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

[larkin31]

Incidentally, saying “sin is a subjective judgment” is an objective statement, yes?

oh, my

no, it is not

all you seem to be doing now is trying to trap me in some sort of semantic game. Otherwise, you should just simply claim that EVERY declarative sentence is an “objective statement” and go on home.

 

[PRmerger]

oh, my

no, it is not

all you seem to be doing now is trying to trap me in some sort of semantic game. Otherwise, you should just simply claim that EVERY declarative sentence is an “objective statement” and go on home.

Larkin, I am not trying to “trap” you into any sort of semantics game. If you feel that you can’t dialogue with someone on the CAFs without accusing them of chicanery, then you will not go far in presenting your views.

We are having a dialogue, pure and simple. No need for you to threaten to take your ball and go home.

As for my question: it is a very good question. It makes quite obvious the fact that while you deny Believers (specifically, Catholics) the right to have objective truths, you allow yourself that luxury.

I am simply point that out.

 

[PRmerger]

This is a prediction about a future action. It is not a “judgment” of the ethics of a situation.

LOL! And your example? Was the hot/cold situation an example of “the ethics of a situation”? Not quite.

My example was to show that even if one denies an objective truth, it’s going to come back and bite him.

The analogy isn’t very apt. The work of gravity is understood from thousands of days of living and millions of events governed by the fully evident physical force. We were discussing “ethics” and “sin”, not probability of outcomes determined by physical laws over material existence.

So here’s the essence of our disagreement: I believe that “ethics” and “sin” have objective data, in the same way that gravity has objective data.

 

[PRmerger]

“true”?

Yes. Is it true that women ought not be educated. The consensus in some areas of the world is: yes.

Because the consensus has agreed, you believe that “women ought not be educated.”?

Really, Larkin? That’s the logical conclusion of your premise that “what we look for in societies is consensus”

Look, are you trying to make a case for absolute standards? If so, then just say so.

I say so.

I can’t tell what you mean by these abstract terms like “right” and “true” when one is talking about making judgments. When I decide that my steak tastes bad, is that “true”? What difference does that make?

But when you decide that “steak is a vegetable” you are clearly…

WRONG!

I consider it “wrong” to purposely NOT educate an entire gender, but it is not because I appeal to an unspoken, indeterminable absolute standard out there somewhere. I have a hierarchy of values, and, as a teacher, I put equity of treatment toward children higher than I care about equity of treatment of adults.

Ok. But you just said that right or wrong is determined by consensus. It seems to contradict your statement above.

You seem to be trying to push ethical decision making–which is actually often very complex–into some sort of logical yes/no or right/wrong box without yourself giving any definitions of the standards to measure by.

Yes, ethical decision making isvery complex.

Here’s my yes or no question: can something be a sin, yet not a sin at the same time?

 

[larkin31]

Here’s my yes or no question: can something be a sin, yet not a sin at the same time?

Do you mean by “sin” a “wrong in the eyes of God”? Or do you mean “an ethical wrong in the eyes of a society”?

 

[larkin31]

Yes. Is it true that women ought not be educated. The consensus in some areas of the world is: yes.

Because the consensus has agreed, you believe that “women ought not be educated.”?

Really, Larkin? That’s the logical conclusion of your premise that “what we look for in societies is consensus”

No. I do not always “believe in” the consensus of society. But yes, in those societies, the “right” and “wrong” have been determined on that matter. But I don’t agree. And since morality (and religion, for that matter) is very often a function of geography and culture, and since I was born in the US and still live here, fortunately I do not have to fight this battle for what I think is right.

But when you decide that “steak is a vegetable” you are clearly…

WRONG!

This is a definitional claim, not a matter of moral judgment. You keep leaving the category of moral judgment to make your analogies, but you should not.

Ok. But you just said that right or wrong is determined by consensus. It seems to contradict your statement above.

You are reading this too simplistically. Ethics are not simple yes/no questions in many many cases.

Here’s my yes or no question: can something be a sin, yet not a sin at the same time?

Yes, the same way that 65 F can be thought both “hot” and “cold”. It’s all context, baby.

 

[jmcrae]

Nothing, and I can’t imagine how this would be a sin or even immoral.

The destruction of lives and families in the wake of this activity is just pure bad luck, then?

 

[jmcrae]

Again, what do you mean by “right”? In accordance with what?

In accordance with whether they are orienting themselves towards, or away from, God’s Kingdom, and in accordance with the long-term good or harm they are doing to themselves and to other people.

 

[jmcrae]

“true”?

Look, are you trying to make a case for absolute standards? If so, then just say so. I can’t tell what you mean by these abstract terms like “right” and “true” when one is talking about making judgments. When I decide that my steak tastes bad, is that “true”? What difference does that make?

If your steak has been poisoned, either accidentally or on purpose, it will “taste bad” and the bad taste is not merely a subjective opinion - it’s a warning to you through your senses that you are about to come to harm.

If you say “This steak tastes bad” the proper reaction of your companions is to have it taken away, and something else brought for you to eat. This isn’t merely for your vanity - it is for your safety.

 

[Mayita30]

Now I believe church is very important. But on the other hand a church is not a building or a building with a altar and fancy art. A church can be anyplace, in your home, outside, in a barn, I’ve even seen a priest hold services form the tailgate of a truck. Church is where ever you choose to worship God. I don’t think God is impressed or even cares that you choose to worship in a big fancy church. When Jesus had the sermon on the mount, was it in a church [building] or was it out in the open? I do church services in a nursing home dining room. Does that make it any less then a fancy place? Do the people that come to the services not get the same kind of worship that they would get if they went of a fancy church.Are they not worshiping and honoring God in that dining room? Isn’t the main idea behind church to worship God, to praise and honor God. Isn’t God always with us as long as we believe in him and accept him? Where does it say in the Bible that you must go to a fancy church [building] to worship him?

Jesus was a Jew and the Jews during that time went to temples/synagogue to worship God. It is very important that we go to Church just like what the early Christians did!

 

[RobBahoura]

Because they believe in solo scripture and they don’t think the church is really the body and blood of Christ. I hope they realize the church came before the bible and it is the pillar and foundation of the truth 1 Timothy 3:15

 

[larkin31]

If your steak has been poisoned, either accidentally or on purpose, it will “taste bad” and the bad taste is not merely a subjective opinion - it’s a warning to you through your senses that you are about to come to harm.

If you say “This steak tastes bad” the proper reaction of your companions is to have it taken away, and something else brought for you to eat. This isn’t merely for your vanity - it is for your safety.

Sometimes, this might be true. But I meant more in the judgment realm of “rare” vs “medium”.

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.

 

[tweetymom]

And the Holy Spirit does not keep us dumb and uneducated. The Lord wants to provide the best for us, He wants us to grow and be better.

The Holy Spirit works through Church theologians that help us understand the Word of God in the current problems we are facing today, such as stem cell research.

I see the best theological teachings come from the Catholic church that draw on all aspects of society. The Lord did not leave us orphans and ignorant.

We share insights that carry alot of meaning that can further dialog and understanding, Tweety, but your comments …they don’t lead to much sense you are even bothering to fully understand them.

Thank you so very much for your kindness. I feel Gods love.

 

[tweetymom]

“true”?

Look, are you trying to make a case for absolute standards? If so, then just say so. I can’t tell what you mean by these abstract terms like “right” and “true” when one is talking about making judgments. When I decide that my steak tastes bad, is that “true”? What difference does that make?

I consider it “wrong” to purposely NOT educate an entire gender, but it is not because I appeal to an unspoken, indeterminable absolute standard out there somewhere. I have a hierarchy of values, and, as a teacher, I put equity of treatment toward children higher than I care about equity of treatment of adults.

You seem to be trying to push ethical decision making–which is actually often very complex–into some sort of logical yes/no or right/wrong box without yourself giving any definitions of the standards to measure by.

Better be careful larkin, or you might be told you don’t make sense like I was!

 

[PRmerger]

Do you mean by “sin” a “wrong in the eyes of God”? Or do you mean “an ethical wrong in the eyes of a society”?

Sin is doing wrong and ethics is the process we use to discern what’s wrong or right.

(Semantics are important, aren’t they, Larkin?)

 

[PRmerger]

Better be careful larkin, or you might be told you don’t make sense like I was!

I’d just like to know if you’re now willing to admit that non-Catholics end up making themselves the ultimate decider of what’s right or wrong, since God has not spoken on a multitude of modern day moral issues? Will you concede that, tweety?

 

[PRmerger]

No. I do not always “believe in” the consensus of society. But yes, in those societies, the “right” and “wrong” have been determined on that matter. But I don’t agree. And since morality (and religion, for that matter) is very often a function of geography and culture, and since I was born in the US and still live here, fortunately I do not have to fight this battle for what I think is right.

So are you saying that your morality comes from the consensus of the society in which you live?

This is a definitional claim, not a matter of moral judgment. You keep leaving the category of moral judgment to make your analogies, but you should not.

Why shouldn’t I?

As I stated before, I believe that both have objective data.

Yes, the same way that 65 F can be thought both “hot” and “cold”. It’s all context, baby.

Yes, some things are indeed subjective.

Some things are not. Like morality. Like sin. Like steak being a meat and not a vegetable.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Huh? Please explain!

The “fruit in the Garden” was neither bad nor good. It has no moral properties whatsoever.

 

[larkin31]

Sin is doing wrong and ethics is the process we use to discern what’s wrong or right.

(Semantics are important, aren’t they, Larkin?)

This is all you have to say in defining “sin”? It is “doing wrong”? That’s it? Like, 1 + 1 = 3 is a sin?

 

[larkin31]

I’d just like to know if you’re now willing to admit that non-Catholics end up making themselves the ultimate decider of what’s right or wrong, since God has not spoken on a multitude of modern day moral issues? Will you concede that, tweety?

from my point of view, humans–either collectively or individually–ALWAYS are the ultimate arbiters of “right and wrong.” They define it, enshrine it, promote it, change it, enforce it. No matter what religion, no matter what region of the world. I will freely acknowledge this and ask for any evidence of any other kind of standard.