The immaculate misconception

[StarFireKK]

The thing that I find so adhorrent about Christianity is the principal that due to these imperfections (even if their just thought crimes) we all deserve to be tortured forever and ever.

Infinite punishment for limited crimes is the height of injustice.

Now I know that according to Christian theology we can escape our* just punishment *by being servile and worshipful towards God. But that doesn’t make the basic principal of Christianity any less horrible.

I find it sad you find Christianity and Catholicism so “abhorrent” when you don’t even understand the basics.

 

[RobbyS]

Actually even devout Catholics cannot adhere to the standards that Rome sets. If only because of the Thought Crime aspect of Christian morality (especially when it comes to sex).

That’s kind of the point.

We are all crippled in mind and body, even the best of us. The man who has one leg shorter than the other will the walk in a circle if he does what is natural to him.

If he wishes to walk straight he must constantly correct his path.

The rule that Rome sets for all Catholics serve the same purpose that St. Benedict’s Rule, which is to lay down a path toward sancity. But in truth we know that God’s grace is needed to keep us on the straight and narrow. It’s a bit like Luke let himself go in the attack on the Death Star. The true course negotiates an incalculable path.
That does not preclude training and setting intermediate goals, each in accordance with the gifts we are give. But in the end we are in God’s hands.

 

[RobbyS]

Don’t be so sure
Remember the horrible state of medicine for one thing.

As for the nudity aspect, I have often gotten impression that the Catholic Church is okay with nudity in art as long as the figures depicted are not attractive and/or likely to inspire lust.

We all know there is a difference between pornography and similar art.

 

[Spock]

I’m requesting links to these posts. Thank you.

If you think that I kept track of a few posts during the years, you will be disappointed. But you can conduct the same experiment, by starting a new thread and ask “what would you change in your life if you had positive proof that God does not exist”. Or ask the atheists and ask “what would you change in your life if you had positive proof that God exists”. Those old threads had similar titles, but unfortunately the search engine only works of exact wordings. They were pretty eye-opening.

This is *exactly *what I expected you to write! First of all, there is a huge difference between killing and murder. You have used the word “killing” with respect to Abraham and the word “murder” with respect to me.

Murder is the intentional killing of another human being. So Abraham was ordered to murder Isaac.

God would not order me to murder anyone. If I received what was allegedly a clean bill of health (which would surprise me because I would obviously be delusional, not to mention a clear threat to others) I would disregard the command because it did not come from God.

Yet another cop out. Can’t you guys answer anything directly and honestly, just for the fun of it?

As to Abraham and a reference to the flood (please correct me if I am wrong), I honestly don’t know why God did what He did because I am not an OT Bible scholar (and I’m pretty weak on the NT, too) but there is a huge difference between God taking lives which belong to Him and *my *taking of an innocent life.

Will there ever be a reply which is not a “special pleading”? I am starting to doubt it.

Please don’t compare my actions (putative or real) to the actions of God. God is divine; I am not.

If there is a universal, absolute moral stance that intentional killing (murder) is wrong, then it will be wrong even if God commits it.

I believe the phrase is “whore of Babylon.” But when one brings up things like how one respects Cafeteria Catholics *because they thumb their noses at Rome *it is more than disagreement. It is disrespect to the Catholic Church.

There are several areas where I respect the church for its actions. And there are many where the church does not get any respect - because it does not deserve any. Do you respect the church for moving around those pedophile priests from parish to parish, where they continued their not-so-godly work of molesting children?

In that case I will cut my search short until someone who really wants to understand Church teaching (and my personal belief that I came to when I was not a practicing Catholic) *and * has an open mind requests that particular document.

Whatever. The quote was that every action is a moral action, (no exceptions) and you quoted Peter Kreeft. That is good enough.

 

[Spock]

We all know there is a difference between pornography and similar art.

If you do, please let us know about it. I am under the impression that there is no objective way to draw the line between “art” and “porn”. The usual phrase “no redeeming social value” is vague to the point of being meningless. One man’s (or woman’s) mildly interesting sexual description is another one’s disgusting pornography. And the “great castration” does not bode well for the so-called authorities to garner support for their actions.

 

[E.E.N.S]

…threatening with eternal torture - is a despicable way to argue.

A more proper term would be warning, (not threatening.)

Just because you personally do not believe in the reality of hell does not mean that it does not exist.

Try to at the very least put yourself in the other person’s shoes for a moment. Say, for example, that a parent warns their child not to drink a glass full of liquid (what the parent believes to be poison). Then along comes another person (you in this case) and tells the child that the glass of liquid is perfectly safe to drink, (yet you yourself cannot guarantee that the liquid is not poison).

Looking at this issue with a Pascal’s Wager type of view we have:

If the Parent is right, they are saving the child’s life.
If the parent is wrong, the child merely loses out on a drink of {insert beverage here}.
If you are right, the child gets a drink.
If you are wrong, the child dies.

The choice should be obvious. Now add in an eternal outcome, (heaven or hell), and the choice becomes infinitely more obvious.

Giving up some relatively minor temporal pleasure for the sake of eternal happiness is a no brainer, (even if it may present some difficulty.) Risking eternal happiness for some fleeting pleasure is pure foolishness.

Again, I know that you are a non-believer, but at the very least, being a rational being, you should have enough intelligence to be able to see it from the opposing viewpoint. And after doing such, you should also be able to recognize that your position holds little to no weight in the eyes of a Christian.

 

[tonyrey]

**With equal facility I could state that your lack of religion demands **

So you would advise people to ignore the commandments not to kill, steal, commit adultery and bear false witness against their neighbour?

You haven’t explained why your lack of religion exempts you from total dedication to **your own point of view **and the rules and principles you command and endorse - without any need for self-restraint at all! Do you recognise any moral authority apart from yourself?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I liked you other analogy better - the one about cars and accident related fatalities.

First, there is a question whether the decision to transition to such an inherently dangerous mode of transportation was fair. Assuming it was, the Catholic position with respect to sex is similar to the government’s position regarding traffic: it seeks to regulate, not forbid it.

The only forbidding going on was Spock’s claim that Catholics should be forbidden to intrude upon other peoples’ conscience.

The Church teaches that some sexual acts are immoral, but it takes no active role in forbidding people from doing them. That is why the Miller’s Tale could be written in a very Catholic age. Similarly, the government prohibits some driving conduct is forbidden, but does not actively attempt to prohibit people from engaging in them. It punishes speeding, it does not forbid people from buying Porsches. The “secular” logic rests on premises of justice and fairness and overall safety.

Since there are roughly the same number of men and women, each gets one mate. Catholics do not follow secular logic in claiming that the strong get whatever they can take, and the weak get what the strong don’t want.

I’m having trouble understanding your argument. And what does the existence of God have to do with whether the strong get what they want?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

How do you know people with better social support live longer and how do you know single men do not have that social support?

I should not have made such a definitive statement and I apologize for that. But that is my sense based on my somewhat cursory examination of the topic. Those who are actively engaged with their world, whether by exercising a lot, or by regularly going to church live slightly longer based on the studies I’ve seen. I’d expect that someone with an extremely close friend that they can turn to for support would live slightly longer than someone who doesn’t. I think spouses can often provide that support. I don’t think there’s anything magic about the act of marriage. I just think that having good friends and confidants can lead to a longer and happier life.

And even if this is so could it be that people who do not marry, which would include homosexuals, pursue a life of selfishness which does not build strong ties to others and do things which are more risky to ones health? Homosexuality is also associated with a party lifestyle and a high incidence of drug use. One explanation for this is that the homosexual is more selfish and reckless. This could be a consequence of homosexuality or lead to it. But the simple fact of leading to a shorter life should give people reason to pause rather than explain it away.

I think that being a social outcast can often lead to drug use. I think that being disowned by your parents as a teenager and having to fend for yourself can often lead to drug use. But I have never seen any shred of evidence that homosexuals are inherently more selfish than straight people. Many of the most loving and selfless people I have ever known have been gay.

I’m sorry you were taunted. Children can be very cruel and especially so in the government schools where diversity is celebrated.

Are you really implying that if my schools had taught that homosexuality was evil, I would have been taunted less?!

People do think I’m evil for thinking homosexuality is evil and a host of other beliefs I have. Homosexuality is mostly accepted these days. This argument simply does not hold water anymore. You’d receive more taunting for being a devout Christian in a government school than you would for being gay.

This is simply false. Devout Christians do not typically get taunted as unrelentingly as gay children do. There have been countless gay teenagers driven to suicide by unending harassment (I can provide specific examples if necessary). How many specific cases can you name of Christian children who have been taunted to the point of suicide because of their religious beliefs? I’m not aware of any.

 

[Cephas737]

You claim your upbringing is the reason for how you treat others. I am curious as to what influences your parents or guardians had in determining how to raise you?

 

[RobbyS]

If you do, please let us know about it. I am under the impression that there is no objective way to draw the line between “art” and “porn”. The usual phrase “no redeeming social value” is vague to the point of being meningless. One man’s (or woman’s) mildly interesting sexual description is another one’s disgusting pornography. And the “great castration” does not bode well for the so-called authorities to garner support for their actions.

Pornography tends toward caricature, the exaggeration of the erotic. It is the air-brushing of reality. A pretense of passion not felt, of the creating of fantasy creatures that can arouse a man as a casual snapshot of a beautiful woman could not, because it presents reality. The film industry has made billions by creating illusions of this sort.

 

[RobbyS]

I should not have made such a definitive statement and I apologize for that. But that is my sense based on my somewhat cursory examination of the topic. Those who are actively engaged with their world, whether by exercising a lot, or by regularly going to church live slightly longer based on the studies I’ve seen. I’d expect that someone with an extremely close friend that they can turn to for support would live slightly longer than someone who doesn’t. I think spouses can often provide that support. I don’t think there’s anything magic about the act of marriage. I just think that having good friends and confidants can lead to a longer and happier life.

I think that being a social outcast can often lead to drug use. I think that being disowned by your parents as a teenager and having to fend for yourself can often lead to drug use. But I have never seen any shred of evidence that homosexuals are inherently more selfish than straight people. Many of the most loving and selfless people I have ever known have been gay.

Are you really implying that if my schools had taught that homosexuality was evil, I would have been taunted less?!

This is simply false. Devout Christians do not typically get taunted as unrelentingly as gay children do. There have been countless gay teenagers driven to suicide by unending harassment (I can provide specific examples if necessary). How many specific cases can you name of Christian children who have been taunted to the point of suicide because of their religious beliefs? I’m not aware of any.

First of all, “gay” children? My own experience is that effeminant boys–sissies --get bullied a lot, but more often than not they are not gay. Gay guys who look and act like others do not get that treatment. Bullies prey on the weak, the odd-ball.

 

[Spock]

A more proper term would be warning, (not threatening.)

I see a threat. If you do not “bow down to God”, and “worship him” then SOMEONE will drag you kicking and screaming into some eternral torture. Whether that “someone” is God himself, or some demon, who does it with God’s explicit premission (looks like outsourcing is a very ancient concept), it does not matter. At least be honest and admit that NO one would go up to the gates of hell, and demand admittance to be tortured forever.

Just because you personally do not believe in the reality of hell does not mean that it does not exist.

Sure, and just because you, personally believe in hell it does not mean that it does exist. Your belief contradicts the concept of LOVING God. A loving God does not say: “you can only repent before you have absolute, positive proof that hell exists”. A loving God does not say: “three strikes and you are out”. A loving God would always give another chance to redeem yourself.

The trouble is that you guys display a self-contradictory position: “God is loving, but only as long as you accept him on FAITH”. Once you get the necessary proof, he will cease to be “a loving parent” and turns into a “strern judge”. And, of course you do not admit this contradiction. The amount of “doublethink” is almost frightening.

Try to at the very least put yourself in the other person’s shoes for a moment. Say, for example, that a parent warns their child not to drink a glass full of liquid (what the parent believes to be poison). Then along comes another person (you in this case) and tells the child that the glass of liquid is perfectly safe to drink, (yet you yourself cannot guarantee that the liquid is not poison).

Your analogy is wrong. We are not tallking about some obvious, natural consequence here, which can be ascertained by anyone, who is willing to investigate it. To find out if that liquid is a poison or not, all you need is to perform a little analysis. What method can you offer to me about your “warning”? What tests can I perform - here and now - to show if you are correct or delusional? None, whatsoever. It is demanded that I accept your assertions on pure, blind faith.

Looking at this issue with a Pascal’s Wager type of view we have:

If the Parent is right, they are saving the child’s life.
If the parent is wrong, the child merely loses out on a drink of {insert beverage here}.
If you are right, the child gets a drink.
If you are wrong, the child dies.

The choice should be obvious. Now add in an eternal outcome, (heaven or hell), and the choice becomes infinitely more obvious.

No, the choice is not obvious. A risk-benefit analysis cannot be performed in “thin air”. It is not enough to list the benefits of the outcomes, its is also necessary to give the percentages of those outcomes. And that is where your inability to give me test comes into the picture.

Again, I know that you are a non-believer, but at the very least, being a rational being, you should have enough intelligence to be able to see it from the opposing viewpoint. And after doing such, you should also be able to recognize that your position holds little to no weight in the eyes of a Christian.

Only because the said christian does not know basic mathematics to conduct a proper risk-benefit analysis. The “common sense” approach “to give up some temporal pleasure and risk eternal damnation” is absurd and incorrect.

 

[Spock]

Pornography tends toward caricature, the exaggeration of the erotic. It is the air-brushing of reality.

Where does the “description” stop and “exaggeration” start?

A pretense of passion not felt, of the creating of fantasy creatures that can arouse a man as a casual snapshot of a beautiful woman could not, because it presents reality.

The pretense is there in every theatrical performace. When an actor “pretends” to hate the other actor, and murders him, it is all make-believe. Why would someone pick one particular event of make-belief (a sexual kind) and declare it despicable?

The film industry has made billions by creating illusions of this sort.

Sure. Look at the movie “Avatar”, or Casablanca", or “Ben Hur”… and they all made millions. Just because a movie makes money it is not a sign of “non-artistic” performace. Only the “art-critics” assert that an “entertaining movie” cannot be “artistic”.

 

[RobbyS]

Where does the “description” stop and “exaggeration” start?

The pretense is there in every theatrical performace. When an actor “pretends” to hate the other actor, and murders him, it is all make-believe. Why would someone pick one particular event of make-belief (a sexual kind) and declare it despicable?

Sure. Look at the movie “Avatar”, or Casablanca", or “Ben Hur”… and they all made millions. Just because a movie makes money it is not a sign of “non-artistic” performace. Only the “art-critics” assert that an “entertaining movie” cannot be “artistic”.

The description ends where the falseness begins. Pornography is not always bad art , but its purpose is essentially mercenary.

 

[RobbyS]

I see a threat. If you do not “bow down to God”, and “worship him” then SOMEONE will drag you kicking and screaming into some eternral torture. Whether that “someone” is God himself, or some demon, who does it with God’s explicit premission (looks like outsourcing is a very ancient concept), it does not matter. At least be honest and admit that NO one would go up to the gates of hell, and demand admittance to be tortured forever.

Sure, and just because you, personally believe in hell it does not mean that it does exist. Your belief contradicts the concept of LOVING God. A loving God does not say: “you can only repent before you have absolute, positive proof that hell exists”. A loving God does not say: “three strikes and you are out”. A loving God would always give another chance to redeem yourself.

The trouble is that you guys display a self-contradictory position: “God is loving, but only as long as you accept him on FAITH”. Once you get the necessary proof, he will cease to be “a loving parent” and turns into a “strern judge”. And, of course you do not admit this contradiction. The amount of “doublethink” is almost frightening.

Your analogy is wrong. We are not tallking about some obvious, natural consequence here, which can be ascertained by anyone, who is willing to investigate it. To find out if that liquid is a poison or not, all you need is to perform a little analysis. What method can you offer to me about your “warning”? What tests can I perform - here and now - to show if you are correct or delusional? None, whatsoever. It is demanded that I accept your assertions on pure, blind faith.

No, the choice is not obvious. A risk-benefit analysis cannot be performed in “thin air”. It is not enough to list the benefits of the outcomes, its is also necessary to give the percentages of those outcomes. And that is where your inability to give me test comes into the picture.

Only because the said christian does not know basic mathematics to conduct a proper risk-benefit analysis. The “common sense” approach “to give up some temporal pleasure and risk eternal damnation” is absurd and incorrect.

God is always faithful, He never breaks covenant. It is we who walk away from the relationship. We who divorce Him. But when we do, we lose our hold on reality. Everything we do it false in that it leads us away from where we ought to be. We become like a child who lost in the forest never tries to get home. What is the consequence of this? Death.

 

[Spock]

God is always faithful, He never breaks covenant.

Not even believers will agree with you. Ask the Jews who held a court after the Holocaust and who convicted God (in absentia) for breaking the covenant with them.

It is we who walk away from the relationship. We who divorce Him. But when we do, we lose our hold on reality. Everything we do it false in that it leads us away from where we ought to be. We become like a child who lost in the forest never tries to get home.

Very poetic, without substance.

What is the consequence of this? Death.

Death would be preferable to eternal torture.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If you think that I kept track of a few posts during the years, you will be disappointed. But you can conduct the same experiment, by starting a new thread and ask “what would you change in your life if you had positive proof that God does not exist”. Or ask the atheists and ask “what would you change in your life if you had positive proof that God exists”. Those old threads had similar titles, but unfortunately the search engine only works of exact wordings. They were pretty eye-opening.

I would never ask for links unless I thought those links would be relatively easy to find. You earlier stated that the posts were allowed to stand and that you requested clarification. All you have to do is find your post(s) and that will lead you to the thread. But I’m surprised to find that it was a few posts during the years. And you extrapolated from these few posts to all (or most) Catholics? I very much doubt that what a few posters state represents the thinking of all or a majority of Catholics. There isn’t enough evidence.

So far you have a baseless assertion.

I’m sorry, Spock, but that is not logical.

Murder is the intentional killing of another human being. So Abraham was ordered to murder Isaac.

Murder is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life that one has no right to take. Christianity claims that God has the right to take our lives at any time since they don’t belong to us but to Him.

Yet another cop out. Can’t you guys answer anything directly and honestly, just for the fun of it?

Please let me repeat what I stated in another post in this thread: I do not lie. My response was truthful and honest. What I said was not a cop-out in any way. What would you expect me to say? What would you *want *me to say? A lie?

Will there ever be a reply which is not a “special pleading”? I am starting to doubt it.

There is no special pleading under the rule I listed. We have no right to take innocent human life because it does not belong to us. God has rights over his creation just as an author has rights over his books - he created them.

If there is a universal, absolute moral stance that intentional killing (murder) is wrong, then it will be wrong even if God commits it.

It’s God’s law! But God cannot murder what is His. Our lives belong to God. We can murder because we can take a life which does not belong to us. We don’t have that right. But our lives belong to our Creator - to God.

There are several areas where I respect the church for its actions. And there are many where the church does not get any respect - because it does not deserve any. Do you respect the church for moving around those pedophile priests from parish to parish, where they continued their not-so-godly work of molesting children?

My point is that you showed the Church disrespect in your choice of words. If you wish to know Church teaching on pedophilia, the Church’s actions regarding pedophiles (or my opinions on that subject) please start a new thread. It’s off-topic in this thread.

Whatever. The quote was that every action is a moral action, (no exceptions) and you quoted Peter Kreeft. That is good enough.

I disagree that it is good enough. I have already apologized for my misreading of the question and have clarified my response.

Spock, where do you get your ideas of right and wrong? You have claimed that Christians behave rightly or wrongly based on their fear of punishment meted out by God. How do *you * determine which behaviors are right and which are wrong?

 

[Spock]

I would never ask for links unless I thought those links would be relatively easy to find. You earlier stated that the posts were allowed to stand and that you requested clarification. All you have to do is find your post(s) and that will lead you to the thread. But I’m surprised to find that it was a few posts during the years. And you extrapolated from these few posts to all (or most) Catholics?

You need to pay more attention. I did not extrapolate. I only said that I had reservations.

Murder is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life that one has no right to take. Christianity claims that God has the right to take our lives at any time since they don’t belong to us but to Him.

Nonsense. Murder is simply the deliberate talking of another human’s life. Killing in war is still murder. The state-sanctioned execution is still murder. There is no “addendum”. The christian addendum that we do not “own” our lufe, because it is just a “loan” from God is not acceptable.

My point is that you showed the Church disrespect in your choice of words. If you wish to know Church teaching on pedophilia, the Church’s actions regarding pedophiles (or my opinions on that subject) please start a new thread. It’s off-topic in this thread.

It is a fact, admitted by the church that the hierarchy kept moving the offending priests from parish to parish. I do not respect the church for that particular act, and all the decent members of the church are rightfully ashamed for that behavior.

 

[LittleSoldier]

You need to pay more attention. I did not extrapolate. I only said that I had reservations.

You need to pay more attention. I asked a question about extrapolation:

“And you extrapolated from these few posts to all (or most) Catholics?”

Note the question mark at the end of the sentence. I was asking you if you extrapolated.

Nonsense. Murder is simply the deliberate talking of another human’s life. Killing in war is still murder. The state-sanctioned execution is still murder. There is no “addendum”. The christian addendum that we do not “own” our lufe, because it is just a “loan” from God is not acceptable.

Christians do not have to accept your personal definition of “murder.” You’re introducing a Strawman. Also, I said nothing about our lives being “loaned” from God. Our lives belong to our Creator - 100 percent. Always. We don’t borrow them. Your addendum is non-existent and your own personal feelings about any aspect of Christianity that you do not find “acceptable” does not make your beliefs Truth.

It is a fact, admitted by the church that the hierarchy kept moving the offending priests from parish to parish. I do not respect the church for that particular act, and all the decent members of the church are rightfully ashamed for that behavior.

Please start your own thread if you wish to discuss this. It is off-topic in the current thread. Thank you.

Spock, where do you get your ideas of right and wrong? You have claimed that Christians behave rightly or wrongly based on their fear of punishment meted out by God. How do you determine which behaviors are right and which are wrong?