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
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
224056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
@ Alundrei, I think you're misinterpreting Hyper slightly.
He's not going to forcefully stop the victim from getting an abortion. He may not choose to offer abortions at his hospital, but that's not an action he's taking in response to something that's happened.
If he were a doctor, he wouldn't perform an abortion. That's all it is.
And indeed, atheists do do the same thing. Having said that, the level of religious tolerance is far beyond the level of atheist tolerance, which is sad. Why the "Jesus - all about life!" campaign in Australia was tolerated, but the Atheist Bus wasn't, is somewhat beyond me.
We do? I wasn't aware of this (at least, those that I know don't), and if they do, then I'd still argue that their lobbying is far less than that of the Catholics.
I think Funden is referring to individuals, not a collective group. The nature of being an atheist restricts them from forming an organised group in the same way that religion does, preventing them from presenting a united front.
Individual atheists will often be very rude in their approaches to religious people. Personal experience only, perhaps, but atheists are typically more extreme than religious people - they tend to be the ones to bring personal attacks into their arguments a lot faster (in the "you're an idiot for believing in imaginary things" sense). You don't get that with your everyday Christian, Jew or Muslim, for example.
Post by
Monday
Why are religious people (and it seems to be Catholics who are particularly guilty of this, so we'll say Catholics for the sake of the thread) so certain that their perceptions of life are the correct ones and state it so forcefully (and in some cases, evangelize it even when others ask to be left alone)?
Atheists do exactly the same thing.
Just saying.
http://xkcd.com/774/
Did I ever say that Christians don't do it? Everyone does it, but the OP put his/her question as if they didn't.
E: We do? I wasn't aware of this (at least, those that I know don't), and if they do, then I'd still argue that their lobbying is far less than that of the Catholics.
(Quick Google later...)
Also, what I turned up seems to mostly be "leave us alone and let us decide" kind of stuff, which is much different than the Catholic agenda.
lol. I want to say this is willful blindness, but you don't seem to be a spiteful person. Everybody does this, Atheists no more or less than others.
But they sure as hell still do it.
E2: Sorry, that seemed really condescending. My apologies.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why can't you keep out of the victim's life, but instead keep your opinions to yourself?
Because when I see innocent life being taken away I quite literally won't stand by. Edit: Reading Squish's post, I can see some room for misinterpretation. I won't physically stop a woman from having an abortion for the simple reason that it would be barely effective. I would get arrested, and she'd probably still end up aborting.
Aren't you being no different in your you concern for the victim woman's life as I am being in my concern for the victim child's life? I just have different values than you: I believe the fetus' life is of greater concern than even a rape victim's comfort, where as you believe that the comfort and free choice of a rape victim is of greater concern than the fetus' life.
As hard as people try to make me out as a "rape victim hater" or whatever I happen to be in regards to the current issue, I've said nothing but good things about that person. They're not a bad person, they are a victim, and it is the duty of every Christian (and every person) to help her through it...and it is even understandable that some might want an abortion (just like it's understandable for someone to want revenge if their parents were killed) but that doesn't justify the killing itself.
The wording of 'do this in memory of me', even taken literally and not figuratively, could mean two things - to consume bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ, or to conduct this ceremony.
Whatever it means, it has to include the latter of necessity (because the consummation can't be done without some means of obtaining it).
The point I made is that Jesus chose to say it only to his 12 Apostles. That was a choice. He could have done it when he teaching the Jews in John 6. But we see a difference. To the people he says eat my body. To the apostles he says
do this,
with
this
as I said having to include as least the ceremony to make sense.
Post by
229054
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Did I ever say that Christians don't do it? Everyone does it, but the OP put his/her question as if they didn't.
You're reading too much into the link.
Personally, I believe that everyone is prone to imposing their beliefs, no matter what these beliefs are, on others. Religion just tends to be the most sensitive topic possible and thus gets more spotlight.
Ah, I gotcha.
Post by
224056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
The point I made is that Jesus chose to say it only to his 12 Apostles. That was a choice. He could have done it when he teaching the Jews in John 6. But we see a difference. To the people he says eat my body. To the apostles he says
do this
, with
this
as I said having to include as least the ceremony to make sense.
I agree. Whether the ceremony is intended to be partaken amongst the masses is questionable, however. If the apostles are to
do this
, why does the Church insist that everybody must
do this
?
Turn it around a slightly different way, since we're forgetting the first half of the sentence.
"This is my body,
which is for you
; do this in remembrance of me."
Is this for the Apostles, or for Christians? To make sense, the people whom this is
for
would have to be the same people to
do this
.
And to the whole "atheists do it too" crowd: I know we do. But we tend not to be on the same level as the Catholic Church.
See comment on the organisation of atheists vs religion. Of course it's not on the same organisational level. It tends to be a lot more personal though. I get atheists attacking me for acknowledging the possibility of a god, or worse, the possibility that the Catholics might be correct. You don't get quite the same vitriol from your everyday religious person.
Post by
Monday
But we tend not to be on the same level as the Catholic Church.
I haven't had too much problem with the Catholic Church, which was why I was kinda skeptical. Most of my issues come from evangelicals.
Also, just for fun: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The rape/abortion issue was just the one that motivated me to post. I meant the question more in a general sense, sort of "why do you feel so impelled to insert your opinions in other people's lives?" kind of deal.
I answered your example issue. You'll need to provide more examples if you want a response. To put it bluntly, "Why are you all %^&*s?" isn't a question that can be answered to much effect.
Post by
wolfeyoung
Abortion.
What about
ectopic pregnancy
?
Post by
224056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I know MyTie would disagree, but I would consider an abortion in that sense a case of triage. Question of 'is allowing someone to die' philosophically the same as 'killing someone'.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I agree. Whether the ceremony is intended to be partaken amongst the masses is questionable, however. But eating his body is not, as evidenced by the passages from John, wouldn't you agree? (If you're going to take one literally, it wouldn't make sense not to take the other one literally.) And that is exactly what happens. The priest performs the Consecration on his own, and both the Priest and the people consume.
Turn it around a slightly different way, since we're forgetting the first half of the sentence.
"This is my body,
which is for you
; do this in remembrance of me."
Is this for the Apostles, or for Christians? To make sense, the people whom this is
for
would have to be the same people to
do this
.
It's, in the common translation, "which will be given up for you" (referring to the imminent crucifixion). Since we know that he died for all mankind (at least, I hope you don't have any problems with that), that you means "you 12 and everyone else." Following that with a command does not necessarily mean that it applies to everyone beyond those he's talking to. If I say to my brother "you (referring to his basketball team, even though he's the only one present) are the best players I've ever seen; show me some of your moves" I don't necessarily mean for him to go and get his whole team to come over and teach me; in fact, that would be a stretch. I of course mean for him to teach me.
Post by
Squishalot
My question boils down to the need to proselytize. Why do Catholics feel the need to inject themselves into other people's lives?
(On second thought, you don't really need to answer it. I think it's going to be along the lines of "Catholics are worried for your soul and want you to be saved" and we'll have to agree to disagree.)
Why do atheists? At least religious people have a more valid reason to (worried for your soul). Atheists have no unique reason for it at all.
Actually, the main reason is because it says so in the Bible, and in Church teaching. You know something good, you share it with others so they can hop on the bandwagon. We do that in everything else in life, why not religion also?
But eating his body is not, as evidenced by the passages from John, wouldn't you agree? (If you're going to take one literally, it wouldn't make sense not to take the other one literally.) And that is exactly what happens. The priest performs the Consecration on his own, and both the Priest and the people consume.
What I meant was, there's nothing in the command that suggests that non-apostles (i.e. the people) are to follow the command as well. In fact, this is precisely what you're arguing below - that the command
do this
does not apply to the people. So why is the Eucharist a sacrament that all good Catholics must have?
Following that with a command does not necessarily mean that it applies to everyone beyond those he's talking to. If I say to my brother "you (referring to his basketball team, even though he's the only one present) are the best players I've ever seen; show me some of your moves" I don't necessarily mean for him to go and get his whole team to come over and teach me; in fact, that would be a stretch. I of course mean for him to teach me.
You mean for him to teach you, but I would have thought that would include the moves performed by others in the team as well.
Suppose you were able to teach your brother something new (a new strategy, or a move, or something). If you tell him "This will benefit your whole team; go off and practice it", I would assume that you mean for him to share that strategy or move with the team and for the whole team to practice it, not for him to keep it to himself to win games with.
Post by
224056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
My question boils down to the need to proselytize. Why do Catholics feel the need to inject themselves into other people's lives?
What do you mean by "inject themselves into other people's lives?" I don't go around pulling people's condoms off. That's what I would consider injecting myself into someone's life. Saying that I don't think condoms should be used for birth control isn't really injecting myself into anyone's life, in my opinion.
All I've seen atheists push for is a logical understanding of the world, based on scientific process. It's something used by billions of people in lots of different ways. Only in the realm of religion (and politics, but let's not go there) do I see it ignored in favor of a "believe me in this" style of understanding.
Religion is used by billions of people for its overarching understanding of the world. Only in the realm of atheistic science is this ignored in favor of a "if I can't see it, it doesn't exist" style of understanding.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't go around pulling people's condoms off. That's what I would consider injecting myself into someone's life.
That's a somewhat disturbing mental image :P
All I've seen atheists push for is a logical understanding of the world, based on scientific process. It's something used by billions of people in lots of different ways. Only in the realm of religion (and politics, but let's not go there) do I see it ignored in favor of a "believe me in this" style of understanding.
Quantum randomness is based on a 'believe me in this' style of understanding. Science isn't as clear-cut as you necessarily think it is.
Post by
224056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.