S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Yes, but it was done to allow the faithful to participate more in the Church without increasingly ridiculous restrictions.
We’ve kept the teaching on natural law safe and sound, so if that’s what you are arguing against, it won’t work.
We’ve kept the teaching on natural law safe and sound, so if that’s what you are arguing against, it won’t work.
E
Edmundus1581
Guest
It was much harder for men too.Cool for your mom but one anecdote doesn’t negate the objective truth. It was much harder for women back then.
I’m 50 and entered the workforce in the early 90s. It was hard for me as a software developer. I can’t imagine what it was like for women back in the 50s and 60s.
While it was harder for women to get into the workforce, men didn’t have have the option of leaving it. They still don’t, and never will. If it’s even practically possible (which it usually isn’t), then they lose respect in society.
After my divorce I had custody (by consent) of our three children. I continued working for five years and then took a year off to study, while living on sole-parent benefits. During this time I got several direct criticisms from people who thought I was sponging off the taxpayer. In that year I also made acquaintance during normal work hours, at cafe’s and gyms, with several “single mothers” who were just enjoying a comfortable life at the expense of the taxpayer and their ex-husbands, feeling no pressure to work, apart from a casual position for a bit of extra spending money.
After my year off I personally would have been quite happy to just keep running the home and enjoying myself, so long as someone else was providing. The option of “parenthood” as a vocation has always been available to women but never to men.
Most men I’ve met would retire early or cut back their working hours if they could, but their wives and society don’t allow it.
Last edited:
S
setarcos
Guest
To continue with the list…
Contraception in my opinion is not depraved nor does it lead to or promote depravity in anyone where the condition is not already existent. Gods request to be fruitful and multiply in my opinion was not meant to be taken literally to the detriment of common sense. It was a blessing and gift of ability not an absolute command. The environment and ability to care for the children you bring into this world should be taken into consideration. Should the conditions not be favorable to the production of progeny I can hardly blame a couple within a holy union to not simply cease to fulfill their sexual desires for one another because the conditions aren’t right for producing children. The purpose of sexual intercourse between couples is not solely in the production of progeny. Science has shown their are a myriad benefits to ones health, psychological and physical, by having a healthy sexual relationship with ones spouse. An insistence on absolutely no prophylactic precautions even in the light of reasoned understanding is absolutely ridiculous and may even have resulted in an increase in some sins.
Euthanasia is not depraved. It Is a reflection of a good souls desire to stop another persons suffering. Depending on your particular religious beliefs acceptance of euthanasia practices is not a reflection of an increase in depravity, contrarily it is an increase in ones empathy for others. One may even make the claim that one who stops those who try to end the extreme and unending suffering of others themselves have sadistic leanings. All of the other choses on the list are factors which man has dealt with throughout all of his history and one can make the argument that mankind on the whole has made remarkable strides these last centuries in dealing with them in a positive manner. The main difference is in our perception of the scale of such things. Nowadays people are exposed to a vastly larger scale of worldwide awareness of such things and consequently fall victim to their own perception bias.
Contraception in my opinion is not depraved nor does it lead to or promote depravity in anyone where the condition is not already existent. Gods request to be fruitful and multiply in my opinion was not meant to be taken literally to the detriment of common sense. It was a blessing and gift of ability not an absolute command. The environment and ability to care for the children you bring into this world should be taken into consideration. Should the conditions not be favorable to the production of progeny I can hardly blame a couple within a holy union to not simply cease to fulfill their sexual desires for one another because the conditions aren’t right for producing children. The purpose of sexual intercourse between couples is not solely in the production of progeny. Science has shown their are a myriad benefits to ones health, psychological and physical, by having a healthy sexual relationship with ones spouse. An insistence on absolutely no prophylactic precautions even in the light of reasoned understanding is absolutely ridiculous and may even have resulted in an increase in some sins.
Euthanasia is not depraved. It Is a reflection of a good souls desire to stop another persons suffering. Depending on your particular religious beliefs acceptance of euthanasia practices is not a reflection of an increase in depravity, contrarily it is an increase in ones empathy for others. One may even make the claim that one who stops those who try to end the extreme and unending suffering of others themselves have sadistic leanings. All of the other choses on the list are factors which man has dealt with throughout all of his history and one can make the argument that mankind on the whole has made remarkable strides these last centuries in dealing with them in a positive manner. The main difference is in our perception of the scale of such things. Nowadays people are exposed to a vastly larger scale of worldwide awareness of such things and consequently fall victim to their own perception bias.
S
setarcos
Guest
Teaching on natural law? What do you mean by this?
K
Kei
Guest
Me. I am what is wrong with the west.
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
Affluence
For most of us mortals, our first reason to search for God is because of what he can do for us. This is one rung on the scaffolding of love, but a necessary one to reach the higher states of love where one contemplates God for his own goodness and has love of creation for God’s sake and through his eyes.
Unfortunately, with affluence and having ones needs met, there is no need to search for what God can provide, so the first rung is never touched.
It is possible however to skip that first run and seek God first for his own sake. But this takes a higher level of consciousness in our society that has not taken hold yet, but I have faith that it will someday.
For most of us mortals, our first reason to search for God is because of what he can do for us. This is one rung on the scaffolding of love, but a necessary one to reach the higher states of love where one contemplates God for his own goodness and has love of creation for God’s sake and through his eyes.
Unfortunately, with affluence and having ones needs met, there is no need to search for what God can provide, so the first rung is never touched.
It is possible however to skip that first run and seek God first for his own sake. But this takes a higher level of consciousness in our society that has not taken hold yet, but I have faith that it will someday.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
We can give logical arguments for God. But ultimately we have to convince them that we cannot live by bread alone. God has to become the center piece and foundation of our well being and joy in the world. But its hard to convince them of this when the bread tastes so good. It can give people the illusion that we can sustain our being without God because we can attain what seems to be for our benefit with as little sacrifice as possible.
Time and time again you will hear the atheist say, “why do we need God?”.
Time and time again you will hear the atheist say, “why do we need God?”.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Besides, Fr. Drinan was an extremely holy guy. He was a professor at my school and I knew him.American Bishops have always been hesitant / wary of excommunicating Catholic political leaders because of America’s anti-Catholic history.
You would have to be nuts to think he deserved any sort of excommunication.
D
deMontfort
Guest
If he was advocating heresy then he certainly was NOT holy.
F
fhansen
Guest
The west got too fat and self-secure. Everything else is an excuse to do what Adam did and man tends to do if he can, which is to ‘prefer himself to God’ as the Church teaches that Adam did. Pride.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
your comments on Orthodoxy also apply to Eastern Catholicism . . .
hawk
hawk
A
Annie
Guest
An “extremely holy guy” who helped come up with an “out” for Catholic politicians to be able to vote for pro-abortion bills
… I’m sorry, I can’t wrap my head around that.
… I’m sorry, I can’t wrap my head around that.
A
Annie
Guest
People who were punished by the Church, or more usually by the government, were people who were Catholic and who were teaching heresy, leading people to a potential loss of their souls.
In fact, the Church has always taught that forced conversions are wrong.
In fact, the Church has always taught that forced conversions are wrong.
S
setarcos
Guest
Hi Annie, I hope this day finds you in good health and happiness.
What is this difference between torturing a person claiming to be Catholic and a Pagan who is not? By definition heresy is teaching and or holding a belief that is apposed to whoever declares the belief a heresy. What does it matter what title you claim if you are tortured until death or recantation of your beliefs? I said the Church suppressed freedom of expression of ones will and that’s exactly what was done. As far as our records of Christ go I’m unaware of Jesus advocating the use of torture for any purpose, let alone the saving of ones wayward soul. The only way to save another persons soul is by getting their own God given free will to change itself of its own accord not through coercion or threat. There’s a fine line between forced conversion and suppressed opinion and when the Roman Church gathered enough secular power to assert her influence far and wide many a person was suppressed in their opinion. The early Roman Church often influenced secular powers towards her own means and to suggest that her hands are clean of the blood spilt because she didn’t directly wield the axe is disgusting and hypocritical. Jesus would be ashamed. Might as well make Pontius Pilot a saint and the Sanhedrin absolutely innocent of Jesus crucifixion since they didn’t actually do it themselves.
What is this difference between torturing a person claiming to be Catholic and a Pagan who is not? By definition heresy is teaching and or holding a belief that is apposed to whoever declares the belief a heresy. What does it matter what title you claim if you are tortured until death or recantation of your beliefs? I said the Church suppressed freedom of expression of ones will and that’s exactly what was done. As far as our records of Christ go I’m unaware of Jesus advocating the use of torture for any purpose, let alone the saving of ones wayward soul. The only way to save another persons soul is by getting their own God given free will to change itself of its own accord not through coercion or threat. There’s a fine line between forced conversion and suppressed opinion and when the Roman Church gathered enough secular power to assert her influence far and wide many a person was suppressed in their opinion. The early Roman Church often influenced secular powers towards her own means and to suggest that her hands are clean of the blood spilt because she didn’t directly wield the axe is disgusting and hypocritical. Jesus would be ashamed. Might as well make Pontius Pilot a saint and the Sanhedrin absolutely innocent of Jesus crucifixion since they didn’t actually do it themselves.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Well here may be a reason why they could be different.
Intention.
If the intention is the same between the two murdered or tortured people, then there may not be a difference.
But if your intention in torturing a Christian is to disrupt the community of believers, to terrorize them, to dishearten them, or to rob the children of that tortured/murdered person of a father or mother, then the act of killing a Christian is far worse than a pagan.
If one sets out to kill a believer in God as a way to get back at God Himself, then far far worse is the crime.
If I slap a pope, only the pope or a pope can forgive me. The moral effects are greater.
Intention.
If the intention is the same between the two murdered or tortured people, then there may not be a difference.
But if your intention in torturing a Christian is to disrupt the community of believers, to terrorize them, to dishearten them, or to rob the children of that tortured/murdered person of a father or mother, then the act of killing a Christian is far worse than a pagan.
If one sets out to kill a believer in God as a way to get back at God Himself, then far far worse is the crime.
If I slap a pope, only the pope or a pope can forgive me. The moral effects are greater.
Last edited:
S
setarcos
Guest
Um…? Can we just suffice it to say that Jesus in no way shape or form encouraged the torture of another human being, Catholic or Pagan or animal for that matter, for any purpose?
E
Edward_H
Guest
He agreed to His own!
Death is not the worst thing.
Death is not the worst thing.
S
setarcos
Guest
My friend,
I believe Jesus didn’t agree with the situation, witness his pleading with his father to take the cup from him so that he may not have to drink from it. However he knew his torture must take place for our names sake. Remember…he said “thine will be done” not his own when he prayed to his father in heaven. No…Jesus was definitely against torture, even his own and his own torture was so that others might not have to suffer the tortures of hell. The Church should never advocate nor have agreed to the torture of a person in order to save their soul, this is satanic thinking. Christ took that burden from us and placed it upon himself. The only thing which can save a soul is the exercise of ones own free will without force.
I believe Jesus didn’t agree with the situation, witness his pleading with his father to take the cup from him so that he may not have to drink from it. However he knew his torture must take place for our names sake. Remember…he said “thine will be done” not his own when he prayed to his father in heaven. No…Jesus was definitely against torture, even his own and his own torture was so that others might not have to suffer the tortures of hell. The Church should never advocate nor have agreed to the torture of a person in order to save their soul, this is satanic thinking. Christ took that burden from us and placed it upon himself. The only thing which can save a soul is the exercise of ones own free will without force.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Jesus’s humanity naturally balked, but He clearly willed it over His natural appetites; He abandoned His will to the Father’s for a great purpose, our salvation.
And in so doing He ELEVATED death and taught us how to really love. He taught us that love is indeed sacrificial.
And in so doing He ELEVATED death and taught us how to really love. He taught us that love is indeed sacrificial.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.