This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622864/pdf/15356939.pdf
People are so misinformed about condoms.
What exactly are you arguing? Your link is a properly cited paper that shows condoms
do
reduce the chances of catching an STD but your phrasing implies that Squishalot is wrong in thinking so.
Did you look at the numbers?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Abstinence does not work.
The virus has now mutated to teleport from body to body I guess?
Abstinence does not prevent rape. Abstinence does not remove the human urge to reproduce. You'd be a fool to say that everyone who preaches and practices abstinence always stays abstinent.
My roommate is rolling around laughing right now.
Let's rephrase what you said.
Abstinence
A condom does not prevent rape.
Abstinence
A condom does not remove the human urge to reproduce. You'd be a fool to say that everyone who preaches and practices
abstinence
condom use always
stays abstinent
uses a condom.
Post by
Squishalot
This knowledge exists in eternity, so does it therefore limit the free choices I made?
It is important, to some extent. I'm not sure how well you're read in terms of the philosophy of time, but there exist two rough schools of thought - (summarised) that the future exists, and that it doesn't exist yet. Both of these are compatible with predeterminism and fatalism, but there is a minor difference. If the future exists, then in theory, you could 'look forward' in time and see what happens, and prove (for lack of a better word) that your fate occurs.
If the future doesn't exist, you can't actually prove that you're fated to do something until it happens, because there is nothing forward to 'view' to. The knowledge doesn't occur until it happens.
The Christian view of the world, where God exists outside of time, implicitly believes that the future exists. God has knowledge of our future, therefore it must exist (and not simply be fated or predetermined) 'in eternity', as you say. But that means that such knowledge must also exist from our perspective of time as well (since our future exists).
The analogy could be that God is reading a book. Insofar as the book is written, the future is destined - God knows the ending. If God then brings the characters to life at the end of the book, they can look back and see the book and know that what had happened was all destined and that there was no freedom.
God knew he himself was going to die for us from all eternity...are you going to derive from that, that his choice on earth to die was not free?
No, that would be the equivalent of writing a book in your own blood. The events of the book are unchanging as its time perspective passes, as is your blood all through it.
I can point you to
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#1
which has arguments made throughout the centuries. But it's pretty full of philosophical terms and whatnot.
At a glance, it looks interesting. I'll check it out from home over the next week when I get more time and can focus on it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Everything more or less made sense, except this step:
But that means that such knowledge must also exist from our perspective of time as well (since our future exists).
It exists from God's perspective, therefore it exists from our perspective. How does that follow?
And the analogy of the book isn't totally correct. You'd have to add that that his reading of it and his creation of the 'reenactment' and the reenactment itself all occurred in the same instant.
Post by
Squishalot
It exists from God's perspective, therefore it exists from our perspective. How does that follow?
How about:
It exists from God's perspective, therefore we must know that it exists, because God exists.
Sort of like saying, I know your roommate exists, because I know you exist, and you know your roommate exists. I don't need to be able to see your roommate to know that he/she exists.
And the analogy of the book isn't totally correct. You'd have to add that that his reading of it and his creation of the 'reenactment' and the reenactment itself all occurred in the same instant.
Yep, well, sortof. Instead butchering the analogy further, let's just say that God's will is immaterial and free (by definition, being omnipotent), and that what he does is, by definition, outside of this physical world. That he came and died, from the philosophical viewpoint that I'm putting forward, has nothing to do with his free will, because he's not bound by the events of the universe, he created the events of the universe.
Or, alternatively, for him to play this game, he had to insert his dollar into the coin slot. So by definition, by virtue of him creating this world, he had to die (cost of creating this world). By argument, you can say that he did die, but if his 'future' is unknown (does God have a sense of time outside our universe?), then he isn't bound to anything. Of course, then he doesn't know his future. Then you get into all sorts of stupid games such as "Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?", which aren't worth considering.
Ok, enough time wasted with that side thought. Let's focus on the main point above instead (with the limited time I can spare on fun discussion).
Did you look at the numbers?
I glanced quickly and it read that the propensity of condom users to catch HIV was about 50% less on average than non-condom users. I didn't check sample size or methodology, happy to look at and question that after the weekend, unless you'd rather point it out here. Not sure what the point of linking the article was, unless you're trying to demonstrate that their 'evidence' that condom use helps is flawed in some way?
Post by
Squishalot
Quick q, Hyper, because it's too difficult to look it up without running across different random sources of info online :P
In the event that a Sunday comes around, and there isn't a Catholic Church accessible, is it better to:
a) Go to a different denomination Christian church (if so, which in particular?);
b) Go to a non-denominational Christian church; or
c) Not go to any church?
Thought just struck me this weekend, as a result of circumstance. What's your view?
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
203805
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Quick q, Hyper, because it's too difficult to look it up without running across different random sources of info online :P
In the event that a Sunday comes around, and there isn't a Catholic Church accessible, is it better to:
a) Go to a different denomination Christian church (if so, which in particular?);
b) Go to a non-denominational Christian church; or
c) Not go to any church?
Thought just struck me this weekend, as a result of circumstance. What's your view?
The order of priority would be
Catholic church of your rite > Catholic church of a different rite > Orthodox church > anything else (including staying home and holding a private 'service')
Why? Because for Catholics, the Mass exists
for the sake of
as a means of entering into the Sacrament of
the Eucharist. And the above named are the only ones we recognize to have a valid Eucharist.
Edited for bad choice of words
PS Also, we can pick up the previous discussion again if you want. I don't know if it's too old though for us to get back into it.
Post by
Squishalot
Heh, up to you. Might be a little difficult to pick things up again, and I'm still a bit busy until the New Year, so I won't be replying very fast. Besides, I'm amused by the Chaos Theory discussion on the other side :P
So basically, if a church isn't going to provide a 'valid' Eucharist, then there's no point going? I would have assumed that there are other reasons for going to a church other than the Eucharist alone.
And the definition of a 'valid' Eucharist would be one that complies with Catholic traditions, so I'm assuming that an Anglican Eucharist wouldn't satisfy, if I understand you correctly?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Eucharistic validity springs directly from the validity of the priesthood and that can only exist if there is an unbroken line of bishops behind the one doing the ordaining. With Anglicans it's actually kind of complicated and there has been a lot of back and forth. I'm fairly sure the final verdict was reached that since most of the early documents demonstrating any validity in the bishops are missing and we have no way of knowing that we don't recognize them as properly ordained (that's a crazy sentence =/).
And to be totally frank, there is nothing really a protestant service can offer that a Catholic could not do on his own.
Post by
Squishalot
That works. So a Pentecostal or Charismatic eucharist definitely wouldn't suffice? ;)
I still never figured out the giant divide between Protestants and Catholics. I know it exists, but it seems to be based around an ancient enmity, rather than modern principles. Yes, I know the history behind the split, but I'm just amused by the hostility, that's all, their idea that "there are Christians and then there are Catholics", and the Catholic view of "Protestants aren't 'real' Christians".
Of course, that can't beat one comment from a Protestant friend of a friend: "Agnostics... they're the ones who believe in aliens, right?"
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That works. So a Pentecostal or Charismatic eucharist definitely wouldn't suffice? ;)
Unfortunately, no ;p
I still never figured out the giant divide between Protestants and Catholics. I know it exists, but it seems to be based around an ancient enmity, rather than modern principles. Yes, I know the history behind the split, but I'm just amused by the hostility, that's all, their idea that "there are Christians and then there are Catholics", and the Catholic view of "Protestants aren't 'real' Christians".
Well, yes there is hostility, but the divide is very real. Maybe it seems strange to you because as a protestant the issues aren't exactly central to your faith like they are to Catholics. Now I don't know what yours are specifically but I'll just use a couple examples.
Mary is a very very central figure in Catholicism. Many protestants do disagree on her place but don't understand why we make such a big deal. She is my spiritual mother just as much as my physical mother is, and I take offense at anything directed at her.
The Eucharist is another. For us the Eucharist
is
Christ just as much as Jesus 2000 years ago was Christ. That's my God -- no I'm not going to stop making it an issue.
The Pope is Christ's vicar on earth, so I have very loyal to him. It is a big issue.
So, what may not seem like big issue to you are very big issues to us.
Of course, that can't beat one comment from a Protestant friend of a friend: "Agnostics... they're the ones who believe in aliens, right?"
I lol'd.
Post by
Squishalot
Who ever said that I was Protestant? I'm sure I've firmly stated in the past that I'm an
alien believer
agnostic.
But yes, from what I understand of Christianity, I don't understand the significance placed on Mary by Catholics, and it's never been effectively explained to me either, to be honest.
The others, to me, are understandable, but questionable once you remove yourself from a Catholic view point. The Eucharist is entirely dependent on how you interpret the Last Supper in the Bible - whether you interpret it as 'do this (continually) in rememberance of me' or 'do this (now) in rememberance of me'. The Pope as the spiritual leader is up to you, much like the Archbishop of Canterbury, but there is more of a sense of built up tradition in that, rather than from anything in the Bible or what the Disciples did.
Anyway, if you wanted to go on about Mary, that would be enlightening. Otherwise, nothing more for now :)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Meh, I can never keep anyone's beliefs straight. Reminds me of the time I asked my neo-pagan friend if she had read the Pope's latest encyclical. /facepalm
As for the Eucharist - interpreting a single passage without relation to anything else usually doesn't get you anywhere. One should also note that he told the crowds (not his disciples) that they needed to 'eat my flesh.' Secondly, you don't do something in memory of someone ... if they're still there!
Not much to say about Mary. Being the mother of God she had a very special connection with him.
By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" of the Church.
968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."
Post by
Squishalot
I disagree with your second point - without "one last hug to remember me by", airports would make much less money from their parking spaces.
First point is somewhat debateable - after all, he never offered his flesh to the crowds, despite telling them that they should eat his flesh. So it's easy to suggest that the reference to his flesh is a metaphor, rather than a point to be taken literally.
As for Mary, there are plenty of other people with complete adherence to God's will - Abraham and Noah being two that come to mind. But they're not held to the same esteem that Mary is. Certainly, as the Mother of God, she is unique in that respect. But the degree of respect some Catholics pay to Mary borders on idol worship.
Post by
HiVolt
You know I've read quite a bit of this thread and I continue to find new knowledge. This is good stuff HSR, kudos for really knowing what you practice and believe. There are too many people who don't nowadays.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
As for Mary, there are plenty of other people with complete adherence to God's will - Abraham and Noah being two that come to mind.
Gen 12:13
Gen 9:21
Yes they were good people, but they were not sinless. Mary was.
The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the "New Adam" who, because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross", makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the "new Eve". Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.
I also think it's pretty hard to ignore the similarities between:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
and
Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."
Post by
Squishalot
Where in the Bible does it suggest that Mary was born without sin, and not merely interpreted that way by the Catholic Church?
No man or woman is born without sin, even before being consciously able to make a sinful act. Mary perhaps benefited from being cleared of sin by becoming the Mother of God, but to say that she was 'always' without sin isn't in line with much in the Bible.
The fact that you haven't quoted a passage to demonstrate that she was without sin, in the same way that you quoted passages detailing 'sins' of Abraham and Noah (to that point - being drunk and lying are not necessarily 'sins' in and of themselves) suggests that the concept of a 'sinless' Mary is more a construct of the Church on the basis of the lack of anything in the Bible to suggest that Mary sinned explicitly, rather than anything explicit to suggest that she was without sin.
Edit: As for the similarities, bread was the staple food of the time. Why wouldn't any metaphor keep coming back to bread?
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.