Why I am not a Christian

[rwoehmke]

For these reasons I have renounced my faith. Any comments? P.S Sorry if my tone is angry - I do not mean to cause offense

So why make all this noise? If I held the same positions and attitudes, I certainly would not be wasting time and effort in justifying my choice in of all places, a Catholic/Christian website. Go have some real fun. Life is short.

 

[TommyWommy]

Which one do I pick? Do I pick at random? I’ve chosen to pick the one that makes the most sense to me: "none of the above."QUOTE]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Presto! You now have your own personal religion to add to the list, my friend. How well will it serve you and those around you? Behold the god of relativism.

 

[eucharist04]

It seems like someone wants to live his life as he sees fit without a moral governer. Anothers freedom to be sexually immoral.

 

[VociMike]

It seems like someone wants to live his life as he sees fit without a moral governer. Anothers freedom to be sexually immoral.

Indeed, I would like the OP to explain what it means when he declares something to be “immoral”. Does any other form of life on the planet traffic in such concepts? Does the concept even make sense, if we are nothing but mobile bags of electro-chemical reactions?

 

[Cbailey2]

PeterJ,

Any explanation for life is bound to face what you call a “crushing number of logical objections.” Philosophy, religion, and science would all be much simpler fields if they didn’t and, after thousands of years of human history we probably still wouldn’t be debating the nature of the world if so many elements of it didn’t seem to be contradictory. The impossibility of matter creating itself out of nothing would seem to me a “crushing logical objection” to disbelieving in a prime mover but plenty of people do it.

I understand the tendency to assume the beliefs of others are less stringently tested than our own, or that their intelligence is lacking in comparison to ours, but such an assumption is disingenuous and a little self-important. There are some very intelligent atheists out there; there are also some very intelligent Christians who found no inconsistency between their faith and reason. This should be a troubling fact to you. Or do you have faith otherwise?

We should never abandon our reason for the comfort of an ignorant faith - St. Paul tells us to “test everything and retain what is good.” Ignorance was not a Christian virtue, at least not until recently; truth has nothing to fear from questioning.

But, similarly,we cannot abandon faith entirely on behalf of reason. Belief is a necessity to the man who lacks omniscience; we cannot have true perception of everything, nor truly understand how everything fits together unless he attains a total consciousness. As none of us has achieved this, nor do any of us believe the human mind capable of such an expansive feat, faith is necessary to fill in the gaps. It always has been, it always will be. Keep in mind - you are placing faith in something, even if it isn’t Christianity. All we can do with the time we have is to be open to questions and to seek out those answers.

That being said, I think you have taken some logical leaps in your own analysis. Statements such as “The Catholic teaching on contraception is dangerous, absurd and logically unsupportable.I defy any serious scholar to produce a valid argument, from plausible premises that proves contraception to be immoral. It simply cannot be done” only makes your position seem ridiculous. You want to objectively discuss things but what object evidence have you offered?

“Dangerous, absurd, and logically unsupportable?” That is an editorial, not an examination .

“Serious scholar.” Subjective and an immediate red flag. What do you define as a serious scholar? What criteria must they meet? Accreditation? Body of work? Number of supporters? Ability to format footnotes? Do they have to agree with you to be serious?

“Valid argument.” Again, what are the criteria for a valid argument? This is the ultimate cop-out: anything you disagree with can be deemed “invalid” because you fail to define parameters.

“Plausible premises.” Plausible is an incredibly subjective metric. A child can find many things plausible, including a fat man in red-suit somehow finding his way through a narrow chimney hole. Who is the judge of plausibility and what criteria are they using for their assessment?

“It simply cannot be done.” You have answered your own poorly constructed, easily knocked down argument. Congratulations. I understand you are searching for answers but perhaps a decent start is to admit you might not have all of them. An engaging but humble intellect is an absolute essential: this is not about you being right. It is about truth. Do you understand that difference?

I haven’t read a single item from you that I would characterize as “crushing and decisive.” Convince me that you are right! Elaborate! Include your assumptions! (And separate them into separate discussions)

 

[Laborer]

With what purpose, Lord, do you stay away,
hide yourself in time of need and trouble?
The wicked in their pride persecute the weak,
trap them in the plots they have devised.
The sinner glories in his desires,
the miser congratulates himself.
The sinner in his arrogance rejects the Lord:
“there is no God, no retribution.”
This is what he thinks
– and all goes well for him.
Your judgements are far beyond his comprehension:
he despises all who stand against him.
The sinner says to himself: “I will stand firm;
nothing can touch me, from generation to generation.”
His mouth is full of malice and deceit,
under his tongue hide trouble and distress.
He lies in ambush by the villages,
he kills the innocent in some secret place.
He watches the weak,
he hides like a lion in its lair, and makes plans.
He plans to rob the weak,
lure him to his trap and rob him.
He rushes in, makes a dive,
and the poor victim is caught.
For he has said to himself, “God has forgotten.
He is not watching, he will never see.”

 

[Exalt]

That’s odd that you would lump the very particular issue of homosexual sin (which the Church is hostile to, not homosexuals themselves, and I know you know the difference), with the two very general issues you mention.

And BTW, I agree that the notion of Atonement, of requiring an innocent victim to suffer and die to “pay” for the crimes of others, is immoral. But it is also a badly distorted view of why Christ chose to suffer and die, and why the Father sent him to do so, and not one that a Catholic is required to hold. Catholics are not Protestant fundamentalists.

Ah, well, I was just saying that homosexuality, along with all those other things that the OP mentioned, plus theodicy and the Atonement, was part of my personal journey out of Christianity. Had I not been gay and I had not had a few gay friends (who I saw suffer at the hands of conservative Catholic parents who cut them off financially and socially at an extremely vulnerable time in their lives as college students), it may not have been that big of a deal for me personally.

Regarding the Atonement, I’m a little confused. I thought the Atonement - God/God’s Son coming down to Earth and dying because God/God-the-Father needed the blood sacrifice of a human being - was an essential part of Catholic dogma. I thought that it was one of those things that you didn’t really have a choice about. You *had *to believe it, just as much as you *had *to believe that abortion was wrong, or that the Papacy was infallible (in matters of Faith and Morals), etc.

 

[Apologist78]

PeterJ -

You say,

“Herein lies the problem, how can God - infinitely separated from man ever infallibly reveal his will without the possibility of doubt. It is certainly immoral if Samuel ordered genocide if there were any room for doubt.”

By this you imply that morality requires knowledge without the possibility of doubt. Because of free will, it is impossible for someone to be incapable of doubt; let me elaborate.

If a statement can be made, a statement can be doubted. If it is God’s will that certain persons die, and he tells someone to kill them, then that someone knows what is right to do.

However, free will allows that person to say “Well, what if it were wrong to kill?”. It does not matter if their question is against reason, contrary to the course of events, a contradiction of revelation, contrary to the natural law, etc. A person rejecting the means of knowledge does not need to hold to any standard whatever. Knowledge does not have the power to annihilate doubt. We can only say against our doubts, “It is unreasonable for me to doubt for I have learned what is true.”

Additionally, God does not ask us to committ any genocide today. Moving on…

Clifford comes off a little naive, in a couple of ways.

We are not standing on the ground, looking at a boat and judging whether or not it would be safe to take a trip. We are already on the trip, and the only way to keep from drowning is to climb onto a seaworthy vessel. Are we not all going to die? Are we not beset by evil of every kind? Do we know, from the moment of birth, why we are here or where we are going?

That aside, the other point which smacks of naievete is the opinion that the Faith has not been tested by reason. It is impossible to account for Protestantism, because of its rejection of reason in saying that the only source of knowledge about God is scripture (sola sciptura). However, the Faith, which is carried on by the (Catholic) Church, is supported by every evidence. There are many excellent arguments for the existence of God, explaining who God is, and why it was fitting for Him to become incarnate. Not to mention the advances of science which gives evidence to the grand order of creation and its instantaneous beginning. Or the many pieces of artwork, movies, plays and books which evoke and educate us in our natural happiness and purpose.

In response to your objections to the Church’s moral teaching…

You say that, “Catholic moral teaching is too rigid, it will not change depending on the circumstance, it simplifies where human nature is complex and will not listen to reason.”

You seem to suggest that when human nature fails, moral standards should lower themselves accordingly. That does not seem to be righteousness. : )

The Church challenges us to be saints, and that is not too much to ask. When you are in love with the most beautiful woman, bejeweled with all virtues, do you ask how much courting her would cost you?

I think it is good to question, when your intention is to understand. However, understanding is like constructing a building. You cannot lay down the roof, before you have some of the walls; nor can you put up the walls, without a good foundation.

Sensible, right?

With all good will,

Eric

I thought your post was well reasoned except the part where you talk about Sola Scriptura. When you said Protestantism is not reasonable becasue of it’s claim that the Bible is the only source of knowledge about God, your egregious ignorance of what the doctrine is and what it says and does not say was aparent.

 

[Exalt]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Presto! You now have your own personal religion to add to the list, my friend. How well will it serve you and those around you? Behold the god of relativism.

I agree that I’ve made my choice, but I fail to see how my position of rational skepticism has become a “religion.” Furthermore, your accusation of relativism is completely baseless. Where in this thread have I claimed that “your” truth is true for you and “my” truth is true for me? No where. Why? Because it’s complete nonsense. There is objective reality, and there is very little evidence that this objective reality includes a mythical supernatural being in the sky that - above almost everything else - wants me to not masturbate.

 

[utunumsint]

The Christian faith faces a number of crushing logical objections. I can no longer hold it in good conscience. I will outline these objections below:

1.) The Bible is not inerrant, neither factually nor morally:

1.1 Factually:

20th and 21st century Biblical scholarship has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible errs. The character of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) is entirely different from that of John and the accounts are riddled with inconsistencies. The infancy narratives - to state one notable example - of Matthew and Luke cannot be rationally reconciled (see the census of Quirinius).

It may well be rational to suggest that the Bible is loosely accurate, compiled from eyewitness accounts and adapted to fit the audience, but to suggest that it is accurate to the letter is simply untenable.

I have to agree with this one. I think Dei Verbum provides support for your arguments, although I believe that the infancy narratives can be reconciled.

1.2 Morally:

Let’s face it, the Old Testament is filled with immoralities. In the Old Testament God is portrayed as a genocidal deity an iniquitous, underhanded master, a senseless murderer who kills children with great floods and commands the extermination of entire peoples. Yes some people will contend that what God allegedly orders is good. But is it?

Take 1 Samuel for instance, God through the prophet Samuel orders that children be massacred. Some Christians no doubt would say that his actions are perfectly moral. Well maybe they are- if God did command them. But how can one be sure that he did? Herein lies the problem, how can God - infinitely separated from man ever infallibly reveal his will without the possibility of doubt. It is certainly immoral if Samuel ordered genocide if there were any room for doubt.

Would the believer today commit this genocide on the word of Samuel, certain as the Bible teaches that he is a prophet of God? Or would doubt creep in? It certainly did for me.

Again, this depends on how you read the word of God. Have you looked at Dei Verbum? It is one of the documents of Vatican II. The other issue with this is that earthly kingdom of Isreal only prefigured the heavenly kingdom of God. The Bible slowly moves and progresses to the revelation of the God of love. And most importantly, these revelations come to us through the medium of men and women, prophets and scripture writers. God’s word may have come to Samuel in the form of this message “Make no compromise with Evil”, but he, as a human being, in a historical context, interprets this as God’s call to completely destroy another human race. Was Samuel wrong? Morally speaking, from our perspective, yes. Most definitely, but historically speaking, was it the most likely interpretation of God’s original command? Given the bloody history of the cultures of those days, I would have to sadly say yes.

But given all of salvation history as our lens in which to interpret God’s command to Samuel, we can see in it God’s command to “Make no compromise with Evil”, and look at this in a spiritual sense, and not in the simplistic view of Samuel, separating one people as morally good and another people as morally bad, only fit for the sword. The Amalekites of Moses and Josua become the spiritual powers of evil and Satan, not physical beings.

What all this involves is a recognition, which Dei Verbum makes, that the word of God is transmitted to us through human beings, who act within a historical context, with inherent predisposition.

2.) Faith, without some corresponding supernatural experience, is not only unjustified but is immoral.

The famous Clifford lectures conclude that is wrong for everyone, everywhere to form a belief based on insufficient evidence. To me this is clearly the case.

To show that this I will use Clifford’s example - of the ship owner who fails to inspect an unseaworthy vessel. In Clifford’s example the owner of a certain vessel is required to test his ships for seaworthiness before he allows passengers to sail on them. Yet he does not do this, instead he forms a belief by ‘faith’ that the vessel is seaworthy. Is this man not guilty of a most heinous crime? What if his patrons die because of his ‘faith’? I defy the believer to show how Christian faith differs.

In response to Clifford the believer may assert that his faith is justified, as it is formed in him by God himself. Yet what evidence does the believer have for this. Faith merely moves up an order and an infinite regress follows – or a rigid dogmatism, and the believer cannot quell his irrationality.

As a final retort the believer may contend that God produces this faith in him by some special means - a Sensus Divinitatis, and because of this his belief is produced by a reliable belief producing mechanism and is perfectly justified. But really? Does such a faculty exist, surely not. The great diversity of religious belief goes to prove this.

Faith can be rationally informed to make it a rational decision on the part of the believer. The natural order has all sorts of things in it that point to God, or suggest his existence. The Catechism calls these preambles or predispositions to the receive the gift of faith.

Is faith inherently irrational? I don’t think so. Physics cannot tell us why the laws of physics work, only how they work, but we believe in physics none the less. There are also other forms of evidence that relate to our personal experience that are hard to quantify scientifically, and yet they form the basis for a descision to embrace the faith. For example, the miraculour cure of one’s son or daughter in answer to prayers. One cannot prove that the miracle was caused by the prayer, but from the position of the believer, they still see it as an answered prayer, and becomes a source of faith for them. Can you argue with that? Sure, but for that person, it wont make a difference.

Continued

 

[utunumsint]

1. Catholic moral teaching is ridiculous:

3.1 The Catholic teaching on contraception is dangerous, absurd and logically unsupportable.
I defy any serious scholar to produce a valid argument, from plausible premises that proves contraception to be immoral. It simply cannot be done.

3.2 The Catholic teaching on masturbation is equally logically unsupportable, equally ridiculous and puts people under great pressure for no good reason. Again no scholar to my knowledge has produced a sound argument to its detriment – don’t send me links to Aquinas.

Our current society and world view makes what you say seem very reasonable, but consider that it has not always been so obvious. Society has not always been so super saturated with pornography. It used to be that children were an economic benefit rather than the burden our society sees them for today. If you want to go deeper into this, I’d be willing to contribute, but I’m not sure you want to discuss this right now.

3.3 The principle of double effect in some instances seems an absurd way of working around dogmatic rules e.g. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

Why?

Yet even without these objections (which I believe are crushing and decisive defeaters) Catholic moral teaching is too rigid, it will not change depending on the circumstance, it simplifies where human nature is complex and will not listen to reason. In the end Catholic morality comes down to uncompromising dogmatism, natural law its’ facade.

I would reword this into saying that the Catholic Church believes in truth, that is not relative. Uncompromising? Yes, but only if you believe in truth.

For these reasons I have renounced my faith. Any comments?

P.S Sorry if my tone is angry - I do not mean to cause offense

No worries. If you want to pick up on any of my throughts, I’d be happy to discuss my reasons for believing the Church.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Exalt]

It seems like someone wants to live his life as he sees fit without a moral governer. Anothers freedom to be sexually immoral.

I don’t believe that there’s a moral Governor sitting in the sky judging what I do. However, just because I’m not afraid of supernatural retribution doesn’t mean that I don’t do good things or not-do bad things. In terms of actual scientific studies, there is no correlation between good behavior and religiosity, or bad behavior and secularism. Both our reasons for being good come from different places than religion.

 

[Apologist78]

Ah, well, I was just saying that homosexuality, along with all those other things that the OP mentioned, plus theodicy and the Atonement, was part of my personal journey out of Christianity. Had I not been gay and I had not had a few gay friends (who I saw suffer at the hands of conservative Catholic parents who cut them off financially and socially at an extremely vulnerable time in their lives as college students), it may not have been that big of a deal for me personally.

First, I think we need to get some definitions down before we can intelligently dialog on the issue.

When the Church condemns Homosexuality it has a very specific thing in mind. Homosexuality means that two or more members of the same sex come together for intimate relations- in other words Homosexuality is the ACT of two people of the same sex being intimate. In short- homosexuality IS what homosexuality DOES.

As far as the Church is concerned one who has a “same sex attraction” is not Homosexual. Hence a person with a same sex attraction is not condemned. A person with a same sex attraction is only considered a Homosexual when they ACT OUT their same sex attraction.

It is not unlike one who is born with a disposition to alcoholism. One is not an alcolholic becasue they have a disposition towards alcohol. They only become an alcolholic when they do what alcoholics do.

Does this make sense?

Now, whether or not the parents were right in what they did, I make no comment. Parents are not given instruction manuals on how to be parents, so I am sure they did what they thought was best at the time. But either way- that is an issue I am not going to get into.

 

[Exalt]

I thought your post was well reasoned except the part where you talk about Sola Scriptura. When you said Protestantism is not reasonable becasue of it’s claim that the Bible is the only source of knowledge about God, your egregious ignorance of what the doctrine is and what it says and does not say was aparent.

He wasn’t addressing the position of Sola Scriptura. He was addressing the Catholic position on the ultimate truth of scripture:

“The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, **we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth **which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures.” (CCC Paragraph 107)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Christian faith faces a number of crushing logical objections. I can no longer hold it in good conscience. I will outline these objections below:

1.) The Bible is not inerrant, neither factually nor morally:

1.1 Factually:

20th and 21st century Biblical scholarship has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible errs. The character of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) is entirely different from that of John and the accounts are riddled with inconsistencies. The infancy narratives - to state one notable example - of Matthew and Luke cannot be rationally reconciled (see the census of Quirinius).

It may well be rational to suggest that the Bible is loosely accurate, compiled from eyewitness accounts and adapted to fit the audience, but to suggest that it is accurate to the letter is simply untenable.

1.2 Morally:

Let’s face it, the Old Testament is filled with immoralities. In the Old Testament God is portrayed as a genocidal deity an iniquitous, underhanded master, a senseless murderer who kills children with great floods and commands the extermination of entire peoples. Yes some people will contend that what God allegedly orders is good. But is it?

Take 1 Samuel for instance, God through the prophet Samuel orders that children be massacred. Some Christians no doubt would say that his actions are perfectly moral. Well maybe they are- if God did command them. But how can one be sure that he did? Herein lies the problem, how can God - infinitely separated from man ever infallibly reveal his will without the possibility of doubt. It is certainly immoral if Samuel ordered genocide if there were any room for doubt.

Would the believer today commit this genocide on the word of Samuel, certain as the Bible teaches that he is a prophet of God? Or would doubt creep in? It certainly did for me.

2.) Faith, without some corresponding supernatural experience, is not only unjustified but is immoral.

The famous Clifford lectures conclude that is wrong for everyone, everywhere to form a belief based on insufficient evidence. To me this is clearly the case.

To show that this I will use Clifford’s example - of the ship owner who fails to inspect an unseaworthy vessel. In Clifford’s example the owner of a certain vessel is required to test his ships for seaworthiness before he allows passengers to sail on them. Yet he does not do this, instead he forms a belief by ‘faith’ that the vessel is seaworthy. Is this man not guilty of a most heinous crime? What if his patrons die because of his ‘faith’? I defy the believer to show how Christian faith differs.

In response to Clifford the believer may assert that his faith is justified, as it is formed in him by God himself. Yet what evidence does the believer have for this. Faith merely moves up an order and an infinite regress follows – or a rigid dogmatism, and the believer cannot quell his irrationality.

As a final retort the believer may contend that God produces this faith in him by some special means - a Sensus Divinitatis, and because of this his belief is produced by a reliable belief producing mechanism and is perfectly justified. But really? Does such a faculty exist, surely not. The great diversity of religious belief goes to prove this.

1. Catholic moral teaching is ridiculous:

3.1 The Catholic teaching on contraception is dangerous, absurd and logically unsupportable.
I defy any serious scholar to produce a valid argument, from plausible premises that proves contraception to be immoral. It simply cannot be done.

3.2 The Catholic teaching on masturbation is equally logically unsupportable, equally ridiculous and puts people under great pressure for no good reason. Again no scholar to my knowledge has produced a sound argument to its detriment – don’t send me links to Aquinas.

3.3 The principle of double effect in some instances seems an absurd way of working around dogmatic rules e.g. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

Yet even without these objections (which I believe are crushing and decisive defeaters) Catholic moral teaching is too rigid, it will not change depending on the circumstance, it simplifies where human nature is complex and will not listen to reason. In the end Catholic morality comes down to uncompromising dogmatism, natural law its’ facade.

For these reasons I have renounced my faith. Any comments?

P.S Sorry if my tone is angry - I do not mean to cause offense

Interesting stuff, and it will take you years to work through this barring divine intervention. Good luck with that.

My question to you is simple: Who is Jesus Christ? What do you have to say about Him?

 

[Exalt]

First, I think we need to get some definitions down before we can intelligently dialog on the issue.

When the Church condemns Homosexuality it has a very specific thing in mind. Homosexuality means that two or more members of the same sex come together for intimate relations- in other words Homosexuality is the ACT of two people of the same sex being intimate. In short- homosexuality IS what homosexuality DOES.

As far as the Church is concerned one who has a “same sex attraction” is not Homosexual. Hence a person with a same sex attraction is not condemned. A person with a same sex attraction is only considered a Homosexual when they ACT OUT their same sex attraction.

It is not unlike one who is born with a disposition to alcoholism. One is not an alcolholic becasue they have a disposition towards alcohol. They only become an alcolholic when they do what alcoholics do.

Does this make sense?

I’m aware of the Church’s position on homosexuality, but thank you for clarifying for those who may not be aware who are also reading this forum.

Now, whether or not the parents were right in what they did, I make no comment. Parents are not given instruction manuals on how to be parents, so I am sure they did what they thought was best at the time. But either way- that is an issue I am not going to get into.

The parents - who were Catholics and were part of the Church - and their reaction to their own children were the subjects of most concern for me, and are *still *the subject of most concern for me. How many children and young adults who come out (or are outed) to their parents are subjected to social isolation or, in the cases of college students, financial abandonment? How many parents, after reading the stories about homosexuality in Genesis, Leviticus, and inside the Catechism, abandon their familial responsibilities? I mean, after God blew up the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality, and then Leviticus recommends the death penalty for both homosexuality *and *disobeying one’s parents, and then the Catechism says homosexuality should never be approved of - I completely understand how conservative Catholic parents respond negatively to their children.

Though the American Bishops have put out one single document on the subject of how parents should handle gay teens, the practical support for them in real parishes across the country is almost completely nonexistent. The Church been all but completely silent on the subject of how parents should deal with gay teens (with the exception of **one **7-page document), even when suicide among gay teens continues to be a huge problem across the country (One study suggested that greater tolerance from the gay child’s family actually lowers the rate of suicide. Big surprise, right?).

You said that you didn’t want to get into this, but I know for me, this is a big part of why I am not a Christian. It’s almost as important as the Problem of Evil or immoral/contradictory Biblical teachings.

 

[promethius]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlet2009 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Masturbation is a sexual act…playing computer games isnt…what games are you playing???

That’s not really a rebuttal. So masturbation is a sexual act. So what? For all intents and purposes, it’s exactly the same as playing a video game by yourself. It’s certainly not productive. Perhaps my time is better spent working. But it’s fun, and it’s basically harmless. In fact, I think I could make a pretty solid argument that video games are far worse for your health than masturbation.

Actually, it’s a perfectly valid rebuttal. What she has done is called you out on the use of a logical fallacy: false analogy. I agree with her, masturbation is too far removed from video games to be a reliable comparison.

Here’s how we can be sure that your analogy is false: what would you do if your mom walked in and you were busily playing video games? Now compare the reaction to masturbating.

OBVIOUSLY the two acts are different… and since the atheists in this thread are the ones claiming to be the great rationalists, I would assume you would at least want to stick to rational arguments devoid of logical fallacies such as this one.

 

[Apologist78]

I’m aware of the Church’s position on homosexuality, but thank you for clarifying for those who may not be aware who are also reading this forum.

The parents - who were Catholics and were part of the Church - and their reaction to their own children were the subjects of most concern for me, and are *still *the subject of most concern for me. How many children and young adults who come out (or are outed) to their parents are subjected to social isolation or, in the cases of college students, financial abandonment? How many parents, after reading the stories about homosexuality in Genesis, Leviticus, and inside the Catechism, abandon their familial responsibilities? I mean, after God blew up the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality, and then Leviticus recommends the death penalty for both homosexuality *and *disobeying one’s parents, and then the Catechism says homosexuality should never be approved of - I completely understand how conservative Catholic parents respond negatively to their children.

Though the American Bishops have put out one single document on the subject of how parents should handle gay teens, the practical support for them in real parishes across the country is almost completely nonexistent. The Church been all but completely silent on the subject of how parents should deal with gay teens (with the exception of **one **7-page document), even when suicide among gay teens continues to be a huge problem across the country (One study suggested that greater tolerance from the gay child’s family actually lowers the rate of suicide. Big surprise, right?).

You said that you didn’t want to get into this, but I know for me, this is a big part of why I am not a Christian. It’s almost as important as the Problem of Evil or immoral/contradictory Biblical teachings.

I didn’t realize that was your real point.

If by “Tolerance” you mean “Put up with it” (which is what “tolerance” really means) then I agree. If however by “Tolerance” you really mean “Accept homosexuality as just another life choice, simply an alternate way of living having nothing to do with morality” then I would not agree with you. Often times in these discussions people claim to want “Tolerance” when they really mean “Acceptance.” Often times the terms “Tolerance” and “Acceptance” are confused or equivocated. The terms mean two very different things.

In the second place, though I say “Put up with it” I do have friends who are homosexual, I “tolerate” in the sense that my friendship with the person is in no way an endorsement of their behavior, or to be taken that I believe the behavior is compatable with God’s plan for the human species.

I guess I would say that parents in the case where their children claim to be “homosexual” should reach out in love to their children and not abandon them. Yet at the same time I think it needs to be made clear that this does not entail an endorsement of the behavior. It is no different then friends I have to believe they can have sex outside of marriage. I “tolerate” that behavior which is to say my friendship is not en endorsement of their life style. Heck, I have family who live as married husband and wife, yet never actually got married. Though they are family, my presence in their home for a nice visit is not an endorsement of their life style. I “tolerate” it.

I would also say that I am not convinced that everyone who claims to have a same sex attraction really is. In other words there may be some who truly are born with a same sex attraction. But there are others I think who are homosexual for other reasons.

 

[Exalt]

Actually, it’s a perfectly valid rebuttal. What she has done is called you out on the use of a logical fallacy: false analogy. I agree with her, masturbation is too far removed from video games to be a reliable comparison.

Here’s how we can be sure that your analogy is false: what would you do if your mom walked in and you were busily playing video games? Now compare the reaction to masturbating.

I think we would both be embarrassed. You’re right, the analogy is slightly flawed, but my point was that masturbation is no more harmful than playing video games, so how the heck could it be wrong? Can something be wrong and harmless?

Playing video games and masturbation are obviously different acts, to be sure, but you still haven’t demonstrated how masturbation is bad. Someone else claimed it caused ED and had no medical data to back it up. (It sort of sounds like the people who claimed that it caused hair to grow on the palms of your hand!) I have yet to hear back from that person, but maybe you can supply the evidence.

 

[Apologist78]

He wasn’t addressing the position of Sola Scriptura. He was addressing the Catholic position on the ultimate truth of scripture:

“The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, **we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth **which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures.” (CCC Paragraph 107)

He made the comment that “Protestantism is unreasonable becasue of Sola Scriptura which asserts that the Bible is the only means of Revelation.” (Paraphrase)

Since Sola Scriptura does not deny that Revelation exists outside of the Bible, (it would affirm the existence of General Revelation) I simply wanted to correct the person’s faulty understanding of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.