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

[tweetymom]

And what does God say about embryonic stem cell research?

I don’t think God has said anything and what does that haveto do with the subject at hand? Maybe you know ?

 

[larkin31]

And what does God say about embryonic stem cell research?

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

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think God has said anything

'zactly.

So, since God has not said anything (directly) about embryonic stem cell research, how do you know whether it’s a sin or not?

nd what does that haveto do with the subject at hand? Maybe you know ?

It has to do my question: who decides whether something is a sin or not.
You responded: God.
My question is, then, how do you know what God believes about certain issues.

Now, Catholics, of course, can claim they know this.

But non-Catholics…how do they know what God says about it? Scripture mentions NOTHING about it, as you rightly understand.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Since God, as you say, has said nothing on the subject, do you assume it’s allowed, or not allowed? And what Scripture verse tells you this–that we assume something is allowed by default, unless God prohibits it?

 

[tweetymom]

'zactly.

So, since God has not said anything (directly) about embryonic stem cell research, how do you know whether it’s a sin or not?

It has to do my question: who decides whether something is a sin or not.
You responded: God.
My question is, then, how do you know what God believes about certain issues.

Now, Catholics, of course, can claim they know this.

But non-Catholics…how do they know what God says about it? Scripture mentions NOTHING about it, as you rightly understand.

Well it is not a sin and if it helps people I say go for it. I know God because I pray and study daily. I am pleased that you think the way yoi do and if it works for you God Bless. But as for me and otther non Catholics iot does’t work for me.

I am a child of the King and am saved by His glory.

 

[larkin31]

Since God, as you say, has said nothing on the subject, do you assume it’s allowed, or not allowed? And what Scripture verse tells you this–that we assume something is allowed unless, by default, God prohibits it?

Neither.

I examine an event or behavior through several lenses, including a theological one, and look at motivations, consequences (evidence of harm), and other cultural or historical or religious parallels. I have no apriori assumption either way.

 

[PJM]

=tweetymom;6590536]For you and that is great!! But My understanding of God is no different.

Thanks:thumbsup:

That is precisely the point I am making. You know of no differences; therefore “none can exist.” WRONG.

**Matt.15: 16 **"And he said, “Are you also still without understanding?”

It’s NOT entirely your own fault.

**1Kgs.4: 29 **“And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding beyond measure, and largeness of mind like the sand on the seashore,”

Job.11: 16 “and that he would tell you the secrets of wisdom! For he is manifold in understanding. Know then that God exacts of you less than your guilt deserves.”

**Job.17: 4 **“Since thou hast closed their minds to understanding, therefore thou wilt not let them triumph.”

**Jer.3: 15 **"`And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding."

Dan.2: 21 “He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings;
he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;”

**Matt.11: 25 **"At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; "

Luke.10: 21 "In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.”

On Matter of faith and morals all the truth resides with in the CC. Such is God’s Will. John 17:14-19; Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18, Matt. 28:19-20.

Love and prayers,

 

[PRmerger]

Well it is not a sin and if it helps people I say go for it. I know God because I pray and study daily.

So, it sounds like you are the ultimate decider of what’s a sin, then? Since God has said NOTHING (directly) about a multitude of modern-day issues, then it is up to each individual to decide?

I am a child of the King and am saved by His glory.

Amen, tweety, amen!

 

[PRmerger]

Neither.

I examine an event or behavior through several lenses, including a theological one, and look at motivations, consequences (evidence of harm), and other cultural or historical or religious parallels. I have no apriori assumption either way.

So if one person “examines an event or behavior through several lenses, including a theological one, and look at motivations, consequences (evidence of harm), and other cultural or historical or religious parallels” and decides that “__" is not a sin, and another person looks at that same issue in the same way and decides "” IS a sin, they’re both correct?

 

[larkin31]

So if one person “examines an event or behavior through several lenses, including a theological one, and look at motivations, consequences (evidence of harm), and other cultural or historical or religious parallels” and decides that “__" is not a sin, and another person looks at that same issue in the same way and decides "” IS a sin, they’re both correct?

What do you mean by “correct”? Do you mean whether I agree with one or the other? I might disagree with both. I am not sure I follow your point. Could you be more direct?

 

[PRmerger]

What do you mean by “correct”? Do you mean whether I agree with one or the other? I might disagree with both. I am not sure I follow your point. Could you be more direct?

If 2 people look at the same issue and examine it theologically and prayerfully, and come to contrary conclusions, can they both be right? How can it be a sin and not a sin at the same time? One of them is incorrect, yes?

 

[KathleenGee]

I am concerned, though, when people are hearing the truth, and deliberately refuse it as our teachings come from Christ Himself.

If you believe only in the bible, first you are denying the source who put it together – the Church, then you also do the same by picking and choosing what you want to believe.

If you deny wanting to study the truth of the Church and how it came to be but hold on to incorrect ideas as well, then that is another issue on your part.

So people should be careful about how much they take on…and the truth you are told…we are all being told truth about the Lord every day in many forms, and when we block out the truth, we put our ownselves in judgment…I say that for myself.

 

[KathleenGee]

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.

 

[larkin31]

If 2 people look at the same issue and examine it theologically and prayerfully, and come to contrary conclusions, can they both be right? How can it be a sin and not a sin at the same time? One of them is incorrect, yes?

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

I consider “sin” to be a human term that is a judgment based on several factors of consideration (which I listed above).

Two persons are outside. One says it is hot out. The other says it is cold. The temperature is 65 F. Neither one is “right” or “wrong” since they were expressing a subjective judgment based on several (name removed by moderator)uts and a context of past experience. “Sin” is a subjective judgment like “hot” or “cold”. What we look for in societies is consensus, the same ways that religious organizations work out the interpretations of their religious texts.

 

[KathleenGee]

Larkin,

That is why Christ did not just leave, but instituted His church, ‘Peter, you are the rock upon which my Church will be built’…the everybody else is ignoring here…as well as all its attributes.

You cannot arbitrate anything of Who Christ is…although people have while He lived and after He ascended into heaven. We also have the sacraments that are concrete.

And the Church did not suddenly appear per se…it took hundreds of years to put the Bible together as well as develop the Church because it is a human institution…grace works through nature…and it makes mistakes, goes backwards at points, but goes forward. It is the work of many people, not just one or two…but the representation of all peoples and cultures represented by their bishops…it is a complex organization and easily misunderstood as well…as Christ, the only perfect one, was.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin…And the Church did not suddenly appear per se…it took hundreds of years to put the Bible together as well as develop the Church because it is a human institution…grace works through nature…and it makes mistakes, goes backwards at points, but goes forward. It is the work of many people, not just one or two…but the representation of all peoples and cultures represented by their bishops…it is a complex organization and easily misunderstood as well…as Christ, the only perfect one, was.

I agree.

 

[PRmerger]

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

By “right”, in this context, I mean, there is correct answer to the question: is this a sin or is this not a sin.

The principle of non-contradiction states: it can’t be both.

So which is it?

I consider “sin” to be a human term that is a judgment based on several factors of consideration (which I listed above).

So, 2 people can look at the same event and make contrary conclusions? It can be a sin and also not a sin?

Two persons are outside. One says it is hot out. The other says it is cold. The temperature is 65 F. Neither one is “right” or “wrong” since they were expressing a subjective judgment based on several (name removed by moderator)uts and a context of past experience. “Sin” is a subjective judgment like “hot” or “cold”. What we look for in societies is consensus, the same ways that religious organizations work out the interpretations of their religious texts.

Like the consensus in some societies that says that women should not be educated? Is this, then, true, because the majority of people in that society conclude that it is?

 

[PRmerger]

Two persons are outside. One says it is hot out. The other says it is cold. The temperature is 65 F. Neither one is “right” or “wrong” since they were expressing a subjective judgment based on several (name removed by moderator)uts and a context of past experience. “Sin” is a subjective judgment like “hot” or “cold”. What we look for in societies is consensus, the same ways that religious organizations work out the interpretations of their religious texts.

Here’s another example: 2 persons are outside, walking on a ledge. One person says, “If I step off this ledge I will fall.” The other person says, “If I step off this ledge I will NOT fall. A giant eagle will come and carry me to safety.” Clearly, one of those people is wrong. One is right. Even if one denies the objective truth of gravity, the truth is going to come and bite him, so to speak!

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

 

[larkin31]

By “right”, in this context, I mean, there is correct answer to the question: is this a sin or is this not a sin.

The principle of non-contradiction states: it can’t be both.

So which is it?

So, 2 people can look at the same event and make contrary conclusions? It can be a sin and also not a sin?

Like the consensus in some societies that says that women should not be educated? Is this, then, true, because the majority of people in that society conclude that it is?

“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.

 

[larkin31]

Here’s another example: 2 persons are outside, walking on a ledge. One person says, “If I step off this ledge I will fall.” The other person says, “If I step off this ledge I will NOT fall. A giant eagle will come and carry me to safety.” Clearly, one of those people is wrong. One is right. Even if one denies the objective truth of gravity, the truth is going to come and bite him, so to speak!

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

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