
jd

The jury is not still out. The Catholic Medical Association tells us homosexuals are not born that way. Some believe or state they were born that way.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Actually, no.

It doesn’t matter WHAT any given religion teaches, if the ultimate source of those teachings is humans basically making stuff up as they go. As I outlined, there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why early humans concluded that promiscuous behavior was frowned upon by the almighty, because it was assumed the earthly consequences were punishments from on high, and given the nature of their knowledge and technology, I suppose I can’t blame them to jumping to conclusions like that.

However, for ANY religion to gain credibility to me, regardless of what they teach, they’ll need to convince me that God himself is the source of those lessons, a proposition which I find extremely unlikely.

If you wrote me a note, and tell me that God told you to tell me to get rid of my fish-tank, you’ll pardon me if I don’t just take your word for it.

And here is where science becomes a point of worship. This is followed by, “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in him.” I heard that in the 1970s. The argument still boils down to science versus religion.

Choose Jesus,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

\The argument still boils down to science versus religion.

I suppose to an extent that’s true. For when a book, called Genesis, claims to be the literal, word for word dictation of the Almighty himself, and then proceeds to give us information that all available evidence indicates is factually inaccurate (such as the global flood that left no geological evidence, or a 6,000 year time span from the creation of man to today, when we know beyond any doubt that humans have been around for at least 200,000 years), it would seem to me that calls into question the very foundation of the claim that the words were from an infallible God.

For God would have known that mankind has been around for longer than 6,000 years, and he certainly would have known there never was a global flood. Now, I suppose you could argue that it wasn’t really a global flood, certainly in the history of humanity there have been many regional floods that caused great devastation and left many dead, but that’s not what the story tells us. Not to mention for a regional flood, there’s no point in collecting animals to repopulate the earth, because the earth cannot be completely depopulated by a regional event.

 

[Betterave]

I understood your argument perfectly. However, as previously stated, because I believe that your religion is teaching things that at their core, were simply made up by man, it doesn’t matter whether or not I have a good understanding of what those teachings are. I have even less understanding of Islam than I do of Christianity, but I reject it for the same reasons, because at it’s core, the teachings originated from a man.

That you find the teachings of the church credible, and founded by God is fine. I do not, and have to date seen no evidence to sway me otherwise. Indeed, the evidence available tends to indicate that much of what is claimed to be words of God is NOT, for if Genesis were written by an all knowing, infallible creator, it would not contain information that is demonstrably false.

If God is going to torture me for all of eternity for doubting the veracity of men who lived, literally, thousands of years ago, then he is not the loving God that I believe exists.

Do you or do you not understand the structure of this argument and see that it is valid? (‘Valid’ is a technical logical term - do you know what it means?):

1. It seems that you have failed to comprehend the structure of my very simple argument.
2. Therefore it seems that you are not very good at comprehending and evaluating argumentative claims.
3. Therefore it seems that you have little reason for thinking that your own argumentative claims, referring to what you believe to be “perfectly reasonable explanations,” are actually referring to perfectly reasonable explanations

 

[edwest2]

I suppose to an extent that’s true. For when a book, called Genesis, claims to be the literal, word for word dictation of the Almighty himself, and then proceeds to give us information that all available evidence indicates is factually inaccurate (such as the global flood that left no geological evidence, or a 6,000 year time span from the creation of man to today, when we know beyond any doubt that humans have been around for at least 200,000 years), it would seem to me that calls into question the very foundation of the claim that the words were from an infallible God.

For God would have known that mankind has been around for longer than 6,000 years, and he certainly would have known there never was a global flood. Now, I suppose you could argue that it wasn’t really a global flood, certainly in the history of humanity there have been many regional floods that caused great devastation and left many dead, but that’s not what the story tells us. Not to mention for a regional flood, there’s no point in collecting animals to repopulate the earth, because the earth cannot be completely depopulated by a regional event.

I understand. That is the current dogma. So, with all due respect, why are you posting on a Catholic forum? You appear to have your mind made up. What do you hope to gain?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

So, with all due respect, why are you posting on a Catholic forum? You appear to have your mind made up. What do you hope to gain?

My mind is not made up, far from it, I am on a journey that seeks wisdom and enlightenment. I know not what let me to this board initially, but I had been a reader for quite some time when some post inspired me to actually register and respond.

But I am always open to new ideas or inspirations, just within the past few moments, I have learned that Stephen Hawking now believes that the big bang created itself, and required no creator, and my respect for his mind has me pondering that. However, based on the article I read, which may or may not accurately reflect his argument, I see a couple of issues with his hypothesis. First, he argues that the big bang was inevitable due to the force of gravity, but it was my understanding that gravity as we know it did not come to exist until some finite time after the big bang. Second, even if he’s right that a creator was not REQUIRED, it does not necessarily follow that some higher power does not exist.

After all, the fundamental tenant of physics is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, if our self-awareness is a form of energy, wouldn’t death that included the cessation of that self-awareness violate the first law of thermodynamics? Of course, I suppose it’s equally true that if there is a spiritual plane of existence, whether governed by the God of the Bible, Allah, or a flying spaghetti monster, the laws of physics are irrelevant therein. Sorry, sort of thinking out loud here, the Hawking thing kind of threw me for a loop.

Should you have any interest, the article I read is here: guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

 

[edwest2]

I have been studying scientific matters for a long time.

I suggest you look over this site. It concerns an image that was recently viewed by Secretary of State Clinton, who asked, “Who painted it?” It is declared to be a miraculous artifact that was not painted by human hands.

our-lady-for-life.forumotion.com/our-lady-of-guadalupe-f5/our-lady-of-guadalupe-completely-beyond-scientific-explanation-t924.htm

God bless,
Ed

 

[colmcille1]

Colmcille-
While I suppose I cannot blame you for trying to push me towards Catholicism, after all this is a Catholic board, but until such time that you are prepared to convince me that it’s based on the word of God and not man, I’m unlikely to respond positively.

So therefore, you are NOT (as you claim in another post) truly seeking!

As to the church’s official position on NDE phenomenon, like you I do not know, but I suspect it is not very positive. If the experiences are real they mean that membership in the church, obedience to it’s laws, or even the mere belief in the God it represents is wholly unnecessary for entry into paradise, and that’s not a message the church is likely to endorse, sadly even if the powers that be believed it. That message would likely mean the end of the church and it’s power, and I don’t see them allowing that to happen under any circumstances.

You say that you “suspect it is not very positive” but instead of stopping at that, you go on to proffer a doomsday scenario for the Church out of your imagination. With respect, sir, not only are you NOT seeking, you are indulging in a kind of revenge fantasy. May I ask you why you think this way? Did you suffer some terrible trauma via religion? I ask this sincerely because (call me stubborn) I do believe that your admission of “I know nothing” is a healthy starting point for an ongoing discovery of the joy of Catholicism.

I’ve had a number of religious people tell me that NDE’s were merely ‘tricks of demons’ intended to lead wayward souls into believing the wrong thing, including, sadly, my very own mother. To be frank, if that is true, then God really is sadistic and cruel and I do not wish to associate myself with an entity that is sadistic or cruel.

You ought to really search deeper.

That said, despite the fact that I give credibility to those experiences, it does not necessarily mean I am right. There are other possibilities, so I cannot say I KNOW anything, only that in my OPINION, they seem to be real. As for my ‘dismissal’ of various religious tomes, it is because I believe they were written by men (or women) who had no more insight as to the true nature of God and spirituality than I do, and I see no reason for my life to be guided by the words of someone who has merely claimed authority that they don’t really possess.

**I’m sorry, but this is just plain nonsense. How do you KNOW they had no more insight than you? What are you afraid of? **

PS… For the record, the ‘foul language’ that I used started with c, ended with p, and had ‘ra’ in between. The filter on this site seems a bit overly sensitive if you ask me. Then again, you didn’t.

Again, I ask you to seek INSIDE. As the great Pope John Paul II said: “Be not afraid!”
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Seeker2010]

It is declared to be a miraculous artifact that was not painted by human hands.

It seems that declaration may have been a bit premature. This is in Spanish, you may need a translator, but if the story is true, it blows the miracle artifact theory completely out of the water: sectas.org/Secciones_Especiales/canonizacion/guadalupana.htm

 

[edwest2]

It seems that declaration may have been a bit premature. This is in Spanish, you may need a translator, but if the story is true, it blows the miracle artifact theory completely out of the water: sectas.org/Secciones_Especiales/canonizacion/guadalupana.htm

There are other sites and other references to this. But this is not the only artifact available. Saints are not chosen at random. They need two miracles attributed to their intercession.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Seeker2010]

So therefore, you are NOT (as you claim in another post) truly seeking!

Au contrair, mi amigo, should you (or anyone else) convince me of the divine origination of any given tome, I would of course give it credibility, as my mind is not closed. Likewise, were some evidence to come to light which completely discredited NDE’s, I am not so married to my opinions to hold on to them in light of incontrovertible contraindications.

Did you suffer some terrible trauma via religion?

Well, religion (in general) has caused many atrocities throughout history, and continues to do so, but I don’t think that’s what you meant. My observation was not based upon any trauma I have suffered, for I have suffered none, but is merely a reasonable, logical conclusion. The Catholic Church teaches that to receive salvation one must do certain things (such as attend Mass and Confession), and NOT do other things (such as kill people or use condoms). If it turns out that the reality is that none of the above is required in order to enter the Light, that in fact even belief in God himself is not required, is it not logical to conclude that most people would no longer see purpose in being a member of any religion?

While some religious rules are something that 99.99% of us don’t struggle with obeying, whether religious or not (such as the aforementioned ‘don’t kill people’), there are many others (such as the aforementioned use of condoms) that many struggle with mightily. If it turns out that using condoms is not a one-way ticket to eternal torture after all, don’t you think those that continue to instruct they not be used would lose credibility?

You ought to really search deeper.

How so? I’ve personally read hundreds if not thousands of first hand NDE experiences. Spoken with experiencers. Listened to their lectures. Read numerous books on the topic. Here we have modern, living humans who claim to have caught a glimpse of the other side, and while a single experience is but a anecdote, after you read story after story after story that sound almost like they were written by the same person, you are hard pressed to just dismiss them categorically. And when the message of love and forgiveness and learning stands in contrast with the message of obey or suffer given to us by tomes of questionable origin from pre-historic man, one must (at least I do) wonder which is more credible. A 4000 admonition against promiscuity that was likely inspired because diseases caused by promiscuity were believed to be punishments from God, or a message that ‘sins are just mistakes and are used to impart lessons not to justify punishment’. (Note: That’s not quoting anything, just me paraphrasing the overriding message I’ve read in so many accounts.)

How do you KNOW they had no more insight than you?

‘KNOW’ is a bit of a strong term, but for them to have actual knowledge of fact that is not available to me, that means they had access to either information that no longer exists, or they were in direct, two-way communication with the Almighty himself. I see no real credible reason to think that has ever occurred.

 

[colmcille1]

Au contrair, mi amigo, should you (or anyone else) convince me of the divine origination of any given tome, I would of course give it credibility, as my mind is not closed. Likewise, were some evidence to come to light which completely discredited NDE’s, I am not so married to my opinions to hold on to them in light of incontrovertible contraindications.

Alas, you have lots to learn about what being Catholic entails. And judging by your responses so far, there is no indication that you are open to this learning. You insist on playing the one-string “tome” defence. Would it help you if I were to state that your resistance is as nothing compared with the type of obstinate, cynical, rude, coarse, mean-spirited, arrogant, nasty person I used to be? If an idiot like me can find a way, anyone can.

Well, religion (in general) has caused many atrocities throughout history, and continues to do so, but I don’t think that’s what you meant. My observation was not based upon any trauma I have suffered, for I have suffered none, but is merely a reasonable, logical conclusion. The Catholic Church teaches that to receive salvation one must do certain things (such as attend Mass and Confession), and NOT do other things (such as kill people or use condoms). If it turns out that the reality is that none of the above is required in order to enter the Light, that in fact even belief in God himself is not required, is it not logical to conclude that most people would no longer see purpose in being a member of any religion?

Have you actually read over this paragraph? Do you see any apparent illogicality here?

While some religious rules are something that 99.99% of us don’t struggle with obeying, whether religious or not (such as the aforementioned ‘don’t kill people’), there are many others (such as the aforementioned use of condoms) that many struggle with mightily. If it turns out that using condoms is not a one-way ticket to eternal torture after all, don’t you think those that continue to instruct they not be used would lose credibility?

Again, your “logic” is mystifying!

How so? I’ve personally read hundreds if not thousands of first hand NDE experiences. Spoken with experiencers. Listened to their lectures. Read numerous books on the topic. Here we have modern, living humans who claim to have caught a glimpse of the other side, and while a single experience is but a anecdote, after you read story after story after story that sound almost like they were written by the same person, you are hard pressed to just dismiss them categorically. And when the message of love and forgiveness and learning stands in contrast with the message of obey or suffer given to us by tomes of questionable origin from pre-historic man, one must (at least I do) wonder which is more credible. A 4000 admonition against promiscuity that was likely inspired because diseases caused by promiscuity were believed to be punishments from God, or a message that ‘sins are just mistakes and are used to impart lessons not to justify punishment’. (Note: That’s not quoting anything, just me paraphrasing the overriding message I’ve read in so many accounts.)

I was not advocating that you dig deeper into these NDEs. I was suggesting that you examine Faith. And do so please with an open heart.

‘KNOW’ is a bit of a strong term, but for them to have actual knowledge of fact that is not available to me, that means they had access to either information that no longer exists, or they were in direct, two-way communication with the Almighty himself. I see no real credible reason to think that has ever occurred.

You now put forward “reason” as your defence and yet you still insist that you are a seeker!!
Sir, it is now dreadfully obvious to me, as I’m sure it is to the other posters who have engaged with you here, that you are NOT seeking. You are, in fact, a confused individual who lazily relies on your own selective experience mixed in with a good dollop of “research” into NDEs.
As another poster asked: what are you doing here?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by colmcille1
You ought to really search deeper.

First of all, by considering the possibility that you currently lack the basic critical thinking search tools that are the prerequisite of any kind of effective reason-based inquiry. So again I ask…

Do you know what ‘logical validity’ is? (This is not a hard question.)

 

[Seeker2010]

Alas, you have lots to learn about what being Catholic entails.

Then teach me whatever it is you think I lack. You accuse me of not being open, but I am. Explain to me why the book of Genesis is credible, and dictated by God himself despite it’s historical inaccuracies. Explain why at one point in history, God selected a few men (and women?) to have direct, open, two-way communications with, and why he no longer does so today. Explain why early in history he took an active role with humanity, even going so far as to literally stop the sun so a battle could be won, but today doesn’t even go all Sodom and Gomorrah on San Francisco.

Do you see any apparent illogicality here?

No, I do not. Perhaps you can point it out to me.

I was not advocating that you dig deeper into these NDEs.

Do you not find them credible? If so, why not study them more? If not, why not?

You are, in fact, a confused individual who lazily relies on your own selective experience mixed in with a good dollop of “research” into NDEs.

If it makes you feel better to believe that, be my guest. It does not harm me. How relevant to the conversation it may or may not be will depend on your answer to the question above.

 

[Seeker2010]

Do you know what ‘logical validity’ is? (This is not a hard question.)

I am not going to participate in your condescending ‘Let’s argue about the argument’ tactics. We’ve done that before and got exactly nowhere with it. Should you be inclined to discuss or refute my points, or to add some of your own, I’m happy to continue a conversation. Posts such as the one I have quoted here well go unanswered.

 

[mcteague]

This is what is known as hijacking a thread. How does seeker2010’s demand for definitive empirical proof of the existence of God and the validity of Catholicism relate to the issue how Catholics can or should address the issue of gay marriage?

Incidentally, let me say that I have been quite pleased with the diversity of opinion from both Catholics and non Catholics on this issue.

 

[larkin31]

This is what is known as hijacking a thread. How does seeker2010’s demand for definitive empirical proof of the existence of God and the validity of Catholicism relate to the issue how Catholics can or should address the issue of gay marriage?

Probably because the Catholic argument against gay marriage ultimate resides on the foundational claim that the Catholic teachings on this are the absolute truth. If this is finally the buttress, what else can one do except ask, “How is this true?”

Incidentally, let me say that I have been quite pleased with the diversity of opinion from both Catholics and non Catholics on this issue.

Me too.

 

[Betterave]

I am not going to participate in your condescending ‘Let’s argue about the argument’ tactics. We’ve done that before and got exactly nowhere with it. Should you be inclined to discuss or refute my points, or to add some of your own, I’m happy to continue a conversation. Posts such as the one I have quoted here well go unanswered.

If you’re not willing to question your own dogmas, I certainly can’t force you to. That won’t stop me from pointing out the absurdity of your position. So again:

Do you or do you not understand the structure of this argument and see that it is valid? Apparently you do not understand it and so you don’t see that it is valid. (‘Valid’ is a technical logical term - do you know what it means? Apparently you do not.) Therefore, indeed:

1. It seems that you have failed to comprehend the structure of my very simple argument.
2. Therefore it seems that you are not very good at comprehending and evaluating argumentative claims.
3. Therefore it seems that you have little reason for thinking that your own argumentative claims, referring to what you believe to be “perfectly reasonable explanations,” are actually referring to perfectly reasonable explanations. And your dogmatic refusal to examine the grounds for your own claims suggests that you are not interested in rational inquiry, and in fact that you are hostile to any real rational examination of your views.

And I rest my case.