Why do so many protestants not consider church attendance an important part of their faith?

[larkin31]

No, Larkin. This would be a tautology: “Stealing is wrong because it is theft”.

This is an insightful true statement:
Every manner of taking and using another’s property unjustly is contrary to the seventh commandment. The injustice committed requires reparation. Commutative justice requires the restitution of stolen goods. CCC2454

[SIGN]This is true always and for everyone. That is, an “absolute truth”.[/SIGN]

Great. Then you see that bringing up the Catechism and what parts of it are infallible teaching is a non sequitor and has nothing to do with our dialogue here.

“Injustice is wrong because it is unjust” is the basis of what you wrote. It begs the question, “Well, what exactly is ‘unjust’?”

I would imagine that “absolute Truth” is unchanging. And the Catechism does change and is not infallible (at least in part). So to quote the Catechism as an example of “absolute Truth” seems suspect to me. Or at least hit-or-miss.

Again, I agree that injustice is unjust, and that sin is sin, and that evil is evil. These aren’t much to work with, but I agree that 1=1, too. No matter who says, anywhere on the planet, at any time in history.

 

[larkin31]

I see.

Perhaps, then, you should have also deleted these other postings which, although not as egregiously ridiculous as “The story changed the animal”, clearly fall into the same “grasping at straws” response.

-After you gave your hot/cold example, you responded:
We were discussing “ethics” and “sin”
I’m pretty sure hot/cold does not fall into the “ethics” and “sin” category.

and

-you claimed that a fruit can be good and bad, at the same time. A fruit!
“Again, the question was, can something be both bad and good at the same time. The answer is YES–like that fruit in the Garden” :whacky:

I wrote about the Zen symbol of the explanation of the co-existence of contraries. Did you read it? The idea that something can be two contrary qualities at the same time is not new, nor profound, nor even complicated. Jesus said, “I am the alpha and the omega”. Shall we try trap him in a logical error for that one?

 

[larkin31]

May be you should find some teachings and stories about St. Francis of Assisi. His "Little Flowers of St. Francis’ are from the heart and soul of an innocent, and with so much humor. I laughed alot at the stories…true ones.

He called the sun and moon and all creatures, as well as the earth, water, and sky his brothers and sisters. The animals loved him…there is a story of the wolf of Gubbio…

Have you ever heard of him? He is the person replicated in the statues you see in garden shops…a monk wearing a habit holding a bird…St. Joseph carries Baby Jesus or holds a long stem lily, representing his chastity in caring for the Holy Family.

Yes…St. Francis may be able to show you more on a different level…his detachment brings one into the kingdom of Christ…you don’t have much but you are so integrated with the world around you. At Christmas, during the night, St. Francis asked all the people to come. He made a little stable. And there in the straw was a little statue of Baby Jesus. When the people came, he personified the Christ Child in the statue, and picked it up and with great solemnity brought it to the people to touch.

My Franciscan friend sent me a picture from Christmas with the sentiment of an Italian…the school children were surrounding the infant Jesus personified in the statue…and all these hands formed like a pyramid around him…so that the tallest reach of hands were near the top…I would like to turn it into a Christmas card.

PM and I will try to email it to you.

If you could leave out the believe-in-God part, I would be more interested.

but this is interesting, thanks

 

[PRmerger]

“Injustice is wrong because it is unjust” is the basis of what you wrote.

No. The moral principle states: if you take something that you have no right to, then it is stealing.

Again, the tautology would be stated as: if you steal something that is theft.
Redundant and uninsightful.

It begs the question, “Well, what exactly is ‘unjust’?”

Firstly, do you actually mean “prompts the question?” Because you are using the philosophical phrase, “begs the question” which actually means: to take for granted or assume the truth of the very thing being questioned. For example, Shopping now for a dress to wear to the ceremony is really begging the question–she hasn’t been invited yet. This phrase, whose roots are in Aristotle’s writings on logic, came into English in the late 1500s.

As for what’s unjust? It’s that which you don’t deserve.

 

[PRmerger]

I wrote about the Zen symbol of the explanation of the co-existence of contraries.

So please give me an example of something that you have examined and concluded is ethically wrong, and another person looks at and concludes it’s perfectly acceptable.

Then tell me if you’re both right–it’s morally acceptable AND immoral at the same time.

Did you read it? The idea that something can be two contrary qualities at the same time is not new, nor profound, nor even complicated. Jesus said, “I am the alpha and the omega”. Shall we try trap him in a logical error for that one?

Principle of non-contradiction states this, Larkin: something cannot be A and not-A at the same time.

So, to trap Jesus you could say, “How can you be the alpha and not the alpha at the same time?”

But to say “I am the alpha and the omega” clearly does not violate any principle of logic.

 

[larkin31]

No. The moral principle states: if you take something that you have no right to, then it is stealing.

You must know by now that I have been asking you to define “unjust”. Now you have added that “unjust” in this case means “not having a right to” or “that which one does not deserve.” Which “prompts” the next question, of course.

My whole interest in this is to see what is offered as an “absolute Truth” on this matter. So far, I am not very impressed. The only “absolute Truth” you have offered is a quotation from church document that is not considered infallible and is altered over time. I actually agree with the church definition here, but it does not appear to be “an absolute Truth” except in the most general form of “the bad kind of taking of another’s property is bad”.

 

[larkin31]

…Principle of non-contradiction states this, Larkin: something cannot be A and not-A at the same time.

So, to trap Jesus you could say, “How can you be the alpha and not the alpha at the same time?”

But to say “I am the alpha and the omega” clearly does not violate any principle of logic.

well, that is convenient

“I am both young and quite not-young”. This is incredibly unpoetic, but nearly the same as “I am both young and old.”

Again, I wrote out my entire explanation sincerely with the Zen approach. You have not really said a word about it in reply. Life, outside of the hermetic world of logical absolutes and mathematics, frequently and naturally contains contraries. Jesus is both “beginning” and “opposite of beginning” (if you want to ruin the art).

This is getting boring, and no one else seems to care enough about this conversation to add anything.

 

[SSTeacher]

This is getting boring, and no one else seems to care enough about this conversation to add anything.

I’ve been following it, nevertheless.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[jmcrae]

well, that is convenient

“I am both young and quite not-young”. This is incredibly unpoetic, but nearly the same as “I am both young and old.”

Again, I wrote out my entire explanation sincerely with the Zen approach. You have not really said a word about it in reply. Life, outside of the hermetic world of logical absolutes and mathematics, frequently and naturally contains contraries. Jesus is both “beginning” and “opposite of beginning” (if you want to ruin the art).

This is getting boring, and no one else seems to care enough about this conversation to add anything.

What has any of this got to do with Protestant attitudes to church attendance?

 

[PRmerger]

This is getting boring, and no one else seems to care enough about this conversation to add anything.

Well, if you quit now then it’s quite clear that this dialogue has gotten too confusing for you to continue to defend: it can be a sin and not a sin at the same time.

 

[tweetymom]

I’ve been following it, nevertheless.

Cordially,
Mick

Me to Larkin

 

[PRmerger]

So please give me an example of something that you have examined and concluded is ethically wrong, and another person looks at and concludes it’s perfectly acceptable.

Then tell me if you’re both right–it’s morally acceptable AND immoral at the same time.

[SIGN1]I hope that Larkin does not quit the dialogue before answering my above questions.[/SIGN1]

 

[larkin31]

What has any of this got to do with Protestant attitudes to church attendance?

Not a thing. Sorry about that. Ennui has settled in for me.

You may return to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[larkin31]

I’ve been following it, nevertheless.

Cordially,
Mick

Thanks, Mick. A good day to you, too.

 

[itinerant1]

Q: Why do so many protestants not consider church attendance an important part of their faith?

A: Because when your a Protestant what difference does it matter which church you stay home from?

 

[KathleenGee]

As a Catholic we are required to go to Sunday Mass, that is the greatest feastday of the church. At common Sunday Mass, the fullness of Jesus Christ is present, the same as He was at His Resurrection, breaking the power over death and sin.

Sunday Mass is our time to come to the Lord, and to each other, to affirm who we are in Him. And for this, it is a grave sin for Catholics to miss Mass. We are nourished here on His Body and Blood that extends to all, and we are made one with each other through this Communion.