[ChubbyWatermelon]

(Original post by Lilio Candidior)
Tattos and fashion choices like it are obviously not sins, however pornography is a terrible and foul thing and most certainly sinful. I am continually horrified that something that is so degrading to human dignity and the source of immense suffering is commonly accepted as normal. What is even more horrifying is that it is so broadly accepted because it's pleasurable. Why doesn't anyone realise that by watching pornography, you are collaborating with an industry that entails systematic degredation of the wonderful thing that sex is, the perpetuation of misogyny and robs human beings of their inherrent value by dehumanizing them, only so you can whack off? Anything that dehumanizes people should be shunned, and there are few things so dehumanizing as pornography. Pornography, no matter what religious affiliation you are, should by any person with the heart in the right place, anyone with even an ounce of compassion, be viewed as utterly inhumane.

It is true as you say. However, the repercussions of banning pornography would also be disastrous. Economically and socially.
The porn industry is a multimillion dollar company, employing thousands of people. One must be aware that it is these people's choice to be employed in the porn industry. or to be involved in porn. If it is not to their consent, obviously it is a viscous thing to do. however, if you ban porn, hypothetically, the economy would decline resulting in mass unemployment and thus lead to other sexual professions such as prostitution. Prostitution would eventually lead to an increase in sexual disease, thus it is also a medical issue.
Porn also releases sexual tension, therefore, if one bans pornography, it would lead to many people being sexual tense. thus more sexual relations would also take place. thus again leads to more sexual diseases. pre-marital Sexual relations, i believe is not a sin. As we too are, to the essence animals, sex is only a part of our being. You dont see two dogs undergoing holy matrimony before they get it on. Either way, this sexual tension would also result in an increase in rape cases. as we all know, not all women like to put out.

[ChubbyWatermelon]

(Original post by justmyopinions)
Hey
First of all I want to say that Catholicism, like other forms of Christianity, involves having faith in Jesus and God, who are one.
I will also add that the Bible was written by humans. God loves everybody and created everyone equal.
Jesus = Forgiveness. Any "sins" you carry out are forgiven (I "" sins because I don't believe homosexuality to be a sin. God created everyone for a purpose).

Catholicism is very strict, you could easily leave but that doesn't mean you need to give up Jesus. If you believe Jesus was the son of God then it doesn't matter if you're a Catholic, or Protestant, or Orthodox.

I will also add that I do not believe in evolution. However, I have heard the argument that some Christians do believe in evolution. After all, God could have, I guess, driven evolution during the 7 days he created the universe. After all, was it a waste of time if it occured before time began?



Conclusion: Leave Catholicism if you want, Jesus still loves you. Also, I'm pretty sure you will not go to Hell if you get a tattoo :L

Yes, I do believe in jesus, the holy spirit and of course god. But there is so much that is wrong with RELIGION. I believe these to be separate entities. I believe in God, I just dont like the religion as it is a human invention, with its flaws.

[justmyopinions]

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
Yes, I do believe in jesus, the holy spirit and of course god. But there is so much that is wrong with RELIGION. I believe these to be separate entities. I believe in God, I just dont like the religion as it is a human invention, with its flaws.

There are many sects of Christianity, and I'm sure you can find one which suits you
Or, you could be a Christian in your own way. You can visity many Churches on your own when they aren't holding services. That way you can just sit there and pray the way you want.

[P4361]

Paha, god doesn't exist! Oops I didn't put a capital 'g', God strike me down. Tell yourself god doesn't exist for a week, and you'll suddenly realise, he doesn't, (Or she, or whatever you think it is) There are so many flaws in religion, it's just is one big one. Don't go worrying about doing this and doing that because of what some non-existent creature in the cloud thinks. Enjoy life, live for the moment, and live each day to the full. I don't want to argue, but seriously think about it, all the questions anyone has about religion, they use one BIG fabricated word, "Faith" A poor vicious cycle of which I pity anyone trapped in it!

[DirtyRotten]

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
well if i knew God's intensions i would be the new messiah.

I always find this excuse of the devout particularly telling. Everyone's so sure about how God wants us to live our lives; worship, pray, don't have pre-marital sex, don't engage in homosexual acts etc. but when it comes to something that directly contradicts your religious belief like that fact that evolution doesn't support the idea of a benevolent God, it's all "OMG WE CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW GOD'S INTENTIONS, D'UH!!!!11" If that's the case, how can you be so sure that God's intention is for you to worship him and to not engage in pre-marital sex? Perhaps instead God wants you to go out and **** as many people as you can? After all, we can't possibly know God's intentions.

[dreiviergrenadier]

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
Hello everyone,
Before I start of with my theories, I just wanted to inform whoever is reading this thread that they should be open minded. Some of the details here might offend you. However, if you are willing to accept other people's ideas, discussing the realms of the Christian religions, please read on.

I am a Catholic. I was born one actually, I never got to choose what religion I was, and since I was a kid, the "catholic ways" were being fed to me. But, now, I think to myself, is it really accurate? Should I believe in ancestral ways in a modernizing world? What is my religion truly about.

So that is why I am doubtful.

I would suggest that your first point of call should be to try to inform yourself about what Catholicism actually says about some of the issues you've raised. There are a lot of caricatures of religious (and indeed all) views in popular culture but Catholicism, having a fairly nuanced and detailed intellectual tradition, seems to have it particularly badly in this respect. I'd suggest taking these issues to the CathSoc, or talk to your priest/find a Catholic website.

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
Pornography. Tattoos. Piercings. According many catholics, it is a sin. 'We must not change what God had created', They say. But, aren't these things part of our everyday lives? and if so, do we shun those who do commit these so called 'sins'.

Following on from what I've said above, I think you're a bit misdirected about what Catholicism would say. I don't think there is any such argument that common, everyday occurrences cannot be immoral, or even hugely evil. The Catholic view, as I understand it, is that human (and maybe other animal's too) desires and inclinations naturally (i.e. with no corruption or distortion) lead a person towards the good(s). This is a fairly complex view, but it cannot be reduced to, or applied to, the question you raise. Indeed, I think Catholics consider themselves obliged to change what we might consider our 'everyday lives' massively. (This is to ignore whether or not the things you've mentioned are actually sins - pornography certainly is, the other two I doubt.)

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
Is homosexuality a sin? Many people say that they CHOOSE to be homosexuals? But, think about it, would they choose a life of torment from our 21st century society? I THink not, they were born this way. And if they were born that way, with a different way of thinking, is it not god who created him?

I think there are three mistakes here. The first is that people might (and frequently do) choose things that will have negative consequences - I mean, many people choose to become Christians in situations where they face torture and execution. Such a simplistic statement ('people don't choose bad things for themselves') cannot be supported.

The second mistake I think you make here is in thinking that desires and inclinations we are born with must be good. To go back to the brief explanation I gave above, Catholicism claims that only natural desires are good. This is why they claim that homosexuality is a distorted (or 'disordered') desire, because it does not incline towards the goods of procreation or marital unity. This applies whether or not the person is born with those desires. An analogy can be found with our inclinations to lie/get angry. We don't seem to choose them, and nor would we want to. So they seem 'normal' to us, and almost 'inherent'. And yet they are desires that need to be suppressed and controlled, because they lead us to do wrongful things.

The third mistake I think you make is in not differentiating between desires and actions. People can have desires that they don't act upon; and no-one is born engaging in homosexual behaviour! So the 'born that way' (even if true) could only apply to the desire itself, not the practices that it might incline towards.

Now, these three points don't settle the issue either way. But I think they are traps that you should try to avoid falling into when thinking about the issue.

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
AH AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON EVOLUTION! There is this huge debate God vs. theory of evolution. Anyone stopped to think, maybe God made evolution take place. Maybe he say little flaws of creatures and decided to make them adapt. Tweeking them.

Again, look at your church!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/#.T7OoeMWEGPQ

The Pope's point is that evolution is true, but that does not deny that God exists (and in a sense, this debate is silly - no other scientific theories have this issue - gravity does not prove God's non-existence, for example).

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
So these are just a few issues, that i thought were quite debatable. I know this might sound silly to people, but I dont remember the last time God punished someone for having pre-marital sex, or watching internet porn. I think the last 5 commandments are the most vital.

I wouldn't obsess about the 10 commandments. Look at how Jesus summed up the law:

(Original post by Matthew 22:36-40)
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

This doesn't mean that pornography/pre-marital sex aren't moral issues (there are, and serious ones). But the primary focus must be those two commandments.

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
P.S. In some churches, they make people say certain 'prayers', basically making people say what the church want them to say. That is just crap. You should be able to say what you want to God, when you go to church. Church is supposed to bring to closer to God. The idea of this type of prayer is a facade on the true Christian.

What do you make of the Lord's Prayer? This kind of prayer shows us what we should be praying for - I'm not getting closer to God if I turn up to church every week and pray that I'll hate my neighbour more!

[dreiviergrenadier]

(Original post by DirtyRotten)
I always find this excuse of the devout particularly telling. Everyone's so sure about how God wants us to live our lives; worship, pray, don't have pre-marital sex, don't engage in homosexual acts etc. but when it comes to something that directly contradicts your religious belief like that fact that evolution doesn't support the idea of a benevolent God, it's all "OMG WE CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW GOD'S INTENTIONS, D'UH!!!!11" If that's the case, how can you be so sure that God's intention is for you to worship him and to not engage in pre-marital sex? Perhaps instead God wants you to go out and **** as many people as you can? After all, we can't possibly know God's intentions.

Not really. One might consistently believe that God's intentions are generally inscrutable, but that he has revealed some of them to us.

[dreiviergrenadier]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
Yes. Especially the last one that convicts people of thoughtcrime and puts one's wife on par with one's house, ox and ass.

These are pretty oft-parotted criticisms, but I've never been convinced that they come with any particular intellectual rigour (they are, after all, from Christopher Hitchens).

Firstly, on the issue of 'thought crime' - do you really want to presuppose all of Hitchen's libertarian philosophy (and all the assumptions he makes on the back of it) into this? He assumes that these are legal rules (because his concern is with his [an absurb] idea of freedom), enforceable by some kind of governmental sanction. This is stupid. There isn't any evidence to suggest this is in the text, and the commandments don't seem to have any such elevated status above other ancient Judaic law. Even if these rules are political, I see no reason why a State cannot or should not be involved in guiding the mental development and inclinations of its citizenry.

But without any political connotations, I think it's clear that your objection fails, because the 'crime' suffix is clearly inapplicable. And then it just looks like a jolly good idea.

Secondly, as for how it portrays wives, that's just a bit immature. Things put together don't all have to be exactly the same. There are clearly different laws that apply to servants, and animals, and land/houses, and other possessions. The fact that they can be put together as things that someone might want, and want to take, does not negate those very real differences, or the differences in legal treatment. The deuteronomic formulation actually makes this very clear. There is a separate injunction for wives, and even a different verb (in the NIV at least). It's clearly not an objection made by someone who has taken the time to think about the issue for any time longer than it took to apply a prejudice.

[Lilio Candidior]

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
It is true as you say. However, the repercussions of banning pornography would also be disastrous. Economically and socially.
The porn industry is a multimillion dollar company, employing thousands of people. One must be aware that it is these people's choice to be employed in the porn industry. or to be involved in porn. If it is not to their consent, obviously it is a viscous thing to do. however, if you ban porn, hypothetically, the economy would decline resulting in mass unemployment and thus lead to other sexual professions such as prostitution. Prostitution would eventually lead to an increase in sexual disease, thus it is also a medical issue.
Porn also releases sexual tension, therefore, if one bans pornography, it would lead to many people being sexual tense. thus more sexual relations would also take place. thus again leads to more sexual diseases. pre-marital Sexual relations, i believe is not a sin. As we too are, to the essence animals, sex is only a part of our being. You dont see two dogs undergoing holy matrimony before they get it on. Either way, this sexual tension would also result in an increase in rape cases. as we all know, not all women like to put out.

This ain't about politics, it's about ethics. That it is politically unfeasible to ban pornography has nothing to do with whether it is right for a person to watch it or not. I think (and you seem to agree with me) that watching pornography is far in the wrong. Stop making ****ty excuses for this corrupt industry, and stop making ****ty excuses based upon the amount of money they make. No matter how many millions they make in that foul industry, it can never be used to buy back the dignity and humanity of people degraded by it. When an industry is based on selling off human dignity and worth, then you can't use money to buy it back. That's why you should never compromise on human dignity and worth. Never. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

Part of being Christian means trying, with God's help, to strive away from the frankly ****ed up ways of the world, and if porn isn't ****ed up then I don't know what is.

[ChubbyWatermelon]

(Original post by Lilio Candidior)
This ain't about politics, it's about ethics. That it is politically unfeasible to ban pornography has nothing to do with whether it is right for a person to watch it or not. I think (and you seem to agree with me) that watching pornography is far in the wrong. Stop making ****ty excuses for this corrupt industry, and stop making ****ty excuses based upon the amount of money they make. No matter how many millions they make in that foul industry, it can never be used to buy back the dignity and humanity of people degraded by it. When an industry is based on selling off human dignity and worth, then you can't use money to buy it back. That's why you should never compromise on human dignity and worth. Never. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

Part of being Christian means trying, with God's help, to strive away from the frankly ****ed up ways of the world, and if porn isn't ****ed up then I don't know what is.

well.... im not making as you say "****ty excuses". I am just saying, people make choices. I think that some porn stars quite enjoy what they do. You are basing your assumption that watching people make love is "degrading human dignity". Most pornography is as you can say 'legal', this is because people comply to it. Some people (not me), like being watched, they like the attention of publishing it. I feel one might have a premeditated standard of what 'human dignity' is. I do not understand how porn is as you say, "****ed up". Sexual intercourse is essentially an activity, it simply varies upon person to person on what value they place on it. Videoing sex, can be degraded to videoing football, if the people who are in the video do not value the idea of sex at all.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
These are pretty oft-parotted criticisms, but I've never been convinced that they come with any particular intellectual rigour (they are, after all, from Christopher Hitchens).

Firstly, on the issue of 'thought crime' - do you really want to presuppose all of Hitchen's libertarian philosophy (and all the assumptions he makes on the back of it) into this? He assumes that these are legal rules (because his concern is with his [an absurb] idea of freedom), enforceable by some kind of governmental sanction. This is stupid. There isn't any evidence to suggest this is in the text, and the commandments don't seem to have any such elevated status above other ancient Judaic law. Even if these rules are political, I see no reason why a State cannot or should not be involved in guiding the mental development and inclinations of its citizenry.

But without any political connotations, I think it's clear that your objection fails, because the 'crime' suffix is clearly inapplicable. And then it just looks like a jolly good idea.

Glad to see that rather than address an idea, you choose to attack the person the idea comes from first. I can tell that you have your objective hat on.

The concept of figurative language has just SOARED right over your head, hasn't it? Thoughtcrime is an efficient metaphor for "a sin based on what we think and feel". It's not a literal claim of it breaking a law in a political system. What a terribly weak defence.

Secondly, as for how it portrays wives, that's just a bit immature. Things put together don't all have to be exactly the same. There are clearly different laws that apply to servants, and animals, and land/houses, and other possessions. The fact that they can be put together as things that someone might want, and want to take, does not negate those very real differences, or the differences in legal treatment. The deuteronomic formulation actually makes this very clear. There is a separate injunction for wives, and even a different verb (in the NIV at least). It's clearly not an objection made by someone who has taken the time to think about the issue for any time longer than it took to apply a prejudice.

I'll have a look in my KJV bible, as it is the oldest source I possess as I can't read Hebrew/Ancient Greek, and get you a quote:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Exodus 20:17

So the house gets mentioned before the wife, there is no separate injunction, there's no separate verb. And it quite clearly puts one's wife on the same level as the rest of his possessions with "nor anything that is thy neighbour's", collecting the list over one umbrella. I can already see what sort of semantic defence of the Bible you're going to pull-out (oh, it doesn't put them under the same umbrella), and your initial interjection of it only being the wording of my source. I personally think that adultery (as I remember a verse in the New Testament going along the lines of 'someone who looks upon a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart) deserves to be in a different category of wanting something that is your neighbours.

The OT was written more than 2000 years ago, you really think people viewed wives as anything more than a possession back then?

[ChubbyWatermelon]

(Original post by P4361)
Paha, god doesn't exist! Oops I didn't put a capital 'g', God strike me down. Tell yourself god doesn't exist for a week, and you'll suddenly realise, he doesn't, (Or she, or whatever you think it is) There are so many flaws in religion, it's just is one big one. Don't go worrying about doing this and doing that because of what some non-existent creature in the cloud thinks. Enjoy life, live for the moment, and live each day to the full. I don't want to argue, but seriously think about it, all the questions anyone has about religion, they use one BIG fabricated word, "Faith" A poor vicious cycle of which I pity anyone trapped in it!

^_^ Finally an atheist comes into the thread. Thank you for your valuable input and your opinion. However, to my dismay, there are many who will disagree to your train of thought. I believe it is fine that you dont believe that God exists, however, do not insult the beliefs of others or 'pity' them as you say. It is insulting.

I do, however, agree on your latter message, "Enjoy life, live for the moment, and live each day to the full". Whether you believe God or not, one should follow this code.

[ChubbyWatermelon]

(Original post by dreiviergrenadier)
I would suggest that your first point of call should be to try to inform yourself about what Catholicism actually says about some of the issues you've raised. There are a lot of caricatures of religious (and indeed all) views in popular culture but Catholicism, having a fairly nuanced and detailed intellectual tradition, seems to have it particularly badly in this respect. I'd suggest taking these issues to the CathSoc, or talk to your priest/find a Catholic website.



Following on from what I've said above, I think you're a bit misdirected about what Catholicism would say. I don't think there is any such argument that common, everyday occurrences cannot be immoral, or even hugely evil. The Catholic view, as I understand it, is that human (and maybe other animal's too) desires and inclinations naturally (i.e. with no corruption or distortion) lead a person towards the good(s). This is a fairly complex view, but it cannot be reduced to, or applied to, the question you raise. Indeed, I think Catholics consider themselves obliged to change what we might consider our 'everyday lives' massively. (This is to ignore whether or not the things you've mentioned are actually sins - pornography certainly is, the other two I doubt.)



I think there are three mistakes here. The first is that people might (and frequently do) choose things that will have negative consequences - I mean, many people choose to become Christians in situations where they face torture and execution. Such a simplistic statement ('people don't choose bad things for themselves') cannot be supported.

The second mistake I think you make here is in thinking that desires and inclinations we are born with must be good. To go back to the brief explanation I gave above, Catholicism claims that only natural desires are good. This is why they claim that homosexuality is a distorted (or 'disordered') desire, because it does not incline towards the goods of procreation or marital unity. This applies whether or not the person is born with those desires. An analogy can be found with our inclinations to lie/get angry. We don't seem to choose them, and nor would we want to. So they seem 'normal' to us, and almost 'inherent'. And yet they are desires that need to be suppressed and controlled, because they lead us to do wrongful things.

The third mistake I think you make is in not differentiating between desires and actions. People can have desires that they don't act upon; and no-one is born engaging in homosexual behaviour! So the 'born that way' (even if true) could only apply to the desire itself, not the practices that it might incline towards.

Now, these three points don't settle the issue either way. But I think they are traps that you should try to avoid falling into when thinking about the issue.



Again, look at your church!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/#.T7OoeMWEGPQ

The Pope's point is that evolution is true, but that does not deny that God exists (and in a sense, this debate is silly - no other scientific theories have this issue - gravity does not prove God's non-existence, for example).



I wouldn't obsess about the 10 commandments. Look at how Jesus summed up the law:



This doesn't mean that pornography/pre-marital sex aren't moral issues (there are, and serious ones). But the primary focus must be those two commandments.



What do you make of the Lord's Prayer? This kind of prayer shows us what we should be praying for - I'm not getting closer to God if I turn up to church every week and pray that I'll hate my neighbour more!

I dont really know how you do the cool separate quote thing... im quite new here. So ill do it in points ^_^.
1. Ofcourse, I may not know everything about the bible. So I am glad you cleared up some of my doubts. Thank you. The fact about the pope supporting evolution was something i was ignorant about.
2. The tattoos and piercings however, (according to my church society) is very frowned upon. As in very frowned upon. Pornography is sinning. Yet, some catholics do watch porn.
3. About homosexuality, so what i am pondering about is... "Is having natural homosexual desires wrong?" and if so "is it wrong to act on them". Of course homosexuals would not fall into "natural desires" because of the way people perceive and understand this concept. Which comes to another question "What is truly natural?" There is a theory, "the Oedipus complex" stating that it is natural for a son to desire to bed with his mother and kill his father" yet this is too taboo and called unnatural. So what is essentially "natural" to one person may completely differ to what "natural" behavior would be to another. Who knows, men centuries or milleniums ago might have had such homosexual desires but fail to act upon them due to societal pressures.

[iwantcurlyhairtoo]

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
well.... im not making as you say "****ty excuses". I am just saying, people make choices. I think that some porn stars quite enjoy what they do. You are basing your assumption that watching people make love is "degrading human dignity". Most pornography is as you can say 'legal', this is because people comply to it. Some people (not me), like being watched, they like the attention of publishing it. I feel one might have a premeditated standard of what 'human dignity' is. I do not understand how porn is as you say, "****ed up". Sexual intercourse is essentially an activity[/B], it simply varies upon person to person on what value they place on it. Videoing sex, can be degraded to videoing football, if the people who are in the video do not value the idea of sex at all.

They aren't making love though, they don't love each other.

I think it's seen as wrong because pornography has absolutely nothing to do with love, its all about lust. Surely you as a Catholic understand that lust is a sin.

[rac1]

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
Hello everyone,
Before I start of with my theories, I just wanted to inform whoever is reading this thread that they should be open minded. Some of the details here might offend you. However, if you are willing to accept other people's ideas, discussing the realms of the Christian religions, please read on.

I am a Catholic. I was born one actually, I never got to choose what religion I was, and since I was a kid, the "catholic ways" were being fed to me.

You sound angry about that, maybe your parents just wanted the best for you, or (from an atheist/follower of another religion's point of view)-what they thought was best for you.

But, now, I think to myself, is it really accurate? Should I believe in ancestral ways in a modernizing world? What is my religion truly about.

Great that you've reached I point like I have where you want to know more Just because is it modernizing does that mean it is right in every way?
I think what you have to ask yourself is whether 'ancestral ways' or the views of the modern world (whatever that is exactly) are the truth.

So that is why I am doubtful.

Pornography. Tattoos. Piercings. According many catholics, it is a sin. 'We must not change what God had created', They say. But, aren't these things part of our everyday lives? and if so, do we shun those who do commit these so called 'sins'.

pornography- It is tied up with other sexual sins, the porn industry is not a happy place, so we don't want to support it, it's upsetting for someone who is in a sexual relationship where the other person is using pornography, it's easy to get addicted to it and we believe that human life should be respected and given dignity.

tattoos and piercings- opinions definitely vary on that one I guess it is only something that can be considered individually.

Is homosexuality a sin? Many people say that they CHOOSE to be homosexuals? But, think about it, would they choose a life of torment from our 21st century society? I THink not, they were born this way. And if they were born that way, with a different way of thinking, is it not god who created him?

I didn't think anyone said that they chose to be homosexual whether being homosexual is nature or nurture homosexual people are meant to live a chaste life (i.e. remain celibate)

In a nutshell (from the catechism)

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms throughout the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which present homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity [Gen. 19:1-29, Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:10, 1Tim. 1:10], tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered [Persona Humana 8]. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

AH AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON EVOLUTION! There is this huge debate God vs. theory of evolution. Anyone stopped to think, maybe God made evolution take place. Maybe he say little flaws of creatures and decided to make them adapt. Tweeking them.

As far as I know there is no official position on Genesis except that Adam and Eve are still the first people and God must be in charge with evolution.

So these are just a few issues, that i thought were quite debatable. I know this might sound silly to people, but I dont remember the last time God punished someone for having pre-marital sex, or watching internet porn. I think the last 5 commandments are the most vital.

I don't think God always punishes people by smighting (spelling?) them all the time so how do we know if God is punishing someone, God still wants us to know that he loves us.

P.S. In some churches, they make people say certain 'prayers', basically making people say what the church want them to say. That is just crap. You should be able to say what you want to God, when you go to church. Church is supposed to bring to closer to God. The idea of this type of prayer is a facade on the true Christian.

Of course you can say your own prayers to God but its handy to have a prayer that has been used for many years that you've known by heart for a while if you can't think of anything else to say, a spritual supercalifradjilisticesxpialidos cious Supercalifragilisticexpialidocio us if you will The idea of having the structure of the liturgy the same every week is a good idea becuase it means you can visit another country and still know what is going on if you don't speak the language. BTW Jesus gave the apostles the Our Father (its in the bible)

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by justmyopinions)
Was it a waste of time if it occured before time began? science shows that it is possible for time to be distorted (well, it's a theory). therefore, the "6 days" may have been millions of years.

Self evidently the "tweaking" of God's creations happened and continues to happen subsequent to the creation of time. In any case without time the notion of cause and effect loses all meaning; causes no longer have to precede effects and indeed effects no longer require causes at all. Thus, in the absence of time, the universe requires no cause i.e. no creator.

(Original post by justmyopinions)
Also, God does think. I guess He (I say he, even though God is not a male) would add the water, then earth, then decide to add animals, and eventually us?

Once again, Catholicism infers an omniscient and omnipotent creator. Such a creator would, by definition, be capable of creating a perfect actualization of his mind's creation. As such, he would have no need to tinker and add over hundreds of millions of years, because his initial design should have been perfect.

[justmyopinions]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
Self evidently the "tweaking" of God's creations happened and continues to happen subsequent to the creation of time. In any case without time the notion of cause and effect loses all meaning; causes no longer have to precede effects and indeed effects no longer require causes at all. Thus, in the absence of time, the universe requires no cause i.e. no creator.



Once again, Catholicism infers an omniscient and omnipotent creator. Such a creator would, by definition, be capable of creating a perfect actualization of his mind's creation. As such, he would have no need to tinker and add over hundreds of millions of years, because his initial design should have been perfect.

1) He didn't add everything at once, he did it over the 7 days.
2) Without time, the notion of cause and effect does not lose all meaning. Once upon a time, hahaha, time didn't exist, true. Therefore it can't just start, 1 second, 2 seconds..., impossible. And, actually, without time nothing is possible, therefore a universe cannot just appear.
3) This thread isn't about a debate on whether or not God exists. The OP has stated he believes in Jesus and God, but is just confused about being associated with Catholicism.
4) God is infinitely greater in mind than his creations.
5) Initial design should have been perfect? Perhaps the initial design has only just been completed, God surely does not have the same concept of time as we do.


This is how I see it, although you can disagree At the end of the day, humans aren't God. The Bible was written by humans, and perhaps Catholicism is wrong (apart from the notion of Jesus and God) in its teachings. It is a sect of Christianity, and not to be used to represent all 2 Billion Christians.

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by justmyopinions)
1) He didn't add everything at once, he did it over the 7 days.
2) Without time, the notion of cause and effect does not lose all meaning. Once upon a time, hahaha, time didn't exist, true. Therefore it can't just start, 1 second, 2 seconds..., impossible. And, actually, without time nothing is possible, therefore a universe cannot just appear.
3) This thread isn't about a debate on whether or not God exists. The OP has stated he believes in Jesus and God, but is just confused about being associated with Catholicism.
4) God is infinitely greater in mind than his creations.
5) Initial design should have been perfect? Perhaps the initial design has only just been completed, God surely does not have the same concept of time as we do.


This is how I see it, although you can disagree At the end of the day, humans aren't God. The Bible was written by humans, and perhaps Catholicism is wrong (apart from the notion of Jesus and God) in its teachings. It is a sect of Christianity, and not to be used to represent all 2 Billion Christians.

1) I never said he did "everything all at once". In fact he did everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th day ("And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."). I merely remarked upon the notion that evolution is a tool used by God to continually improve upon his creation. An omniscient and omnipotent creator, by definition, should not need to "improve" on his design because he should not make mistakes in the first place.

2) Cause and effect is a product of the of the arrow of time. Without time the second law of thermodynamics breaks down. Entropy would cease to necessarily increase. Thus, in the absence of time causality is utterly meaningless.

3) This quote from the author of this thread demonstrates that the OP's doubt extends beyond the inconsistencies of Catholic dogma:

(Original post by ChubbyWatermelon)
I must admit to some extent, i too believe that man might have created God.

4) Says who? An omnipotent (all powerful) God should, by definition, be capable of actualizing his minds eye precisely and flawlessly.

5) So 99.9999% of people who have ever lived experienced an unfinished product? We were created in God's image and time is a manifestation of God's design, as such our and his perception of time should be consistent.

If "perhaps Catholicism is wrong", maybe all of Christianity is wrong? It seems somewhat inconsistent and a little hypocritical to acknowledge the fallibility of a denomination of Christianity whilst maintaining the infallibility of the parts you happen to like. This is especially the case since Catholicism is the oldest form of Christianity and the basis of all subsequent offshoots of the faith.

[viddy9]

I used to be religious, however, I find it very hard to believe that God would have made evolution happen. It contradicts some things in the Bible, and we know that, essentially, we were created out of stardust. If stars hadn't died, we wouldn't be here today, as they released carbon. Evolution does not need God to explain it, therefore I ask: why make it more complicated?

[justmyopinions]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
1) I never said he did "everything all at once". In fact he did everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th day ("And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."). I merely remarked upon the notion that evolution is a tool used by God to continually improve upon his creation. An omniscient and omnipotent creator, by definition, should not need to "improve" on his design because he should not make mistakes in the first place.

2) Cause and effect is a product of the of the arrow of time. Without time the second law of thermodynamics breaks down. Entropy would cease to necessarily increase. Thus, in the absence of time causality is utterly meaningless.

3) This quote from the author of this thread demonstrates that the OP's doubt extends beyond the inconsistencies of Catholic dogma:



4) Says who? An omnipotent (all powerful) God should, by definition, be capable of actualizing his minds eye precisely and flawlessly.

5) So 99.9999% of people who have ever lived experienced an unfinished product? We were created in God's image and time is a manifestation of God's design, as such our and his perception of time should be consistent.

If "perhaps Catholicism is wrong", maybe all of Christianity is wrong? It seems somewhat inconsistent and a little hypocritical to acknowledge the fallibility of a denomination of Christianity whilst maintaining the infallibility of the parts you happen to like. This is especially the case since Catholicism is the oldest form of Christianity and the basis of all subsequent offshoots of the faith.

Orthodox Christianity is the oldest.
Also, if you search through this thread you'll see the OP's reply to me stating he does believe
And you have to remember Catholicism is very strict. And when I said "perhaps..." I was merely only putting forward a suggestion, another example would be "perhaps my house is made of jelly". I wasn't saying Catholicism is wrong.
And how can teaching unconditional forgiveness be wrong? Surely if an Athiest was to believe in God he would believe in one that forgives anything? So I don't really know why Athiests complain