What role should the Church have?

[el_gaucho]

How do you know what Christ said or did?

I don’t know. You don’t believe the Bible reports on these things?

What? So, if one likes to kill puppies and finds that makes them happy that serves some purpose?

Yeah, it serves a purpose that has harmful consequences, so it’s immoral.

I have no idea what that means?

Happiness exists psychologically (so it exists objectively), but it’s brought about in different ways for different people. If one person’s happiness equals another’s sorrow, then it cannot be permitted, etc. Happiness is fulfilled by both being able to do stuff and be permitted to do stuff. Practically, this is the public policy the leads us to greatest happiness for greatest # of people; in other words, utilitarianism.

Reason is an authority? What laws did reason ordain?

Laws that serve a laudable purpose, rather than an arbitrary one that serves the ruling class and Church hierarchy themselves.

Then why would you believe in God?

Uh, maybe I have a different concept of what constitutes God…? He’s immaterial to me.

 

[el_gaucho]

No, the Church has not “taught different things” over the course of history. Perhaps that is the crux of the problem, you do not properly understand what Doctrine is.

Yeah, it says the entire law is fulfilled or something to that effect. Basically, they say their laws are static when history indicates otherwise.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Paul said that homosexulas will not inehrit the kingdom of God.

What part of “will not inherit” do some people not understand?

 

[YinYangMom]

Conservative/Liberal in the sense of a static interpretation of God’s word or one that changes when the Church’s praxes produce bad results according to and understood by some kind of universalized maxim, which I contend is one solely of compassion. Respectively, of course.

God’s Word is universal Truth.
It cannot change.
Man’s interpretation is fallible.
The Church’s is not.

 

[Philthy]

Hi El Gaucho! :tiphat:

And that would indeed be a false dichotomy under normal circumstances; but I did not entertain that notion. It would be a true dichotomy, as indicated by the principle of excluded middle, that either Church teaching can change or it can’t. I didn’t posit a percentage or quantity, just that either it could or couldn’t. But if you accept that some Church teaching can change, how exactly can you dictate which ones can change?

Your attempt at forcing a choice here is misplaced IMHO.
You havent differentiated between substantive vs accidental changes in teachings, which renders the consideration of such changes meaningless.
You are also using vague terms (ie, Church “teaching”) where specific terms(Deposit, Dogma, Doctrine, Discipline) need to be employed in order for a meaningful choice to be made.
elgaucho:

I was using homosexuality and abortion as a reference point. I know what the Church teaching is – that homosexual acts are immoral opposed to the homosexuality that is indigenous to some people. I know the Church’s restrictive stance on abortion. These I know; but I do know that I, along with other Catholics, don’t profess them.

To knowingly “profess” them in direct opposition to the Church kinda calls into question your membership as a Catholic, dontcha think?
elgaucho:

I contend that Christ’s core message was one of compassion – one that could not hold any static rendition of God’s law in high esteem; and I consider it uncompassionate and illiberal to actively preach and endeavor for ends that damage and restrict people from pursuing happiness.

With all due respect, who cares what you think? Is it compassionate to allow people to engage in activities which are ultimately harmful to them and society as a whole? Who determines when an activity is, in fact, harmful and therefore when allowing someone to pursue it is uncompassionate? For some people “pursuing happiness” involves hurting other people through sexual abuse, monetary schemes and all sorts of things. What, exactly, is off limits - with respect to others and society as a whole- in the category of “pursuing happiness”. When such a determination is made is it fixed for all time or subject to the whim of current debate? I notice you are quite vague on how you determined that homosexuality and abortion are compassionate ends of pursuing happiness. On the contrary, God has revealed certain actions to always be sinful even though the degree of culpability of the individual performing them may vary.
elgaucho:

The intentions may be benign, but the actions sure aren’t. Abortion I can definitely see as being a more sensitive issue. But I reiterate: I was merely wishing to use it as a reference point. I do not wish to engage in an abortion debate because it can be effectively argued that the most compassionate stance is on either side of the debate, which is why it is unfit for this debate.

Actually, what that proves is that your concept of being “compassionate in pursuing happiness” cannot be determined by debate. If it can be effectively argued on either side of the debate, then what do you propose we do? Nothing?! Do whatever feels good? Take no stance either way since our intellect leads us to a draw? C’mon, be real - that’s simply not workable. This brings us to the most glaring omission from the original poll: The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. While you may disagree with how the Church accomplishes this role in the course of history, it at least is a system which is reasonable and pragmatic - unlike your proposal.

 

[1ke]

Yeah, it says the entire law is fulfilled or something to that effect. Basically, they say their laws are static when history indicates otherwise.

As I said, you still confuse church law (canon law, discipline) and church doctrine (the divine law), which are not the same thing.

Perhaps you can give an example?

 

[el_gaucho]

Hi El Gaucho! :tiphat:

Hello there.

Your attempt at forcing a choice here is misplaced IMHO. You havent differentiated between substantive vs accidental changes in teachings, which renders the consideration of such changes meaningless.

If it’s accidental, [and still fulfills the definition of “change”] then doesn’t that refute Church infallibility? And was the change of Church policy to actively persecute heretics to respecting their rights accidental or substantive?

You are also using vague terms (ie, Church “teaching”) where specific terms(Deposit, Dogma, Doctrine, Discipline) need to be employed in order for a meaningful choice to be made.

It’s condensed so as to be less pedantic. “Teachings” here encompasses all the things you listed, and when I use it can apply to all or one or two of the things listed.

To knowingly “profess” them in direct opposition to the Church kinda calls into question your membership as a Catholic, dontcha think? [/qutoe]

Not necessarily. A range of sentiment exists within Catholicism. But by all means consider me what you want.
Philthy;2506581:

With all due respect, who cares what you think?

I do.

Is it compassionate to allow people to engage in activities which are ultimately harmful to them and society as a whole?

Nope, which is why, say, murder isn’t allowed. But homosexuality is not “ultimately harmful to [homosexuals] and society as a whole.” That’s absurd.

Who determines when an activity is, in fact, harmful and therefore when allowing someone to pursue it is uncompassionate?

I guess you would answer the Church…? I already explained my answer many posts ago.

For some people “pursuing happiness” involves hurting other people through sexual abuse, monetary schemes and all sorts of things.

Right. Which is why “my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.”

I notice you are quite vague on how you determined that homosexuality and abortion are compassionate ends of pursuing happiness.

The former is. The latter I never claimed to be a “compassionate end to pursue happiness.” It’s compassionate to respect and even better to embrace someone’s pursuit of happiness if it hurts no one.

On the contrary, God has revealed certain actions to always be sinful even though the degree of culpability of the individual performing them may vary.

God hasn’t revealed that to me. I suppose he’s revealed that to you?

Actually, what that proves is that your concept of being “compassionate in pursuing happiness” cannot be determined by debate. If it can be effectively argued on either side of the debate, then what do you propose we do? Nothing?! Do whatever feels good? Take no stance either way since our intellect leads us to a draw? C’mon, be real - that’s simply not workable. This brings us to the most glaring omission from the original poll: The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. While you may disagree with how the Church accomplishes this role in the course of history, it at least is a system which is reasonable and pragmatic - unlike your proposal.

Well, that’s quite a non sequitur – if something cannot be determined by debate, we should defer to dogma.

 

[fix]

I don’t know. You don’t believe the Bible reports on these things?

You do not know? How is that logical? I accept the bible based on the authority of the Church.

Yeah, it serves a purpose that has harmful consequences, so it’s immoral.

You have not adequately defined harm or happiness, yet you claim certain acts are good or bad. Seems arbitrary.

Happiness exists psychologically (so it exists objectively),

You mean the emotion of happiness exists?

but it’s brought about in different ways for different people.

Right. The sense of a pleasurable feeling is not itself good or bad. It is the antecedent action that determines if that sensation is good or bad.

If one person’s happiness equals another’s sorrow, then it cannot be permitted, etc. Happiness is fulfilled by both being able to do stuff and be permitted to do stuff. Practically, this is the public policy the leads us to greatest happiness for greatest # of people; in other words, utilitarianism.

That is utilitarianism. That system of thought is corrupt and inconsistent with the good of man and the will of God.

Laws that serve a laudable purpose, rather than an arbitrary one that serves the ruling class and Church hierarchy themselves.

And what objective yardstick do you choose? So, far you have claimed materialism, utilitariansim, relativism all of which are not consistent with objective truth. Truth being a person, not a system of false belief.

Uh, maybe I have a different concept of what constitutes God…? He’s immaterial to me.

If He is not material what is the proof He exists?

 

[fix]

Have you read Veritatis splendor?

 

[YinYangMom]

I contend that Christ’s core message was one of compassion – one that could not hold any static rendition of God’s law in high esteem; and I consider it uncompassionate and illiberal to actively preach and endeavor for ends that damage and restrict people from pursuing happiness.

God created each of us in His image.
God is love.
Our happiness is found in Him.
So the only path to happiness is to follow the Truth to its source: God/Jesus Christ.
The role of Christ’s Church is to lead all people into this Truth and thus achieve **happiness **(blessedness, I suppose, if you look at the beatitudes).

Man’s distortion of truth masked in the ‘solution’ to ‘happiness’ is the work of the devil, plain and simple.

Heterosexual couples engaging in premarital sex will not find true happiness through their sex life.
Homosexual couples engaging in sexual relations will not find true happiness through their sexual encounters.
Women who have had abortions will not find true happiness through this procedure.
People motivated by greed and power will not find true happiness.

True happiness is found only in Christ and living one’s life according to the will of the Father, our Creator.

 

[el_gaucho]

You do not know? How is that logical? I accept the bible based on the authority of the Church.

When the Bible quotes Jesus, do you believe those are his actual words?

You have not adequately defined harm or happiness, yet you claim certain acts are good or bad. Seems arbitrary.

No; certain acts tend toward good or evil. And good and evil are measured by the good or harm they bring about. It’s actually less arbitrary than deferring to any dogmatic work for an absolute morality system.

You mean the emotion of happiness exists?

Yes. Happiness is a product of the material sensations in the mind that produce it. In this way happiness objectively exists in the same way as these sensations exist.

Right. The sense of a pleasurable feeling is not itself good or bad. It is the antecedent action that determines if that sensation is good or bad.

I see no problem with this reasoning, and in fact this contradicts nothing I said. If the antecedent action produces suffering in another person, then it is evil, as this emotion objectively exists in the same way happiness does.

That is utilitarianism. That system of thought is corrupt and inconsistent with the good of man and the will of God.

Forgive me if I don’t simply take your word for it.

And what objective yardstick do you choose? So, far you have claimed materialism, utilitariansim, relativism all of which are not consistent with objective truth. Truth being a person, not a system of false belief.

Yes, I’m a follower of all three of those.

If He is not material what is the proof He exists?

Who said there is proof? I know I didn’t.

 

[el_gaucho]

God created each of us in His image.
God is love.
Our happiness is found in Him.
So the only path to happiness is to follow the Truth to its source: God/Jesus Christ.
The role of Christ’s Church is to lead all people into this Truth and thus achieve **happiness **(blessedness, I suppose, if you look at the beatitudes).

Man’s distortion of truth masked in the ‘solution’ to ‘happiness’ is the work of the devil, plain and simple.

This is a comic book view of reality. Why should happiness in actions that don’t adversely affect others be mutually exclusive from God’s happiness?

Heterosexual couples engaging in premarital sex will not find true happiness through their sex life.
Homosexual couples engaging in sexual relations will not find true happiness through their sexual encounters.
Women who have had abortions will not find true happiness through this procedure.
People motivated by greed and power will not find true happiness.

True happiness is found only in Christ and living one’s life according to the will of the Father, our Creator.

Who are you to tell people what makes them happy?

 

[YinYangMom]

If God has communicated to us the full essence of objective truth, then why is it ambiguous? And don’t say the Church teaches objective truth; it’s taught different things over the course of history. Hardly objective. Unless objective truth is static and contingent upon Church teaching somehow?

As a Christian you are familiar with scripture.
God didn’t communicate to us (as in you and me) the full essence of objective truth.

He sent the Holy Spirit to reveal that to the apostles on Pentecost after He ascended into heaven.

Jesus instituted the Church and the priesthood of that church at the last supper for the sole purpose of receiving this Truth and then charged them with the responsibility to protect, preserve and share it will all people.

He didn’t reveal it to you or me except thru His Church via Oral Tradition and later, Scripture (though Scripture does not contain the full essence of all that was revealed at Pentecost, only that which was deemed by God to be preserved in writing).

 

[YinYangMom]

Yeah, it serves a purpose that has harmful consequences, so it’s immoral.

Who defines what is harmful?
Perhaps it is harmful to the animal but if it makes the person doing the killing happy it isn’t harmful to the person, so who determines the happiness of the human supercedes that of the animal?

Laws that serve a laudable purpose, rather than an arbitrary one that serves the ruling class and Church hierarchy themselves.

Who defines ‘laudable’?

Uh, maybe I have a different concept of what constitutes God…? He’s immaterial to me.

Wait up. How does a Christian consider God, without whom you would not even exist let alone be able to think or reason, consider God immaterial???

 

[el_gaucho]

Who defines what is harmful?
Perhaps it is harmful to the animal but if it makes the person doing the killing happy it isn’t harmful to the person, so who determines the happiness of the human supercedes that of the animal?

Who defines ‘laudable’?

Okay. If we can agree upon the maxim of greatest good for greatest number of people and can agree upon other moderating rules to an otherwise unchecked utilitarian system, then we can arrive at what is laudable and what is acceptable by our defined standards. Take note that I’m not proposing a system that’s built on any material conditions. It’s purely *practical *and agreed upon by people. Sure, there’ll be people who cannot accept it, just as with any moral system. But the majority here adopts the maxim. It’s almost democratic morality now, as opposed to hierarchical morality that serves the interests of… (you guessed it) the hierarchy, and ruling class.

Wait up. How does a Christian consider God, without whom you would not even exist let alone be able to think or reason, consider God immaterial???

Immaterial in that God has no material manifestations and therefore exists only in concept. I didn’t mean immaterial as in irrelevant.

 

[YinYangMom]

This is a comic book view of reality. Why should happiness in actions that don’t adversely affect others be mutually exclusive from God’s happiness?

You are forgetting the most essential part of the equation.
This life is but a journey.
Our goal is to reach the Kingdom of God to spend eternity with our Creator.
We were not created for this world, but for heaven.
We have our jobs to do here in this world with the time we are given.
We find our meaning for our existence in this realm of the universe through God.
We are created to know Him, love Him and serve Him.
He works through us for the greater good of all mankind.
It is not our own will that matters, only His.

Who are you to tell people what makes them happy?

I’m not ‘telling’ anyone anything. I am stating facts.

There are many, many testimonials of people living those lifestyles who will attest to still feeling empty inside, still seeking happiness elsewhere (affairs, alcohol, drugs, etc.)
Even married couples cannot find happiness in their sexual life if the source of that interaction is lust or dominion. Mutual respect for each other, for human dignity and for God within marital relations is what brings true happiness.

The fact is, when we choose our will over that of the Lord’s and our will goes against His teachings there’s no way we can find happiness in those actions. Any ‘happiness’ we may experience will be fleeting at best, but certainly not fulfilling or lasting.

That’s just the way He created us.

 

[el_gaucho]

I’m not ‘telling’ anyone anything. I am stating facts.

They’re not in any way factual.

There are many, many testimonials of people living those lifestyles who will attest to still feeling empty inside, still seeking happiness elsewhere (affairs, alcohol, drugs, etc.)

And there are many people who live lifestyles devoted to God who feel just as empty.

Even married couples cannot find happiness in their sexual life if the source of that interaction is lust or dominion. Mutual respect for each other, for human dignity and for God within marital relations is what brings true happiness.

Why are lust and love mutually exclusive?

The fact is, when we choose our will over that of the Lord’s and our will goes against His teachings there’s no way we can find happiness in those actions. Any ‘happiness’ we may experience will be fleeting at best, but certainly not fulfilling or lasting.

That’s just the way He created us.

Happiness in this world is finite. Of course I knew that.

 

[1ke]

Immaterial in that God has no material manifestations and therefore exists only in concept.

Do you acknowledge that God is a (real) Trinity of Persons who share one Divine Nature?

You have not given an example of Church doctrine that has “changed”.

 

[Philthy]

Well, I was hoping my appeals would be perceived as appeals to the axiomatic. I cannot prove Christ’s intentions; I can only show his words and deeds. If this were not Christ’s core message–but rather it were something else–I would not consider myself a Christian.

When you define something as axiomatic, does that necessitate that it is actually true? Y or N, please.
el gaucho:

However we wish to understand it, really. Again, I’m trying to both visualize and appeal to a morality that serves the happiness of which I’m sure everyone here has a good enough conception.

Is morality materialistic and scientifically and empirically verifiable? Y or N, please
el gaucho:

Psychologically, it can be indicated, but it certainly is engendered by different stimuli for everyone. I say both positive and negative liberty lead us to a greater realization of happiness and are the only pragmatic conclusions for the attainment of such an end.

Please give an example of a negative liberty which leads to happiness.
el gaucho:
I am not the authority, but neither is the Church. Reason is both the authority and God-given, and that’s what I appeal to.

Is reason materialistic? When you appeal to “it”, do you appeal to it in a particular individual (ie yourself) or to another? On what basis do you make this selection?
el gaucho:

I am a materialist in that I believe everything can be understood scientifically and empirically as material phenomena.

Yes you are, and you have some work cut out for you!

 

[el_gaucho]

Do you acknowledge that God is a (real) Trinity of Persons who share one Divine Nature?

No, I don’t believe that.

You have not given an example of Church doctrine that has “changed”.

With Vatican II came a new one said non-Catholics could attain salvation if they’ve lived a good life, something not previously taught.