(03-31-2013, 03:50 AM)bbbrad Wrote: [ -> ]Wait, are you saying that the Catholic church thinks you can attain salvation without believing in Christ? Because, as a former not very attentive Catholic, I believe you are false in that. Catholics themselves are actually fairly lenient because quite a few don't really give a shit about what the church says honestly, but the church is pretty strict.
Many protestants believe that direct faith in Christ is NECESSARY for salvation (but not all denominations). Some even believe that it's the only thing required (sola fide).
However, from what I've heard and read, the Catholic church doesn't believe direct faith in Christ ("Christ is my one and only savior") to be necessary, but it helps. Again, at the end of her life, Mother Theresa had lost all direct faith in Christ, in other words, was no longer
circumcised of the heart. However, from what I've been told, the church says that there are two forms of faith: faith of the heart, and faith of the will, the latter of which is more important. Theresa had faith of the will (which I believe most people have), which essentially says "I want to know the truth and I try very hard to know it". Despite her struggles in faith her entire life, she still did everything she possibly could to be a good person. Today, she is a Catholic saint.
(I know not everyone agrees with her ideologies and actions, but it's not the person but rather the principle that matters in this context)
As such, I'm fairly certain that the Catholic church mostly cares about you trying to find the "truth" out there and not being intellectually lazy regarding philosophy of the world. It just assumes Christ to be the sole savior of humanity and that through enough reasoning, empiricism and hope you'll follow its path. Allegedly, one public Marian apparition claimed that all religious practice was loved by God and that 30% of people will make it in Purgatory (and eventually Heaven). If I was a Christian, I'm sure I'd be a universalist, however.
Most Christian denominations have what is called 'special salvation', which attempts to justify the existence of people who are unable to grasp Christianity, either because they had never heard of it (unlikely), are mentally incapacitated or infants (more likely), or live on a remote island/in an indigenous, non-contacted community (very likely). Since these people are unable to accept Christ as their savior, they have special salvation, provided that they remain good within their capabilities/community. Otherwise it's unfair.
Finally, the Bible mentions Jesus posthumously traveling to Sheol (land of the dead in Judaism; this is nor Heaven, nor Hell, but a mere resting place for the Jews until the messiah comes along) to redeem the righteous and damn the wicked. Most of these deceased people couldn't possibly have faith in Christ since most of them had died before Christ was even born. This
biblically supports special salvation.
(03-31-2013, 03:50 AM)bbbrad Wrote: [ -> ]They think it's wrong because they think it opens up the doors to allowing premarital sex and other forms of sexual misconduct (which is essentially any sex that is not procreative)
That is not necessarily true. Sex that is between two loving (married) adults for the purpose of showing love and creating a chemical and physiological bond is also permitted, but only without the use of contraception.
Personally, I'd only have sex with someone I care about. Only sex that "means" something. I wouldn't do it for myself; I would do it for her, and I'd want the same in return. I know that in Catholicism, you have baptism of water, which is the most common form. However you can be baptized of desire, which is essentially you "wanting" to be baptized. I don't see why this couldn't apply to other sacraments like first communion or marriage, provided you know exactly what they are (however I do realize that the institution of marriage has actual advantages and benefits from a legal viewpoint, applying to religion as well).
(03-31-2013, 03:50 AM)bbbrad Wrote: [ -> ]which consequently leads to the moral deterioration of society. I pretty much think that's absurd. Most Catholics and Christians in general basically disregard the whole no pre-marital sex thing anyway (also the no contraception thing), so it pretty much amounts to the church telling people to do things and people are just like "nah it's not that bad" so they do it.
Yup, you can say that again. Though I can see where they're coming from with the pre-marital sex thing, the contraception ban is absolutely absurd, like you say. Even my dad, who is a hardcore Catholic (also my main source of information along with the internet), believes sexual morality to be way too restrictive and that if the church was more laid-back and easy-going, it would recruit more people.
It is entirely possible to remove many sexual morality laws from the doctrine; doing so would
not go against papal infallibility, which
doesn't mean the pope is never wrong under any circumstances. We could very well see gay marriage, contraception, ordaining of women and marriage for priests happening in the future because none of them have to do with core dogma.
(03-31-2013, 03:50 AM)bbbrad Wrote: [ -> ]That's really my major gripe with Christian churches second to the gay marriage issue. The churches make up these extra unimportant things that they find in the Bible and completely forget about the part where Jesus is the most important thing and he chilled with people who were poor and unhealthy and super crazy sinners. Churches spew out condemnations and negativity rather than be like Jesus, which is what the nigga said to do in the first place("be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect").
Yup. Though I'm totally okay with gay marriage, I can see where they're coming from. I think it's a little silly considering one cannot change their orientation, but I get the gist of their arguments.
And by the way, the biblical passages that talk about gay relationships, in my interpretation, seem to support them.
Leviticus says "If a man lays with man the way he lays with woman, it is abomination". To me it sounds like you should go with what works for you. If you are born a gay man, you're not going to enjoy laying with a woman and will prefer laying with a man, and the opposite for straight man. Going against your sexual preference goes against nature, and who knows, perhaps science will eventually conclude that gay relationships might bring good to society in a different way that straight ones do. Also, it doesn't mention relationships between two women. That is just my interpretation but there are many different ways to interpret them and quite frankly, I think gay marriage is a minor issue in Christianity.
Check out the concept of Primacy of Conscience. Interest concept.
(03-31-2013, 03:50 AM)bbbrad Wrote: [ -> ]That's why I am actually incredibly pleased with the new pope. He seems to be very humble and Jesus-like. He even switched out his elevated throne for an even-leveled white chair so he can be equal to his peers. He still holds a lot of conservative views on things like contraception and homosexuality, but he's a step in the right direction. Like he's doing good (or at least looks like it) to change all the dumb corrupt things about the Catholic church.
I'm not following much news about the new pope, but I have heard that he seems rather awesome.
(03-31-2013, 03:50 AM)bbbrad Wrote: [ -> ]It's just because you are disobeying God's law basically. That's what a "sin against God" is. Not that he is harmed by it at all necessarily, just that your actions are contrary to what they say God says.
Makes sense, but I still have a hard time buying it. God doesn't invent morality; rather, morality is objective and exists metaphysically on the side of everything else, and God is perfect. God
is morality. As such, God is the greatest moral entity that would exist.
Thus, there is a "good" reason as to why something can be a sin against God and cannot be bad just for the sake of being bad. My impression is that it's in reality a sin against yourself. For example, to lust after a woman is seen as sin and the book of Matthew even considers it to be "adultery in the heart", even if the act of lust on its own doesn't superficially hurt anyone. However, obsession can lead to very grave sins such as cheating on your spouse or rape.
In other words, I think a sin against God is a sin that pulls you away from him. Thus it doesn't hurt God, but yourself. But this is just a quick impression I've got and a sin on yourself eventually leads to a sin on the world.
I think I just answered myself. lol
(03-31-2013, 03:50 AM)bbbrad Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah. Religion is good for the most part, but corrupted, as are most things in life. Islam I would say is the one that I am not all okay with. Possibly just cuz I am not exposed to the Quran and which parts are considered metaphors and crazy disregarded stuff. I might make a post about my religious/spiritual/worldly views in a bit.
Yep, but I think the main problem is that people tend to say "religion is bad because Spanish Inquisition/crusades/forced conversion/hate groups/etc", which is an obvious (or should be) fallacy. A religion cannot hurt anyone. Rather, it is individuals that hurt other individuals (guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people, etc). It's more correct to say that an
institution is bad, but even that is very wrong. People need to look at every instance rather than the grand scheme of things.
Good people:
Martin Luther King (Christian)
(post-Nation of Islam) Malcolm X (Muslim)
Bill Gates (Atheist)
Che Guevara (Communist, though this one is controversial)
Oskar Schindler (Nazi. Yes, I went there, but it just goes to show that there are exceptions everywhere)
Bad people:
Tomás de Torquemada (Christian)
Osama Bin Laden (Muslim)
Benito Mussolini (Atheist)
Joseph Stalin (Communist)
Adolf Hitler (Nazi)
(03-31-2013, 03:50 AM)bbbrad Wrote: [ -> ]Also, why are you anti-drug?
To see somebody having their mind and body destroyed is depressing as hell. Now imagine when people inflict it on themselves. Drugs are addictive for the most part and almost everybody who has done drugs extensively will tell you never, under any circumstances, to start. Nikki Sixx, previously known as the king of heroin, is actively against drug use today (considering he was clinically dead for five minutes following an overdose), often reminding people that if he could, he would go back in order to never start in the first place.
I don't want people to do drugs. People are better than that and I'd feel extremely depressed if one of my loved ones began. I already think that it's amazing that tobacco is legal. The only reason it is is because it's a very,
very large industry and that banning it would have adverse health effects on addicts as well as on the economy. I also don't believe legalizing all drugs will be beneficial to society or get rid of drug cartels (but we should definitely help and stop dehumanizing people who use them).
I also am very much against the notion that drugs make you more creative. If you rely on them to come up with decent art or music, you're not really creative in the first place, and aren't going to be anytime soon. Yes, a lot of very good music was produced by stoners and cokeheads, but that doesn't mean I agree with the method used. Blues exists because of slavery and folk music of the 60's exists because of war. Not to mention black metal.
Drugs also just scare me. I don't understand why anyone would want to start, with the possible exception of starting as a last resort to cope with stress or depression and the likes, not that it justifies drug use. My childhood friend F (shortened for privacy) started doing pot out of curiosity when he was 17, and recently stopped when he realized it caused him panic attacks. He realized he was better without it (and alcohol), especially considering he is on medication for his anxiety.
(03-31-2013, 03:50 AM)bbbrad Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, i'm a Buddhist, I am kinda too tired to come up with a long post about it. And people who are super Christian and talk about it make me cringe.
I like Buddhism. The more I read about eastern and dharmic religions the more they interest and fascinate me. I also enjoy finding the similarities between religions that are born of different cultures, eras, and geographical locations (such as the Christian Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the Hindu concepts of karma, dharma and rta).
![[Image: thumbsup.jpg]](http://emoticonhq.com/images/ICQ/thumbsup.jpg)
hrug: