Ask the member of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church AKA Interrogate the Catholic ;) — Page 8

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

When I was a Catholic one of things that always confused me was how much we worship God. Like there's some sort of mindset that you absolutely must worship him and if you don't, you'll be punished. And I just feel this is at odds with how God is portrayed as a benevolent figure. If he loves everyone why should he care if they worship him or not. Narcissists usually aren't very nice. So how do you explain this?

 I would have to look that up...I know there's an explanation, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Timdiggerm's answer is part of it though.

 If God were infinite love, would anything cause Him to reject a soul into an eternity of suffering?

Alternately, if God were a fact, should anything stop one from worshipping Him fully? For what might be more important than the worship of a being of infinite might?

 The first question is one I can't answer myself, because it's one of mine too. ;)

The second is basically what we believe as Catholics, though most of us do a pretty bad job at making worship such a priority. We believe that our sins can be forgiven in confession if we repent of them, so that is probably part of what causes us to slack off. The other part would be due to a lack of faith in God I guess.

Would worshipping a being of infinite might to the fullest extent possible necessarily allow one any respite from the task? Would not such worship fairly be required to be equally infinite in duration?

 We believe we can worship God with our actions. Every good thing we do can be for the glory of God, so that is considered a form of worship. Working cheerfully and productively can be worship. Satisfying our bodily needs is sort of like that too because it is a good thing that God wants us to do in order to stay healthy. Since we are supposed to take care of ourselves physically as well as spiritually we cannot be expected to pray 24/7. Recreational time can, if used properly also be used to glorify God. It is also part of taking care of ourselves. Hopefully that answers your question.

Bingowings said:

Lucifer for example is literally the Morning Star (the Planet Venus) the light of which is banished by the Sun. It was a Roman pagan religious ornament woven into the early Christian church like the whole Osiris worship bag you guys have over Mary/Diana/Ishtar.

 Things like this make me wonder if you know what you are talking about. Christians have never worshiped Mary. We pray to her to ask her to pray for us as is embedded in the Hail Mary ("pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"). It's very similar to asking someone on earth to pray for you. It isn't worship.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

So God makes people homosexual and then says, oh you can't have sex by the way.

Ludicrous.

 *SPOILER ALERT*

Catholics don't believe that life is about sex.

*END SPOILER ALERT*

Since we believe in an eternal paradise after this world, what is eighty years without sex?

 How convenient that you are allowed to have sex but others aren't.

 I am not married, so I am not allowed to have sex. In the future, if I marry, then I will be able to have sex, but that isn't my situation. I'm not condemning people for doing something the wrong way while I have sex myself the "right way."

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I apologize for being a bit irritable in this thread today, but please understand that I face the same criticisms all over the internet and in person, and all people seem to be able to do is repeat themselves, ignore the point of the analogies I make, impress on me the idea that they know so much better than me and I am just an intolerant, self-righteous, stupid jerk. Maybe there's something in that, but do you really think I am going to ever see your point of view in a different light if the people who support homosexuality are so condescending, insulting, and spiteful in their tone? Even if I am doing the same (which I don't intend to if that is the case), don't you think you should prove to me how much better you are instead of degrading yourselves with the use of insults, condescension, and profanity?

Sorry for the rant and I apologize for my behaviour if I sound like a grump today.

 Consider only a contrast that might assist in clarifying the tone derived by others on this subject:

Should you, as a good and loving Catholic, encounter an entity that might suggest you to be neither good, nor loving--based solely on the evidence of your Catholic leanings (teachings which have been with you since your earliest memory)--would you be capable of agreeing with said entity regardless of its kind rationale?

In essence, would not the suggestion that homosexuality might be considered aberrant to an infinite being (punishable by an eternal torment) while at the same time considering said being to be one's own personal protector and comfort create any response other than that of antipathy?

To clarify, were one here to call out a belief that all Catholics necessarily must be ashamed and expect an infinitude of just torment in a future realm--while at the same time seemingly showing little concern for such necessary eventualities--could one such as yourself resist the temptation to clarify your own position on the matter? Would not a silence on your part serve as an affirmation of the statement?

Kindly do not take offense at my interjection as it is my purpose to learn your thoughts and not to belittle them. It is merely my hope that an understanding and a peace might be brokered on this issue that might better reflect the seemingly kind intentions of the majority here on both sides. Rarely have such opposing philosophies been debated so respectfully on an internet forum. I appreciate the effort this takes and hope that it may remain such.

 I take no offense.

Arguably, I have encountered such "entities" in the form of some people (this isn't directed at anyone on this forum) who believe that I am a bad person or have mental issues on the basis of my religion alone. I did argue with these people, and admittedly rarely let hostile attacks on my religion go unanswered.

I think I see what you are getting at, and I'm fine with people voicing their disagreement, as long as they don't get repetitive or insulting. To clarify my beliefs about homosexuality, I don't believe that those people who engage in homosexual sex acts are going to hell necessarily. There are many factors which come into play in determining whether someone goes to heaven or hell, so just because someone does something that is considered a serious sin by the Catholic Church doesn't mean that they will go to hell.

Hopefully I didn't miss the point of your question as I'm pretty tired right now and am finding it difficult to think coherent thoughts. :)

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The chances of sentient life existing elsewhere in the universe are pretty low. Even the universe has limits.

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-chances-intelligent-life-elsewhere-2295217.html

If the universe has limits the only ones we know about are the ones we can detect (the visible universe is almost certainly not all of it and it's accelerating away from us).

Organic material is everywhere. It coats comets, it's found inside meteors, it drifts between Galaxies in clouds bigger than our solar system it can be made very easily on any world where the conditions are right ("Billions and Billions" so sayeth the St Sagan).

Life elsewhere is almost a certainty.

The Church you belong to entertains this high probability.

Add deep time and the scale of the universe the chances of sentient life existing only on Earth are so low as to be barely worth considering. Though the chances of it existing on Earth are pretty low when I'm not here.

The word from Geneva is that distances between planets with advanced civilisations (digital watches etc) are so vaste that meeting them would be unlikely.

 My Church does not entertain a high probability of intelligent, extra-terrestrial life, but rather a possibility of such life existing. More recently, the scientific community seems to be leaning in favour of an only 0.01% chance of sentient extra-terrestrial life existing (as far as I am aware, anyway and I linked to an article earlier which stated that).

 Kindly note only that said article, having been written in 2008, was initiated prior to a time when the scientific community was to witness the wholesale cache of worlds latently discovered over the course of the past 4 years: a spectacle that has proven far more optomistic than most had previously considered possible.

I thought the position was unchanged, but I have largely outdated sources. :P

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

or accuse you of something totally unfounded like being a closeted homosexual.

Now you here you are way off base.   I am not attracted to men and have no desire to have any sort sexual relations with men.  It is that simple.  Also you being a accused of playing devils advocate is not totally unfounded.    It seems like every time I state an opinion on something you have to come in and take the opposite side.  And I am not the only one that thinks you play devils advocate.   

Bingowings said:

That would unfair right?

It is unfair to even slighlty imply that I am a closed homosexual just because I am a virgin and haven't gone on a date yet.   That was just low.  

Bingowings said:

You don't have to agree with me but just shrugging off what I'm saying because you can't be bothered to study the origins of your own religion is rather rude.

am I am so sure you have a done complete exhaustive non-biased  research or my religion instead of only focusing on the things that back up your claims about my religion.  yeah right.  

But I didn't accuse of being homosexual.

you implied it slightly otherwise why bring the closeted homosexual thing into this. 

Bingowings said:

I accused you of not bothering to investigate what you believe in (which you went on to confirm with the quoted statement)

I don't need to investigate what I believe in.   What I believe in, isn't a matter of research and weighing evidence.   MY religious beliefs  are based on faith.

Bingowings said:

and my research was initially as unbiased as probable because when when I was a child I used to believe the Christian myth entirely. Investigation removed that certainty.

I don't believe it is unbiased. 

Bingowings said:

She doesn't believe all gay people are dirty and will burn in hell and all epileptic people are possessed by demons anymore after her son had to conclude he was both.

I don't believe all gay people are dirty and will burn in hell.   I certainly don't believe all epileptic people are possessed by demons.

Bingowings said:

If I have a bias now maybe that's were it comes from.

Its possible.

I could be wrong, but from what it sounds like, you had a very difficult Christian upbringing.    It sounds like they(whatever Christian group you belonged to) focused move on teaching and pounding into you all the rules and whatnot and failed to show true Christian love and the love Christ has for you.   So many Christians focus on the rules and what is and is not sin and forget the love part.  

Bingowings said:

She hopes to see my late father again in heaven something I don't have any desire to pull down but knowing the history of the formation of the Biblical texts and a basic understanding of science I can't believe in them as the literal truth.

Science can conclusively disprove God.   It may be able to poke holes in the Genesis story  but many Christians don't believe that all of Genesis is the literal truth.  

And are you really sure you know and understand the history of the formation of the Biblical texts? 

Bingowings said:

You have to be blinkered to believe them literally.

ah so if you believe in the Bible you're crazy, how tolerant of you.

btw, I am not sure I believe the entire book literally. 

Bingowings said:

As metaphor they send mixed signals.

It's the reason for the old truism about not talking about religion or politics.

The text can and has been interpreted in a myriad of ways to justify almost anything (most of which has been in my view and experience evil).

It's so nebulous and contradictory that it inevitably provokes division and sectarianism.

 I agree the text can be and has been interpreted in different ways.  Biblical interpretation can be a complicated issue. 

and as for not talking about religion of politics.   One of the reasons people don't talk about these things is because of people like you that can't do it sensitively.

RicOlie_2 said:

Bingowings said:

Lucifer for example is literally the Morning Star (the Planet Venus) the light of which is banished by the Sun. It was a Roman pagan religious ornament woven into the early Christian church like the whole Osiris worship bag you guys have over Mary/Diana/Ishtar.

 Things like this make me wonder if you know what you are talking about. Christians have never worshiped Mary. We pray to her to ask her to pray for us as is embedded in the Hail Mary ("pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"). It's very similar to asking someone on earth to pray for you. It isn't worship.

 See Bingo here is why I question your research.  If your research was really complete and non-biased you'd understand how the Catholics view Mary without RicOlie_2 having to explain to you.

Also Bingo, not all Christians view Mary the way Catholics do.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

DominicCobb said:

When I was a Catholic one of things that always confused me was how much we worship God. Like there's some sort of mindset that you absolutely must worship him and if you don't, you'll be punished. And I just feel this is at odds with how God is portrayed as a benevolent figure. If he loves everyone why should he care if they worship him or not. Narcissists usually aren't very nice. So how do you explain this?

 I would have to look that up...I know there's an explanation, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Timdiggerm's answer is part of it though.

 If God were infinite love, would anything cause Him to reject a soul into an eternity of suffering?

Alternately, if God were a fact, should anything stop one from worshipping Him fully? For what might be more important than the worship of a being of infinite might?

 The first question is one I can't answer myself, because it's one of mine too. ;)

The second is basically what we believe as Catholics, though most of us do a pretty bad job at making worship such a priority. We believe that our sins can be forgiven in confession if we repent of them, so that is probably part of what causes us to slack off. The other part would be due to a lack of faith in God I guess.

Would worshiping a being of infinite might to the fullest extent possible necessarily allow one any respite from the task? Would not such worship fairly be required to be equally infinite in duration?

 We believe we can worship God with our actions. Every good thing we do can be for the glory of God, so that is considered a form of worship. Working cheerfully and productively can be worship. Satisfying our bodily needs is sort of like that too because it is a good thing that God wants us to do in order to stay healthy. Since we are supposed to take care of ourselves physically as well as spiritually we cannot be expected to pray 24/7. Recreational time can, if used properly also be used to glorify God. It is also part of taking care of ourselves. Hopefully that answers your question.

 Ah, fairly answered--however, to what degree might one expect adherents to truly exist in such a manner? To clarify, how often might one offer up one's enjoyment of a stick of gum to a deity of infinite might?

 Chewing a stick of gum is neither good nor evil, and God does not disprove of things that have a neutral level of morality. If someone is given/purchases a stick of gum they can glorify God in a small way by giving it to someone else. It doesn't do much, but even the small things count.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

 Consider only a contrast that might assist in clarifying the tone derived by others on this subject:

Should you, as a good and loving Catholic, encounter an entity that might suggest you to be neither good, nor loving--based solely on the evidence of your Catholic leanings (teachings which have been with you since your earliest memory)--would you be capable of agreeing with said entity regardless of its kind rationale?

In essence, would not the suggestion that homosexuality might be considered aberrant to an infinite being (punishable by an eternal torment) while at the same time considering said being to be one's own personal protector and comfort create any response other than that of antipathy?

To clarify, were one here to call out a belief that all Catholics necessarily must be ashamed and expect an infinitude of just torment in a future realm--while at the same time seemingly showing little concern for such necessary eventualities--could one such as yourself resist the temptation to clarify your own position on the matter? Would not a silence on your part serve as an affirmation of the statement?

Kindly do not take offense at my interjection as it is my purpose to learn your thoughts and not to belittle them. It is merely my hope that an understanding and a peace might be brokered on this issue that might better reflect the seemingly kind intentions of the majority here on both sides. Rarely have such opposing philosophies been debated so respectfully on an internet forum. I appreciate the effort this takes and hope that it may remain such.

 I take no offense.

Arguably, I have encountered such "entities" in the form of some people (this isn't directed at anyone on this forum) who believe that I am a bad person or have mental issues on the basis of my religion alone. I did argue with these people, and admittedly rarely let hostile attacks on my religion go unanswered.

I think I see what you are getting at, and I'm fine with people voicing their disagreement, as long as they don't get repetitive or insulting. To clarify my beliefs about homosexuality, I don't believe that those people who engage in homosexual sex acts are going to hell necessarily. There are many factors which come into play in determining whether someone goes to heaven or hell, so just because someone does something that is considered a serious sin by the Catholic Church doesn't mean that they will go to hell.

Hopefully I didn't miss the point of your question as I'm pretty tired right now and am finding it difficult to think coherent thoughts. :)

 Thank you for your candor. Kindly understand that while your beliefs regarding homosexuality may appear liberal in your eyes, they may yet cause offense in the same manner as:

"I don't believe that Catholics should be tortured and burned alive for as long as possible necessarily as there are many factors which come into play..."

In admiring your courage displayed in hosting this thread, it is not my wish to cause offense: simply the placing of one's self in the position of others prior to allowing one's convictions to solidify is my keen intent.

 I acknowledge your intent and perhaps should hold put myself in others' shoes more often.

Thank you for your civility in making your point. Some on this forum seem to lack that.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

Do you consider that God might love every person equally?

 That is what I believe, yes. I don't claim to know how he judges us after we die or how strict he is or how many allowances he makes for those who didn't believe in him on earth.

Catholics do believe in something called a "Baptism of Desire" in which someone who is genuinely searching for the truth can get to heaven, even if they don't believe in God.

 Do you believe that God is unchanging in this love for all persons? To clarify: do you believe there might come a time when God might no longer love all living persons equally?

Additionally, is it your belief that God's love for an individual might change upon said individual's death? Or would it remain consistent regardless of physical state?

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

2) I can't really say for sure what I think about this. I mean, perhaps it would be acceptable, but since he gave a universal and inclusive law to fulfill the more exclusive one, I don't think it will happen. It might be considered unacceptable because God has promised with the Christological law that he won't do that, so if he did, he would be breaking promises.

3) On its own, yes, it could be taken that way. However, since we are taught that God loves everyone more than we could possibly love him or anyone, I don't believe that either of those is the case. We may not understand his love, but I still believe he has love for us.

I think everything should be done for the glory of God (unless it has no moral consequence), so that doesn't leave much room for too much worship.

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Post Praetorian said:

RicOlie_2 said:

 I believe that God has, and always will love everyone equally, no matter what. That is why I believe that non-Catholics who are searching for the truth can get to heaven. I don't believe God changes because God is in every point of time at once, so he can't change over time.

 May I pose 3 somewhat related questions?

1) If God is considered to love all equally, and is unchanging in this regard, how might you explain His alleged aligning with a "chosen race" during portions of antiquity? Further, could He have equally chosen to have aligned against them and still been considered "good" by their prophets?

2) If God is to be considered to love all with equality, may it be considered acceptable that He might, at some period in future, determine you and your loved ones to be worthy of a treatment similar to that which he bestowed upon the Canaanites for reasons equally obscure?

3) Finally, is it possible that the term "loves all equally" might merely suggest His love might not be particularly strong or that the concept hold a markedly different consideration for such a being than it might for ourselves?

 1) Abraham and others' fidelity to God caused God to bless their descendants, and that certainly appears to be favouratism. When God judged those people after they died, I'm sure he accounted for the way they had been raised, so I don't think he condemned anyone to hell simply for not being one of his chosen people. I think his equal love for everyone is less apparent in this world, but I am sure that he judges everyone fairly and mercifully in the afterlife.

 1) Is it then your view that God chose to align Himself with Abraham because Abraham demonstrated a willingness to murder for God?

To clarify, was it not Abraham who appeared willing to murder Jacob in order to show obedience? If so, is such a level of obedience key to God later deciding which of his people might murder which other people (as in, who might possess the promised land by force and who might die in its defense)?

 I believe that God rewarded Abraham for his faithfulness to him, but that preceded Abraham's test of faith. God had already promised that Abraham would get an heir and that a great nation would come of him. Also, the key point in Abraham's test of faith was the test, not the willingness to kill. God would not have let Abraham kill his son, but wanted to give an example of faith to the world (not the contemporary world). Abraham loved God more than anything else, including his only son which God had given him and his wife as a gift.

The reason God instructed the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of Canaan was because the Israelites had proven they weren't capable of living alongside other nations without falling into idolatry. God allowed it for Israel's benefit, not because those nations were evil (that was not the main reason, anyway).

What do you think about the passage in 2 Kings 2:23-24 when God sent two bears to maul to death 42 youngsters because they mocked prophet Elisah for being bald?

Is that part of the Bible that gets skipped nowadays

J

Jaitea said:

What do you think about the passage in 2 Kings 2:23-24 when God sent two bears to maul to death 42 youngsters because they mocked prophet Elisah for being bald?

Is that part of the Bible that gets skipped nowadays

J

 When bad things are attributed to God in the Bible, I think that is because of the way people viewed God at the time. The author of 2 Kings knew about a couple of bears that had mauled some children, and those children had earlier been mocking Elijah, so he attributed the maulings to God taking action against the children.

I don't have my Bible handy and I'm not familiar with that passage, but that's how I understand it. Did Elijah ask God to do something to the children? If so, then I don't know the answer to the question. The first sentence of my answer is still relevant to other situations though.

RicOlie_2 said:

Jaitea said:

What do you think about the passage in 2 Kings 2:23-24 when God sent two bears to maul to death 42 youngsters because they mocked prophet Elisah for being bald?

Is that part of the Bible that gets skipped nowadays

J

 When bad things are attributed to God in the Bible, I think that is because of the way people viewed God at the time. The author of 2 Kings knew about a couple of bears that had mauled some children, and those children had earlier been mocking Elijah, so he attributed the maulings to God taking action against the children.

I don't have my Bible handy and I'm not familiar with that passage, but that's how I understand it. Did Elijah ask God to do something to the children? If so, then I don't know the answer to the question. The first sentence of my answer is still relevant to other situations though.

 Oh....yes, so in that everything that happened good or bad in the Bible could be just Man attributing events to God?

This is what I think really happened,...man trying to explain things, beyond his knowledge....there must be an invisible God....like the wind, like gravity

J